“The ‘other’ side of the NFL’s story,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 19-25, 2014, 27

The NFL’s Other Story

While the airwaves and print media recycle their outrage over the revelations of domestic violence perpetrated by Ray Rice against his fiancé at the time and Adrian Peterson against his 4-year old son, the focus has shifted from the alleged crimes themselves to the NFL’s cover-up.

Reminiscent of US Presidents’ own cover-up stories that ended in impeachments and the Catholic Church’s sordid history of protecting priests’ acts of pedophilia, the media reflects public outrage.

Will this storm be as quickly forgotten as the storm about the long-term debilitating effects of injuries suffered by NFL players? Will the concussion controversy be swept under million-dollar settlements with retired players or clever marketing campaigns?

As these scandals come to light, and regardless of how they’ll be eventually settled, they also shed light on the NFL itself as one of the most successful financial enterprises in the American entertainment industry.

To begin with, though race and class issues have been raised in media explanations of the behavior of NFL players, we are dealing here with millionaires, after all. The lowest NFL contractual salary per year is $375,000 (with an average of $1.9 million). Even if the average playing career of NFL players is short, this is a handsome compensation.

When we direct our ire at Commissioner Roger Goodell, we should remind ourselves that his annual compensation exceeds $44 million—not bad for the so-called sheriff of football. You’d think that for that salary he could have the courage to deal with criminals among his flock. Can we expect some moral courage as well, or is this too much to ask of a millionaire?

But with all of this money flowing, what we forget is that the NFL is a non-profit organization with strong players union. For devout fans—NFL games attract more viewers per game than any other sport—these facts might not be known. Non-profit? With an estimated $9 billion in annual revenue, how is it conceivable that the IRS would recognize such an organization as non-profit?

We know that the Church of Scientology has had its run-ins with the IRS, because of its dubious claims of religious practices. Is the NFL the new American religion? Does the worship of athletic celebrities warrant non-profit designation? I’m sure some clever lawyer made the argument that allowed for this ridiculous designation, but does that mean that game tickets are tax-deductible?

From a business perspective, this non-profit status is fascinating—who wouldn’t want to shelter profits in a similar fashion?—but not nearly as fascinating as the communal, even socialist, rules governing the league.

Last Sunday, there were three big upsets in the league: the Chicago Bears defeated the 49ers in their new stadium south of San-Francisco, San Diego defeated the 2013 Super-Bowl champions, the Seattle Seahawks, and Cleveland defeated the New Orleans Saints. How is that possible? Why is it that on any given Sunday, any team, even the statistically worst one, can beat the best?

The NFL is the model of real competition, the one Adam Smith already envisioned, and the one economists theorize about. If any participant team in the football market can beat anyone else, there must be some fairness in this game. How is fair play in the NFL guaranteed?

Though not government-imposed, there is league-imposed salary cap on all teams, so that the best and the worst cannot outspend each other. This way rich owners cannot skew the results of games by buying all the available talent in one year (the way it’s done in baseball, for example).

This imposed equality—socialist if I ever saw one—is an accepted, unquestioned feature of the game of billionaires (one of the worst teams in the league, the Buffalo Bills, was just sold for $1.4 billion). Would these same billionaires agree to such caps in other markets? Would they agree that fair competition requires strict regulations and enforcement, even unions?

Instead of reciting Adam Smith’s cliché of Invisible Hand—unbridled competition despite monopolistic tendencies and barriers to market entry—we should recall his more nuanced and insightful Impartial Spectator. Focusing on morality, Smith insisted that our conscience be our guide, that our moral sentiments can ensure fair dealings with others.

As we delight in the socialist-framed competition of the NFL, we may also want to encourage owners, players, and fans alike to think in moral terms about their moral responsibility on and off the field. Celebrity status comes at a price, and so are the expectations of millionaire athletes: they are role models to young viewers and future players. As such, domestic violence, drug abuse, and DUIs should be fully excised from their daily diet.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He co-authored with Jeff Scholes Religion and Sports in American Culture (2014). He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

       

 

“Who should be culpable for Citigroup’s bad dealings?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 25-31, 2014, 23.

Who should be culpable?

