Pro Sports Playin Game of Monopoly

Da Bears!

Little does the average sports fan know, but a great deal of what they spend their time obsessing over is an intricately constructed extension of labor and anti-trust law. With a seminal case in the history of professional sports coming up before the Supreme Court, American Needle v. NFL, it looks like Bill Swerski’s Superfans are gonna have to brush up on the Sherman Act in between rounds of Budweiser and buffalo wings. To explain, the primary issues facing professional sports leagues are labor issues (concerning franchises’ relationship to their players, i.e. labor) and anti-trust (concerning the league’s existence as a business entity and the relationship of the individual teams to each other and to the league as a whole). Anti-trust law is governed by The Sherman Anti-Trust Act under which

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

This legislation, along with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, are in place to prevent monopolies, collusion, and other practices which unreasonable restrain competition and, therefore, are detrimental to the consumer. The Rule of Reason is the doctrine generally applied by courts to determine which restraints to trade are unreasonable and, therefore, illegal. In order to determine what is unreasonably restrictive in a market, you must determine what that market is.

The point of contention in terms of sports leagues is encompassed in the NFL’s “single entity” defense. The NFL contends that it’s conglomeration of 32 teams should be considered a single entity (in the form of the league) and that the market it is competing is the entire market for entertainment (i.e., its competitors are film, internet, music, etc.). That interpretation has typically been rejected by the courts, with the market considered to be professional football activities, with the 32 teams as separate entities competing against each other (would serve to figure, right?). The NFL is challenging this interpretation and trying to establish a Supreme Court ruling affriming the league as a “single entity” in its defense of a claim by a former NFL apparel licensee, American Needle. ESPN legal correspondent Lester Munson outlines the case and its implications for pro sports in general. A ruling in favor of the league will basically eviscerate any anti-trust or labor regulation of the leagues’ activities and player’s unions may become a thing of the past. Leagues will be able to set salaries, restrict free agency, and cut merchandise and media deals that would otherwise be unimaginable. In Munson’s words:

If the NFL is successful, then players, maverick owners, networks, paraphernalia manufacturers, fans and others will find themselves conducting business with what would be one of the most powerful cartels ever.

All professional sports would seemingly be exempt from anti-trust scrutiny and federal regulation. The shock and horror of exploding player salaries over the past 15 years may land you on the side of the league…at least until you go to Foot Locker and realize that DJ Mbenga jersey just went up $50 bucks. Luckily for Bill Swerski, he’s still rockin that ‘85 Jim McMahon jersey with reckless abandon.

No One Needs A Cheerleader

President Obama met with the leaders of major Jewish organizations on Monday to address concerns about the apparent disconnect between his administration and Netanyahu’s on the settlement question. Other than a few holdouts, the majority of the leaders acknowledged that while the administration was making certain demands of the Israeli government (i.e., stop settlement activity), this was far less than he was demanding of the Palestinians (i.e., reform your entire economic and politial system, and ensure Israel’s safety).  However, Malcolm Hoenlein suggested that public tension between America and Israel, regardless of its substance or fairness, could be harmful to Israel’s interests. Obama’s response:

“With all due respect, I would disagree. For eight years under the prior administration, there was no daylight between the two sides and there was no progress on the peace front, and no hard decisions were confronted, no progress was made.”

Amen. For 8 years the American government basically shrieked “Rah rah gooooooooo Israel” and look what happened: the only parties who got stronger were Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I’d prefer an administration that has an interest in Israel’s long-term progress, not in using Israel as a political talking point. We’ve seen some progress with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the popular uprising in Iran. We’ve even got the Pakistani government actually fighting the Taliban on the Pakistani border (a shocker, I know). Hopefully we can keep up the momentum. And I can guarantee you it won’t be accomplished by agreeing with Netanyahu just for the sake of it.

Lakers Pull Lamar Offer

…But I’m not sweatin’ it. Basically, Lamar’s contract negotiation this year should be a slam dunk, but agents are always concerned that if a negotiation goes too easily, they look like they’re not worth their commission. There’s no one out there who can offer Lamar much more than the $9 mil a year that the Lakers have offered him and on the off chance Portland steps in and bumps it up a million or so (which they most likely won’t) the Lakers will match. Since Schwartz is playing hardball, Kupchak and Buss are daring him to go find a better offer. I don’t see it happening.

