Comments on: Why the NFL Can’t Let Rush Limbaugh Be a Team Owner

By: remaxrealtortf

remaxrealtortf — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:31:20 +0000

Great blog Mark – see our Kansas City blog at http://www-remax-best-kc.com

By: thatoneguy801

thatoneguy801 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:19:31 +0000

Some have stated this is about politics. It isn’t, it’s about racism, and about the ability of a person to edit thoughts before they become statements into an open microphone, something Limbaugh isn’t all that great at. Pro sports is riddled with enough racism already, why throw in another 100% certain black eye?

By: aschitown

aschitown — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:44:32 +0000

While you are addressing football and ownership, why don’t you inquire about purchasing the Chicago Bears? I think they need an owner that was born in 20th century. An owner that can see the field from the owners box. An owner that likes football. Maybe bring Ditka on as an investor. Anyways, take this as a compliment, most people who really know sports consider you to be the epitome of ownership. Al Davis and Jerry Jones are too hands on and too meddling. You would of been good for the Cubs and good for baseball.

By: texasrainhbww

texasrainhbww — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:20:21 +0000

While I see your point, I disagree with you. There is one thing that affects a teams ticket sales- how well the team plays. It’s crazy to think that fans would not watch or players would not want to play for a winning team. After all, no one wants to watch a losing team. There are other businesses that someone’s strong political views affect the success of but sports is not one of them. And it is hypocritical of you to judge Rush for this when some of your investments offend the politics of some Mavs fans.

BTW- any thoughts on purchasing the Rangers?

By: docvangraf

docvangraf — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:11:29 +0000

i will give you credit for this though mark.. you leave harsh comments up there and there have been some including mine

By: docvangraf

docvangraf — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:10:02 +0000

blog maverick.. heh.. blog conformist more like..

when did you become neutered mark? so what, he has opinions that may or may not be popular? wow.. i’m not sure we can handle that. better to just conform and keep the mouth shut. so the moral of the story is we cannot hold any opinions contrary to our media masters and must sit down and shut up or we will be denied economic opportunity. don’t be an individual..

save the “tactful” explanations.. it’s pathetic and i expect more from a “maverick”…

By: sobekakin

sobekakin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:01:09 +0000

The bottom line is that the NFL/Goodell/Owners make the policy that runs the NFL. If they don’t want Rush or anyone else to be an ‘owner’ of an NFL team…………IT’S THEIR CALL.
The NFL/Goodell/Owners took a look around and said: ‘Do we need this?’ and the answer was no.
What is going to be curious is, who ends up buying the Rams.
Just for one minute think about what would happen is a group of Black businessmen bought the team?
I’m not saying they can’t, I’m just saying…HOW WILL IT LOOK?

By: sportsfred

sportsfred — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:03:36 +0000

Home School, you are 100% right in your opinion..The problem is we’re dealing with so called liberals, who believe they are god like in choosing who gets to speak and who gets to own..So they have become the very people that they so detest…That my friend is a bit ironic and again if only Rod Serling were alive, we would get a great Twilight Zone episode.

By: Home School College Counselor

Home School College Counselor — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:42:36 +0000

Disallowing Rush to invest in the Rams is not about protecting the NFL’s image. It is about politics. Those who make such decisions disagree with Limbaugh’s politics and therefore don’t see fit to allow him to invest where he’d like. I don’t agree with Rush on a good majority of things, but I don’t think that is reason to keep him out of the league. Freedom of speech is good. Controversy is good. How many people will stop watching football because of who one team’s owner is?

If Rush says something on his show which the NFL disagrees with, so what? He won’t hurt the league, he’ll hurt his own team. Of course, the argument could be made that in so doing, he’s also hurting the league as well, but the monetary ripples would be minor in comparison.

If we only want people we agree with to be involved in our individual activity, it would be a pretty boring endeavor. As the author above me notes, there are many examples of other owners and players who have said and done many things which the league disagrees with. I think in one way or another, we are all hypocrites on some level.

By: ceedub12

ceedub12 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:42:43 +0000

Let me begin by saying that you present a very well-thought out argument and based on your experience as an NBA owner, have a very valuable perspective on the issue. That being said I do find a few fallacies within your argument. While I agree that the NFL’s concerns stem not from what he has said in the past but what he could say in the foreseeable future, I don’t believe that qualifies as valid reason to decline Limbaugh partial ownership. If the NFL is comfortable with Rush’s prior comments, what makes them believe that his future comments will create any more controversy or bad will towards the NFL? I also have a problem with your argument that, “It’s about the NFL protecting their business.” Firstly, the NFL’s financial future is definitely not in doubt. One need only look at the ratings for this year’s NFL games, including the Monday, October 5th game between the Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings, which set the record for viewership for a cable telecast. Any argument that the “business” of the NFL would be harmed by allowing Rush Limbaugh to be a partial NFL owner does not hold water.

I also believe that this demonstrates one of many double standards that have exposed themselves during this ordeal. If the NFL was truly concerned about “protecting their business,” they would impose harsher penalties upon their players as opposed to worrying about the potential controversial remarks of a man who never even submitted a purchase proposal. Players such as Pac-Man Jones and Chris Henry have been arrested multiple times, for both minor and serious crimes, yet they have both been reinstated by the league with little to no serious penalties. By holding Limbaugh to a higher standard than the players who actually play in the league, I believe that the league loses credibility in that argument. Limbaugh is also being held to a higher standard than other owners in professional sports. Most of his criticism stems from “racist” comments he has made in the past, yet other owners have proven just as controversial. In particular Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who has owned the Clippers for since 1981, has demonstrated behavior that could do considerably more damage to the NBA’s “business.” Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should not be an NFL owner, but before making that decision, the world of sports should examine those already involved.