As we read about the latest bank settlement with the federal government, it may seem that $7 billion is a hefty fine to be paid by Citigroup. Apparently it’s not. Citigroup’s shares were up 3% on hearing of the settlement, so someone must be thinking it’s a good deal for the bank.

Some may argue that any settlement is better than ongoing investigations and the uncertainty that accompanies them, and therefore even $7 billion is a good deal, especially when no officer or director ended up in jail. These “decision-makers” or better yet “job-creators” are never touched by the long arm of the law. Are they above the law? Are they too rich to prosecute?

It’s a given that moral considerations aren’t part of the algorithm used by Wall Street mavens to make profits. It’s also a given that we shouldn’t judge banks’ performance by their moral aptitude or social contributions alone (even though some of them are proud of them). So, if we simply judge banks by the results of their financial performances, then Citigroup and its sister banks and hedge-funds are very clever indeed.

Knowingly commit a crime—fraudulently sell collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) tied to sub-par mortgages—make a huge profit for years, and then, years later, if and only if you are caught and convicted (which is possible but highly improbable), pay a fine. The billions you made along the way (whose value increases over time as you lend it again and again) remain yours minus the fines to eventually be paid.

Let’s translate this Wall-Street speech to a language the rest of us can understand. You and I steal money from unsuspecting people, make a profit off it, and pay a fine somewhere down the line if we get caught. If moral principles were invoked ahead of time, at the very beginning of the process, or better yet, before the crime is even conceived or committed, none of the awful things that follow would have ever happened.

The fact that the entire American economy (and large parts of the global economy) came to a halt because of such cavalier and criminal behavior may be worth recalling. It’s one thing to lie to secondary markets about the integrity of CODs, and quite another to create a financial bubble that is bound to burst. The “economy” isn’t hurt, it’s people who are hurt, flesh and blood.

The most successful program that the Bush/Obama Administrations undertook under the TARP initiative (close to $1 trillion in bailout funding) was in my mind “Cash for Clunkers” (Car Allowance Rebate System). The program lasted only a few short months in the summer of 2009, but the eventually allocated $3 billion provided for over 690,000 dealer transactions.

Whether the original intent was energy-savings, greater fuel-efficiency of trucks, or the stimulation of the car industry in the midst of the Great Recession remains unclear. But to actually put in the hands of individuals a credit towards buying a new car helped get reluctant consumers into car dealerships, 690,000 of them!, and helped car sales.

Just think what would have been the impact if the same voucher system of $2,500-$4,500 credit was given to homeowners. What would have happened if not $3 billion but $300 billion (much less than was given to large banks) was allocated to homeowners with vouchers worth $5,000-$9,000 each? Simple arithmetic would suggest that 34,500,000 transactions could have taken place, enough to avert the housing collapse, and the suffering of those facing foreclosures.

Instead of celebrating the triumph of the Attorney General, instead of feeling relief that justice is being exacted on corporate giants, we should pause and think again: is this the kind of country we want to live in? Is this the kind of capitalism we are willing to endure? Fines may assuage our outrage a bit, but justice requires more than a slap on the hand.

To put this $7 billion fine in perspective, Citigroup has a larger annual profit (on average) than the fine it just agreed to pay. Just like other costs associated with its operations, paying fines here and there is just the “cost of doing business.” Can you imagine that someone would routinely drive recklessly and threaten the lives of pedestrians and other drivers and agree to pay a fine here and there when caught without ever being threatened with a driver’s license revocation?

Would we feel sanguine to live in a community where known criminals like Citigroup’s officers and directors, executives and middle managers, get a pass no matter what they do? Citigroup’s crime was not victimless; its profits were at the expense of others; people’s lives were so affected that houses were lost, savings evaporated, and marriages dissolved. This was a crime, indeed, just as egregious and heartless as outright theft or burglary.

The idea that we can separate money from morals is false. The belief that my profits are never at your expense is also not true in all cases. So, before you decide what to make of Citigroup’s fine, just remember those you know who suffered in the Great Recession. Their sufferings were real; Citigroup’s weren’t (no matter what the Supreme Court says about corporations being citizens). And the culture of calculated fraud shouldn’t be ours.

 

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Whose great ideas are those, after all?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 4-10, 2014, 23.

WHOSE IDEAS ARE THEY, AFTERALL?