The Tyranny of False Dichotomies: Judicial Version

There are a number of unfortunate false dichotomies currently operating in American politics and one is rearing its ugly head in the judicial confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor. By false dichotomies, I mean the cramping down of particular issues into convenient politically packaged opposites that entirely fail to account for the true complexity of the issue. The most pervasive false dichotomy of the judicial system is “strict adherence” vs. “legislating from the bench”, i.e.  judges either adhere to the rule of the established law, or under their own accord and desire, make the laws as they go along based on personal preference.

The idea that our entire legal system exists solely as a set of clearly defined, hard and fast, black letter laws is simply false. If that were the case, there would be no need for appellate courts, including the Supreme Court. Judicial responsibilities are the application of the law to the facts and particular circumstances of each case. In doing so, courts (particularly the Supreme Court) many times are dealing with cases of “first impression” for which no distinguishable law has been established or are establishing precedent as pertains to the application of law to a specific set of facts. That is why we have a judicial system, to make these tough interpretations in the most fair and honorable manner possible.

Republicans have continually harped on Sotomayor’s comment that she “hoped” that a woman of Latina background would make wiser decisions than a comparably wise judge who did not have similar experiences and challenges to overcome. Sotomayor’s most vocal critic, Senator Jeff Sessions, seems to believe that that comment (although flying in the face of a long judicial record that shows little to no evidence of bias nor radicalism) translates to discrimination: “”I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual . . . who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision.”

Now I know that Sen. Sessions has to appeal to his base, most of whom are incapable of using a light dimmer as opposed to a light switch, but he should really try to make his attempts at critical overreach less transparent. In fact in the case which conservatives believe is the silver bullet proving Sotomayor’s radical views, white firefighter Frank Ricci’s discrimination claim against the city of New Haven, she in fact adhered to the previously established law. So I guess that “legislating from bench” is horrifying unless it is in favor of a conservative cause (*disclaimer: the foregoing in no way reflects on my personal views of the Ricci case, it is simply an illustration of my point that the “adherence” vs. “policy-making” dichotomy is irrelevant).

The idea that one incorporates their life experiences into their world view which in turn may influence and inform their application of the law to certain circumstances inevitably leads to discrimination, bias, and disregard of the law is completely disingenuous.  If our personal experiences did not shape and mold our world view, then all of us would think exactly alike. Sotomayor’s personal experiences inform her views just as Clarence Thomas’, Antonin Scalia’s, and Sandra Day O’Connor’s do them. The idea is not that a judge’s views and experiences be entirely neutralized, but that they inform their interpretation of the law instead of overwhelming it. Judging a job applicant’s viability based on their unyielding adherence to immutable certainties is more appropriate for math teachers. For judges, it’s simplistic and unrealistic.

Happy Bastille Day Frog Legs!

Happy Bastille Day to our French compatriots. Thanks for the Statue of Liberty, the Enlightenment, and other contributions to modern thought and political philosophy (hey, credit where credit is due). Not so found of the snobby attitude whenever I visit, but that just inspires me to mention the Maginot Line. Basically, after World War I, the French emptied their national treasury to build a mammoth wall of artillery fortifications aimed directly at Germany in order to deter a direct attack. Only one thing: they didn’t put swivels on the guns. The Germans just went around them. Never happy about making light of a Nazi military success, but the Maginot Line comes in handy whenever a French person gets all snobby and high-handed with you. Anyways, HAPPY BASTILLE DAY!

Don’t Quit Your Day Job…I Guess

Former Lakers PF and #1 Overall pick, Kwame Brown, recently put his 6,000 square foot Playa del Rey house on the market for $2.9 million. That’s $400k less than he bought the place for in 2005. I’d say that I hope he plays basketball better than he plays the real estate market, but I think we all know the answer to that.

