Should Government be Involved in Lockout?

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

Remember the bailout of GM just a few short years ago? Many people were against it and believed that the “free enterprise system” and “survival of the fittest” should prevail. After all, was it the taxpayer’s fault that this company failed to stay ahead of the competition and continued to lose billions? No, of course not. The reason that the head economists in the country advised to fund the bailout was simply “supply chain economics”. It was in the best interest of the “entire country” for GM to succeed. Do you realize how many people are indirectly or directly benefited by the auto industry in this country? Some estimates have it as many as many as 1 in 10.

Is the NFL big enough or influential enough to have the same type of impact as a major automaker? No, of course not! But it does affect thousands of team employees, TV networks, stadium workers, apparel companies and even the people who make footballs, not to mention hundreds of others. Yes, MOST DEFINITELY!

Should the government become involved? Personally, I am against government involvement in all but the most basic needs and issues. However, I find it a sad irony that our government finds it necessary to interfere with things like steroids in baseball or questioning why there is not a playoff system in NCAA football, but has not given an opinion on a topic that has the potential to produce long lasting negative economic effects on thousands or tens of thousands of people.

Would it be in the best interest of the Country for government to make a statement aside from saying nothing (President Obama said he would not become involved)? What if the process could at least be allowed to take a higher precedence in the courts and a time limit put on making a ruling? Does this make sense? Are the jobs and income that will be lost reason enough for political involvement?

From my standpoint, it is clear this issue has gone further than players vs. owners and this has become more important than “a football game.” I would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions.

Here are some thoughts to ponder:

  • What can the average fan do?
  • Who can we write or complain to?
  • Should we divest ourselves from what was meant to be merely entertainment, but has become something much more influential?
  • Should alternate players be brought in to play?
  • Do we really believe the players we have become so familiar with are the only people who can entertain us?

I remember years ago attending an economic seminar when the speaker held up a glass of water and put his finger in it. We were all about to graduate college and felt like the world was ours for the taking. That feeling suddenly dissipated when he asked, “if you ever feel indispensable and cannot be replaced, just remember how long it takes to replace the hole in this glass (as he pulled out his finger). Are the players any different, or should we call our Congressmen? 

 All I will say is if Demarcus Smith is still involved in the (negotation / non-negotiation process representing the NFLPA of which he will be, go ahead and call your Congressmen and be prepared to take up a new fall Sunday hobby. 

                                             

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

comments powered by Disqus