The Constitution guarantees some protection for inventions as a way to provide incentives for geniuses of all stripes. By now the protection of patents and copyrights has become a legal industry under the catchall phrase Intellectual Property.

The question remains, should one’s ideas be legally protected against infringement by others? Is it fair, in other words, for me to use someone else’s ideas without paying any licensing fees? Regardless of how the law answers these questions, a generational divide spins its answers in different ways.

Young consumers, called by some millennials, deeply believe that they have an inalienable right to download whatever they find, no matter the source, for free. The very idea of paying for music or television shows seems absurd to them. They are also comfortable with “remixing” (Lessig 2008) based on the Supreme Court decision that allows “fair use” of materials—as long as enough of the original has been changed.

Older consumers have some respect for the sweat and toil that went into an invention of a song or an engine valve; they were socialized to pay for enjoying others’ inventions and products. In fact, they feel as if they are stealing from someone—individuals and corporations alike—when appropriating for profit that which isn’t theirs.

Of course, we can find among both groups thieves and saints whose age doesn’t express or betray their moral compass.

So, what should we make of the opposing strategies undertaken by Apple and Tesla, the former lionized as an American miracle with its late leader Jobs as its resident genius and the latter led by an iconoclastic billionaire named Musk?

The irony, if not outright hypocrisy, associated with Apple’s success should be laid bare before we switch to Tesla’s radical announcement.

According to pain-staking research by Marianna Mazzucato (2014), Apple’s entire collection of inventions has been graciously paid for by American citizens like you and I. The “entrepreneurial state,” as she calls it, researched and developed every facet of the iconic iPhone which enriched Apple. Government subsidies, loans, and outright underwriting of these technologies allowed Apple to scoop them all for the low price of some licensing fees. So, whose intellectual property was bought? Who owns it now?

We, taxpayers, already paid for the technologies and yet Apple makes us pay again when we buy the well-designed gadgets it sells to us. Not only are these gadgets made by Foxconn in China (outsourcing jobs), the profits made on them when sold in US are actually shifted to Ireland and other offshore places so that Apple can cut its taxes by an average of 25% and keep some 88% of its cash oversees (Financial Times).

Apple, the archetypal American corporate giant, has been enjoying the largess of government-generated, financed, and protected patents; it has also enjoyed access to the largest global market for its products. But when it comes to paying back anything to its benefactors—fairness—it shields itself from the IRS. Heads I win, tails you lose.

By contrast, Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, announced on 6/13/14 that all the patents his electric car company has developed and patented over the years will be open to its rivals. Has he lost his mind? What about the Constitution and Capitalism doesn’t he understand?

Quoted in the Financial Times, Musk said that “we believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly evolving technology platform.” Is he all alone in this quixotic quest for an ecologically responsible future? Apparently not.

For those following the fashion industry, the practice of “knockoff” is as old as the trade itself. Instead of protecting one’s design, designers borrow from each other liberally and thereby increase competitiveness and the quest for new ideas. This is true for chefs and their recipes, standup-comedians and their routines, and football coaches and their tactics. (The Knockoff Economy 2012) Have these practices dulled our palates, closed restaurants, or stopped us from watching the Super Bowl? Imitation leads to innovation!

Likewise, Open-Source (Copyleft) isn’t news among code writers and users. In defiance of the restrictions posed by corporate lawyers and captains of industry, there has been an ongoing strong movement to keep codes as open sources for anyone to use freely. Your contribution is free of charge; so is your use. Sounds crazy? Only nerdy types will be so communal, ha?

Well, it’s been impossible to estimate how many millions of people around the world contributed millions of hours to write and edit Wikipedia. Not only aren’t they paid, they don’t even get credit for their work. Why do they do it? Do they believe in the greater good, like Musk? What a bizarre, anti-capitalist way of thinking? Have we lost our way?

No, we haven’t. Perhaps the good intentions of protecting one’s labor had the unintended consequences of allowing Big Pharma to patent our genes and DNA (Supreme Court decisions keep changing). At some point enough is enough, and our good sense overcomes the narrow interests of corporate America.

Will better automobile technologies necessarily evolve with open-sourced cooperation? Check your Apple iPhone to see if a new app can give you the answer. Then ask Apple to send $1 to the US government to ensure the future of American R&D!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Convenient capitalism deviates from ideals,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, May 16-22, 2014, 25.

