theory behind specter's concern for NFL (1 Viewer)

[CargoJon]

Actually, no I don't really know much about him, but if the above is indicative of his voting record then he is clearly not an economic conservative. I guess he's yet another reason not to confuse the term "Republican" with "conservative".

It would be kind of like calling Zell Miller a "liberal Democrat."

 

[unome_brother]

It's amazing the time congress spends on the NFL, MLB and the NBA but when it comes to Iraq or Katrina things move so slowly

 

[St. PJ]

I hate politics and politicians. Concerning this issue, I believe Spector is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I hate the Patriots; that said, having scouts draw and decipher an opponents signals are allowed and this has been practiced forever. Where the Patriots crossed the line was using a video camera. There is no secrets what is on the tape. It is the signals that anyone sitting in the stands could see. I do not see why it is important for the tapes to not be destroyed. I don't know what point Spector is trying to make. That list of things he has done concerning the NFL is impressive. I like almost everything on there other than saying that laying TO off violates antitrust. His 1999 and 1996 proposals are right on. As unbiased as I can be, I see no problem with Spector poking his nose around. If the NFL is a clean cut as they try to appear, they should have nothing to hide or fear.

 

[rob021275]

There's something to be said for someone who doesn't tow the company line if he doesn't believe in it.

I don't agree with Specter (or McCain) on everything, but guys who are known as a "Mavericks" amongst their own must be doing something right. They are thinking and speaking for themselves.

What a novel concept for a politician! If only the electorate would follow suit!

 

[Three Monkeys]

Don't favor a free Market? I favor nothing but a free market. I think businesses should be able to decide how they want to run them without government interference. Every thing Specter proposed above, except the one I agreed with, gave the government power over a private company. If municipalities don't want to pay for a stadium they don't have to. No one is forcing them to do it.

Who said the NFL was 32 different businesses? Why would they need to be?

If it's okay for the NFL to be one business, why do they need anti-trust exemptions?

Why shouldn't I be able to get a job with an NFL team if I'm a freshman in college?

Why shouldn't Tom Benson have a say-so in the fact the he, the Saints, and New Orleans will be losing a home game next season?

The NFL wants its cake and wants to eat it too. When it is accused of being a monopoly, the argument is that they have 32 individually run businesses.

But when it comes time to negotiate contracts (the marketing, TV, the merchandise) it is all done by the NFL.

Let's remove the anti-trust exemptions, all of the limits the NFL sets on its teams, and get the owners to pay their own way.

You know, just like a free market.

 

[St. Widge]

If it's okay for the NFL to be one business, why do they need anti-trust exemptions?.

Because the anti-trust laws are being wrongly applied (See above) and moreover because the anti-trust laws are unconstitutional since the Federal government doesn't have the power to make those laws. The Commerce Clause was never intended to be expanded to the point it has.

Why shouldn't I be able to get a job with an NFL team if I'm a freshman in college?.

The same reason you can't get a job as a lawyer without going to law school or with an accounting firm without having a degree. They don't want to hire people who aren't a certain age. You don't have a right to work for a particular employer whenever you please. In fact, you don't have a right to a job at all. A business has a right to choose what employees it wants to hire. The only reason it's an issue is because the Commerce Clause has been over expanded to create draconian anti-trust laws that in fact promote monopolies instead of getting rid of them.

Why shouldn't Tom Benson have a say-so in the fact the he, the Saints, and New Orleans will be losing a home game next season?.

He does have a say so. He can object and get a vote of the NFL owners. But, he agreed to the rules and he has to live with them. Or, he could just refuse and sell his team. The fact is Benson entered into a contract with the NFL and he agreed to abide by their decisions. Benson bought a franchise in the NFL and when he did so, he agreed to follow their rules and procedures. If he thinks they act outside of those rules and the contract he entered, he can sue the league, unless he agreed to some sort of binding arbitration.

Let's remove the anti-trust exemptions, all of the limits the NFL sets on its teams, and get the owners to pay their own way..
You know, just like a free market.

It is the free market (except the government has forced them to follow their unconstitutional anti-trust laws) and the owners of the original franchises decided to enter into a league. They choose what rights they gave up and what rights they kept. Subsequent owners agreed to those rules when they bought the franchises. The NFL has it's own rules. If we don't like them we can choose not to watch. It's not a publicly owned entity. It's privately owned. If we don't want to fund their stadiums we don't have to. The owners of the franchises choose to enter into a league to share certain advantages. Why should you, I or the government have the right to interferer with that?

Beyond that, you, I, the Feds, whoever, is free to start our own competing league. If it's good enough, then it will succeed and if not, it fails. That's the free market.

 

[SaintJ]

So what is his motivation? Is he just a huge fan of government getting involved in private business or is he doing it as a favor to his friends?

Multi-term Senator or not, he likely owes many favor to people who helped to make him a multi-term Senator and he has to do plenty of "favors" to keep himself a multi-term Senator. And, that could even taken the form of going after the "big, bad" NFL to make the common folk happy because he's "sticking it to the man."

By the way J, why is that an allegedly conservative Republican Senator has the Law Firm of Baron & Budd (one of the largest plaintiff's firms in the country) as one of his to 20 campaign contributors? Is he planning on running on the pro trial lawyers platform next time?

Specter's not particularly conservative. Not exactly a classic liberal republican in the Lowell Weicker mode, but he's pretty independent. His part of the state is on balance moderate and suburban.

IMHO his motivation here is that anything that bumps up against Judiciary, he's never going to get caught napping here. Given the substantial level of public (i.e. state and local gov't) economic interest in the NFL, he's not happy with what he perceives as the appearance of impropriety, and he's going to make it his business never to get upstaged on something that looks like a possible violation of a process that's supposed to point to integrity and the public interest.

Not that Specter's this icon of morality and fairness, just that nobody's ever going to beat him to the punch on these kinds of issues. Judiciary is his turf, and he's going to defend it.

 

[sycamoresaint]

there are so many problems in the counrty now. the war, budget, education, health care, etc... don't you think they could focus on something other than football?