Free may not be fatal

Allen & Co.’s yearly double secret probation Media Conference in the hidden hills of Sun Valley, Idaho was held last week. The confab of media barons has in the past been the playing field for paradigm shifting deals, but is of course currently more of a collective therapy session than  M & A marketplace. Primary themes of the conference naturally include the challenges posed by and opportunities presented by social/digital media (c’mon guys, in unison “monetization”, “convergence”, let the buzz words reign!).

In response to the mention of Twitter, Sony Chairman Sir Howard Stringer unleashed this zinger: “a lot of people are doing very well at making very little money. It’s not a club I’m looking to join.” While I appreciate Sir Howard displaying that obscure British humor that we are all so fond of, his quip fails to account for the fact that people who are doing very well at making very little money are doing quite well at grabbing people’s time and attention. And the more time and attention these people consume, the less time and attention people have to expend on the stuff that Sony actually does make money off of. I’m not aiming to give a definitive solution to this conundrum right here, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing to address.

Marc Cuban has always had clearly delineated views on free (thumbs down) and has been going heavy on the topic lately. Cuban’s issue with free (along with the fact that you are basically subsidizing the bandwith costs of web users) is that it leaves you disproportionately vulnerable to a competitor. Or in Cuban’s words, “At some point your Black Swan competitor will appear and they will kick your ass.” But what exactly makes companies that rely on free distribution any more or less vulnerable to substitution than fee-based services? Cuban seems to believe that as a free service’s user base grows, so does their infrastructure, expenses, and revenue obligations. So when a superior substitute comes around, they are nimbler and have less liabilities to cover and will undercut you.

Perhaps, but isn’t this true of any company? There are always advantages and disadvantages to size and scale, and there will always be threats from competitors who offer superior services and just enough differentiation to make a switch worthwhile. Free substitutes may be more dangerous because it takes less commitment to switch from one free service to another, but if a for-fee competitor can offer a better price, you’re in same position.

Most people who follow Cuban’s hypothesis point to the progression of Friendster to Myspace to Facebook and blankely assume that soon enough the next wave will come out and Facebook will be yesterday’s news. But blowing off free web services as fads is not necessarily accurate. Maybe Friendster and Myspace fell by the wayside because they didn’t perform well enough. The web has been in high growth stages for over a decade now. We don’t necessarily know the end result and what will be considered a “standard” web service (social media or otherwise). But perhaps, just like other industries during their high growth stages, we have the early entrants, the pioneers, whose services then get pared down until a satisfactory medium is established. Once that occurs, established companies don’t get replaced, they evolve and meet challenges from indirect substitutes and derivatives that offer certain aspects of their product/service (i.e., Twitter).

If so, Facebook is more likely to be the spoke of a wheel than a bygone link in the progression of the social media chain. Or to sum up, I don’t think Facebook, Google, or Youtube are going anywhere anytime soon.

“No Whites Allowed”

I’m tearing through “Ruthless”, rap impressario Jerry Heller’s memoir of his days managing N.W.A. The book is a stunning chronicle of the gangsta rap movement, not to mention late-80’s urban social dynamics. Heller was a classic rock executive who found himself at 45 sleeping on his parent’s couch, entirely disillusioned with the post-disco corporate takeover of the music industry. He got back in the game distributing local funk and early hip-hop records out of a warehouse on Santa Monica and Vine, when an alleged crack dealer from Compton named Eric Wright paid one of his associates $750 to meet him. Wright was putting together a rap group with a local Compton pop producer who turned out to be Dr. Dre (those pics of Dre in the sequinced jumper were really him), and a high school kid named O’Shea Jackson who spent the hour long bus ride from Compton to Taft High School each day writing fuming lyrics about life in the ghetto (and called himself Ice Cube). Heller asked Wright the name of his group:

Eazy-E: “N.W.A.”

Heller: “What’s that stand for? No Whites Allowed?”

Eazy-E: “Close enough.”

Below check out the group’s classic appearance on “Arsenio”, barely a month after N.W.A. got a letter from the F.B.I. condemning their music.