CONVENIENT CAPITALISM

Academic circles and news media are abuzz with the latest French critique of capitalism by Thomas Picketty. In his historically-informed tome (685 pages), Picketty illustrates how capitalism over the last three centuries retains its tendency to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, so that overall inequality increases (except for three decades in 20^th century America).

Just like all other major academic accomplishments, what’s missing is as important as what is emphasized. Though critics and pundits are fixating on the difference between wealth and income inequality (especially in light of gigantic Wall Street salaries), there is something important that is glossed over.

Are we indeed practicing capitalism in America? Are we true to the principles advocated by Adam Smith and his fellow classical political-economists? Their principles were modeled on Enlightenment ideals, such as freedom and equality, moral respect and public education. They also believed that the capitalist marketplace could cure all the ills of the feudal and mercantile systems.

Have these ideals been accomplished? Outside of the complaint about the unintended consequences of capitalism (wealth inequality), are the actual legal and political guards supportive of these classical ideals?

Instead of surveying the national or international landscape, let’s focus on our immediate surroundings to see how capitalism is conveniently (or lazily) applied. What’s at stake is consistency of thought and practice—practice what you preach!

First and foremost, if the marketplace is supposed to be in private hands, if the government is supposed to get out of the way and let private industry determine the direction of our city, why are we so dependent on the Department of Defense? Why does our Chamber of Commerce look like the Chamber of Defense? Is it just all too convenient to have the federal government subsidize our local economy?

Second, if we believe in markets being more efficient mechanisms to decide how to allocate resources (capital and labor), and if we believe that the role of government is simply to accommodate the needs of the private sector, why has our City Council become such an obstacle to anything that happens locally? Is it simply that nine power players have forgotten how little we should be hearing from them?

Third, if the Austrian economists and their Chicago-University descendants got it right about minimal government intervention (except to enforce voluntary contracts among individuals), why has City Council regulated away recreational marijuana sales? The paradox must be obvious: the benefits of sales taxes will stay out of the city but the costs of policing problems will remain ours. Shouldn’t we let the marketplace decide what should be bought and sold?

Fourth, classical political economists worried about monopoly powers—the tendency for companies to buy each other and become dominant in a market—and oligarchical behavior—the tendency for collusion on prices and product quality. The marketplace is envisioned as a meeting place for “little” buyers and sellers none of whom can dictate prices when supplying or demanding goods and services. How come, then, that we have a utilities monopoly in our midst? With no competition or oversight, CSU can raise rates at will any time. Is this the most efficient way to handle a needed commodity—energy—for our city?

Fifth, from developmental economists to finance gurus there is a basic agreement on the need for the exchange of information as it is the most valuable commodity in the marketplace. The free-flow of information allows for minimal government coordination of long-term plans, such as our very own City of Champions. This is part of the capitalist framework as long as government agencies aren’t themselves involved in competing for resources and customers. Why not let a thousand lights shine on this city plan? Why hinder the private forces waiting to engage this four-pronged effort to revitalize the city?

Overall, we should be hearing about what companies and educational institutions, like UCCS, are doing in town as economic “engines” rather than what’s the latest scrimmage between the Mayor and City Council or between CSU and the rest of the politicians it is promoting and electing. Let’s stay focused on what could be an emerging and successful model that is based on the beauty of the city and its healthy environment.

Unlike the (federally funded) military bases we are so fond of, let’s focus on being the headquarters of the Olympic Committee and some of its affiliates (privately sponsored). If some of our wealthy leaders are proud to call themselves capitalists, let’s remind them not to be convenient capitalists but consistent ones! If these exhortations fall on deaf ears and anyone remains confused, look northward to Denver and see what is being done right…    

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Looking for the right standard to implement wage fairness,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 11 -17, 2014, 23.

WAGE FAIRNESS

As tax time comes around again, and as the president keeps bringing up minimum wage, it’s time to consider our attitudes towards income, wealth, and inequality.

One of the basic tenets of the capitalist marketplace (Adam Smith) was that a moral code binds the community within which markets operate. Our moral sentiments provide the framework for fairness and help us recognize that we are all in this together. The baker and her vendors and customers will likely trade with each other more than once, so in the long run they must maintain fairness.

