Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that Congress should not be involved in sports-related issues.
Do you think that athletes deserve special treatment, just because they play a game? If Plaxico Burress was given a pass for carrying an unregistered firearm into an establishment that serves liquor – all because he plays wide receiver in the NFL – would that be okay? I know I would not think it is okay.
There is an ongoing outcry among the general public to make sure that athletes are treated just like everyone else. Ironically, though, many of those same people will argue that Congress should not get involved in sports because sports are “special.” There is a double-standard at work here, where on one hand we are saying that athletes and high-profile people are no different from you or me, then on the other hand we will cry foul at the first indication that something may threaten those sacred and revered sports organizations and players. Something must give!
Within each of our workplaces there are certain rules that must be followed and a hierarchy on how those rules are enforced. If, for example, a person decides to skip work for a day, that person’s boss has the authority to address the situation as they see fit. In an issue where the scope exceeds the capacity of the boss, however, it becomes the discretion of the CEO or company owner to address the issue. There will also be times where the responsibility of addressing an issue falls outside the internal hierarchy altogether. If, for example, someone assaults a co-worker, criminal implications result and the involvement of the judicial system is required. Even though the incident took place at work, a judge from OUTSIDE the company must intervene.
Sports organizations are no different than any other organization. As an example, think back to when Boston Bruins “enforcer” Marty McSorley struck Vancouver Canucks forward Donald Brashear in the head with his hockey stick. The degree of his attack far exceeded that which was deemed appropriate by the league, and instead became an incident of criminal assault with a weapon. As such, the Canadian courts (which held jurisdiction over the property where the assault took place) had the authority to intervene and exact their own influence by charging McSorley with a crime. Although the incident took place within the confines of the game, the situation was still criminal in nature, and therefore required criminal proceedings.
In much the same manner, Congress should be EXPECTED to intervene in a sports-related incident that falls within its circle of influence. As a governmental organization Congress is required to address any issues involving commerce, legislation, or foreign affairs. Guess what – sports organizations fall under the umbrella of commerce.
If there are concerns that the BCS may be a monopoly, the government is expected to get involved. Congress’ role is to ensure fair trade and commerce within the United States, REGARDLESS of the “type” of business in question. The anti-trust legislation does not specify that businesses are prohibited from participating in monopolizing practices UNLESS those businesses are related to sports. Sports in America are a $410 BILLION dollar industry. If the United States is truly a free-market economy, and any organization has the right to attempt to compete within a marketplace, then the government MUST exist to regulate an industry that contributes to generating that much revenue.
That is enough American Government 101 for today, though. The real issue at hand is why the public should WANT Congress to get involved in sports when appropriate.
Elected officials are considered appointed representatives of the constituency. Basically, they are supposed to make decisions on behalf of the public at-large. For example, if there is a need for a traffic light at an intersection, contact the local government representative. In much the same manner, if there is a public outcry regarding something on a national scale, notify the proper Senator or Congressman. Elected officials exist to act on the behalf of the citizens.
Why, then, does the public get so upset when the government actually attempts to act on their behalf?! I just do not get it. If the public feels that the BCS is a poorly implemented program that does not allow for “true” and fair competition in order to determine a national champion, and the government agrees and tries to investigate, that is a GOOD thing, right?! The government is listening to the concerns of its citizens and attempting to act upon them. It is an issue that falls within the scope of influence, the issue involves a business that generates billions of dollars, and the public wants to see the issue resolved. That is precisely why the government exists!
The next time Congress becomes involved in the affairs of a sports organization do not think of it as meddlesome interference – and do not think of it as a waste of time because the government should have more important items to focus on. If it is a topic that is truly important to us (and be honest, sports are a VITAL part of our daily lives), then it should be truly important to Congress. Besides, it is obvious that the sports organizations are not going to listen to the general public, so we sometimes need to call in the big guns to keep them all honest!