Yes We Kant

Immanuel Kant opined that “things which are beyond value have dignity“. Dignity has always been an ill-defined and ephemreal quality, but channelling the great Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. The fact that Stewart’s foregoing recitation was originally applied to obscenity is very telling of the nature of human existence and (hopefully) this blog. Dualism aside, dignity has always been a quality associated with the American experience and one that I find much more tangible than “freedom”. Dignity has been fairly detached from the political establishment since Watergate and reached its nadir during a recent period I feel no further need to document.

Our current President’s detractors are mystified by his appeal and the sometimes dogmatic following he attracts. John McCain childishly railed against it as “celebrity” (like that was going to be accepted in the negative) and the Snide Society bristles away at the nationa’s subjugation to “The One”. In their desperation and frustration, they may fail to notice the explanation right beneath their noses. That which Kant lauded and which we typically take for granted. Dignity. As the administration’s chosen conservative chronicler David Brooks puts it eloquently below, restoring the nation’s dignity, and that of the political establishment in general, has transcended policy and politics.

But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

Free Association on “Hung”

Say what you want about the quality of television these days, but there’s no denying we’re in the Golden Age of the Anti-Hero. Over the past decade we’ve seen sympathetic characters be made out of hoagie munching, skull cracking Mafia bosses (Tony Soprano), philandering plastic surgeons with a penchant for buggery (Christian Troy), a serial killer (Dexter), a self-destructive misanthrope (Hank Moody from Californication), and that misanthrope’s nebbish ancestor (Larry David). Now comes along a deadbeat Dad turned male prostitute in the form of Ray Drecker from HBO’s new series Hung. Ray is a former high school sports star who decided to take adulthood easy and now finds himself middle-aged with a dead-end job, an ex-wife (Anne Heche) who left him for her dermatologist, two kids struggling with childhood obesity and all its frills, and the burnt house of his parents which he is too poor to restore. But Ray’s one quality that has endured, his one last hope for redemption, is his extremely large penis. Faced with dire circumstances, he does the sensible thing. He becomes a man whore. Needless to say, this provocate fare has given me some food for thought. So with that being said, here’s some free association and takes from my viewing of the show.

“That night I swallowed my pride, bought a pre-paid cell phone and a box of condoms, and put an ad in the back pages of the Detroit Examiner.” If you’ve somehow incorporated this line into your pilot episode, I think you know you have a winner.

Ray makes a noble attempt to keep and restore the house his parent’s built. He ends up a prostitue. Which begs the question: why does trying to stick to one’s principles inevitably result in having to betray them ten times over?

The actress who plays Tanya (Jane Adams) was the sorry-sack loser in arguably the most depressing movie ever made: Todd Solondz’s Hapiness. In fact, she was the most depressing character in the most depressing movie ever made. This makes the fact that she dated Steve Martin all the more bothersome.

The show is pretty transparent about its assumption that Ray’s gift has led to his downfall. This kind of endowment is more of a safety net than an actual trust fund. Spend too much time being exalted for your virility and you end up soft and complacent. Figuratively.

Self-help seminars being run by guys wearing Dockers will not turn out well.

Anne Heche. Boy did she pull one over on Ellen. Gotta respect the dedication to fortune and fame to fake lesbianism. I guess at this point we can long for the days when a fake lesbian relationship was just a shameless grasp at fame by a no-name actress, as opposed to a symptom of mental illness (see Lohan, Lindsay).

“If you really wanted to get to know me, you wouldn’t have hopped in the sack so easily.” Impulse isn’t always the least legitimate motivation. In fact it’s usually the most legitimate.

The poetry in bed after sex bit is the sole and exclusive property of one Annie Savoy.

I know that making his kids pudgy, geeky, and hapless is supposed to be an expression of his poor performance as an adult, but it’s not realistic. Good looking flakes who don’t fulfill their high school promise don’t end up with schlumpy kids. Their kids inherit the characteristics of their youth, not of their adulthood, and end up cool, hip, and flakey just like their folks.

“Oh my god. You’re an egotistical asshole.” There’s something so amazingly profound about the moment a woman realizes that.