Perhaps there is an obvious fairness in selling bread, but as an employee of the baker, is fairness involved in how much you are paid? The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which in 1947 enacted 40cent/hr. standard, increasing it to $7.25 in 2009.

Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections and/or higher minimum hourly wage (Oregon’s is $9.10); employers must comply with both. What standard should be used to implement fairness?

One standard is annual earning. With $8/hr., 40 hrs./week, and 50 weeks annually, we are looking at $16,000 (before any deductions) which is where the poverty level is for a household of two (single mother, for example) according to the 2014 guidelines for Medicaid eligibility. For a single person the poverty line is $11,670.

On the other extreme of the income spectrum we have entertainers, like Madonna who topped the Forbes 2013 list of the “Top-Earning Celebrities,” and who made around $125 million in one year (7,812 times the minimum wage). Is “income inequality” even relevant here?

Among athletes, the golfer Tiger Woods remains a steady top-earner with estimates of $80-$100 million annually (tournaments plus endorsements). Though Alex Rodriguez’s (NY Yankees) 10-year contract of $275 million has just been surpassed by Miguel Cabrera’s (Detroit Tigers) contract of $292 million, they pale by comparison to Woods’ annual earnings. Can we compare their incomes to minimum-wage earners?

Hitting closer to home, what about the CU-Buffaloes’ Mike MacIntyre who earns $2.4 million plus additional allowances to coach a notoriously losing team (USA Today). Is he “worth” his salary? If not comparing him to a minimum wage-earner, how about comparing his compensation to that of an instructor?

At UCCS full-time instructors (with PhD) are paid annually about $32,000 to teach 8 courses with an average size of 40 students who pay about $1,000 per course. Generating $320,000 in revenue for the university, they receive about 10% of what they “produce.” Will MacIntyre ever “produce” ten times his compensation? Should instructors’ pay be related to minimum wage earners?

Perhaps those who are endowed with super-human talents deserve to be outside the orbit of the discussion over income inequality, but what about those involved in the marketplace?

So let’s move to the business world, where Henry Ford famously (voluntarily) doubled the daily wages of workers in 1914 to $5. It reduced attrition on his assembly lines and lifted most workers into the middle class. What informed this move was neither generosity nor altruism; instead, it was a simple principle that his workers should be able to afford to buy the cars they produced.

While the president is pleading for a $10/hr. minimum wage, the CEOs of the largest 500 corporations in the US got a pay raise of about 16% in 2013 for an average of $10.5 million annually. About 60% of the total came in the form of stocks or stock options. According to the AFL-CIO, the top CEOs’ income was about 354 times that of their average rank and file workers. Is the president wasting his minimal political capital?

Isn’t the marketplace a place where the “fittest” rise to the top and command their fair “share”? Why would anyone want to put the government in a position to regulate how much money one makes? Will this intervention undermine job creation?

Companies whose stock is traded on the exchanges or public universities with state constituencies deserve public scrutiny and government regulation. They embody American values. Is fairness an American value?

The debate over income inequality and minimum wage can be framed as a debate about fairness or about job creation and the growth of the economy; it can be framed in terms of unregulated capitalism or in terms of government protection of basic human dignity and wellbeing. How should we frame the debate?

Thomas Piketty historically illustrates that except for a few decades in the 20^th century, capitalism tends to increase wealth inequality (2014). Would Adam Smith worry about this? Would he appeal to moral sentiments to battle inequality? Would he invite instead government intervention?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Colorado Springs—a city in search of leadership,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, February 28 – March 6, 2014, 21.

In Search of Leadership

From the Austrian School of Economics to its Chicago School descendent, it has been an article of faith that if left to its own devices the marketplace will perform more efficiently than if the government had anything to do with it. The rule of law, of course, should be upheld and deviant behavior—cheating, stealing, and misrepresentation—would be handled by courts of law.

Businesses could rely on the government to step in when needed, not too often but forcefully enough to punish and deter potential abusers. According to this model, political (and legal) authorities play a reactive (rather than proactive) role. So who leads the marketplace? Is it Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” or “impartial spectator”? Are the likes of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerman needed?

Leadership is defined in most cases in terms of the social influence a leader exerts over others so as to move them towards the accomplishment of a common goal, whether it be military or moral. In some cases, we have tried to transform battlefield leadership into politics, assuming that the one is a proving ground for the other (from Washington to Eisenhower). What about market leaders?

Some argue that leadership grows organically when one company increases in size and importance and eventually sets the trends of the marketplace. Others suggest that trade organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, provide cooperative objectives that benefit all participants as a way of leading. And yet others are appalled by any claim for market leadership because it reeks of socialist-like planning that constricts the untethered competitive and entrepreneurial spirit.

When we think about our own microcosm, General Palmer and Spencer Penrose come to mind. In their respective ways, they have demonstrated how leadership in one field could be translated into founding a city and turning it into a mecca for prospectors as well as a health retreat for tuberculosis. Who are their successors today?

We have plenty of former military leaders in our midst, some retired generals and colonels; we also have some entrepreneurs for whom the city has been a source of wealth. Are they stepping up? Have they done more than field surrogates whose own statures aren’t up to par? Perhaps the conditions of a century ago don’t fit the present.

To begin with, the city’s reliance on government largesse flies in the face of its claims for conservative ideals of small or no government. Between military bases and a growing population of retirees (with “entitlement” benefits, Social Security and Medicare), it seems that the city’s marketplace is relatively small.

Second, if the city’s political leaders are indeed representing the sentiments of their conservative constituents, why aren’t they allowing a more laissez-faire economic climate in the city? Why outlaw recreational marijuana retail shops?

Third, given a utilities monopoly and a choice to retain it as a municipal entity, there is no political oversight. Instead of the CSU serving its ratepayers and minimizing waste, it has become its own political power-house insulated from transparency and accountability. Would Palmer or Penrose tolerate this situation?

Fourth, to promote economic growth, some forward-thinking and vision are required. Who, outside the embattled Mayor and the distant State authority, is leading the local charge for the City of Champions? If our local millionaires were more vocal in support, would the dysfunctional Council or Chamber of Commerce step in line?

Are the conditions nowadays so different from a century ago that no leadership can be expected? All we need to do is look at UCCS’ Chancellor as a leader. Perhaps her academic specialty gives her an edge; perhaps it’s the mountains where the university is perched that allows her to see farther; perhaps it’s just her DNA that makes her an effective leader. Whatever the reason, she leads.

Is UCCS all alone in this visionary quest for greatness? Is the city happy to slumber in its complacent hibernation since the days of Palmer and Penrose? With a contracting federal budget, perhaps it’s time to focus on the athletic and health advantage of our altitude. And while the winter Olympics is fresh on our minds, it’s time to focus on doing more for the USOC’s headquarters here than anything else.  

Wake up Colorado Springs! Every century we get an opportunity to remake ourselves. The City of Champions and the legalization of marijuana provide such opportunities. Since the “next Penrose” seems reluctant so far to do more than buy local gems (Broadmoor) or duds (Gazette), we have two choices: either implore someone to lead us to greatness or use what is within our reach to become a vital city that attracts young professionals to invest their energy here and now.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

 

“What the Super Bowl tells us about our culture,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 31 – February 6, 2014, 19.

THE GOLDEN BOWL

When I ask what game is played by a bunch on millionaires on lush green grass, most people respond with “polo.” They forget that in fact there are twenty-two millionaires on the field at any given time during a professional football game—America’s most popular spectator sport.

The analogy to gladiators, which was common among sports sociologists in the 1970s, has been replaced more recently with the “Forty Million Dollar Slaves” as a narrative about the “The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete” (Rhoden 2007). Instead of Roman emperors orchestrating a diversion for starving masses, American billionaires are ensconced in guarded balconies as their players slug it out till concussions force them out of the arena.

No different from their predecessors, team owners buy and trade players as if slavery hasn’t been abolished yet; despite the appearance of a trade organization that is quasi non-profit, and despite a players union (currently negotiating a landmark settlement to compensate retired players for their debilitating injuries), the NFL has a salary cap (socialist marketplace?) where over-all team expenditure on those million-dollar slaves is set by the league (and enforced by a $30 million/year commissioner).

As we prepare to watch the Super Bowl on Sunday, and are entertained by million dollar (30-second) commercials (ensured to air no matter what pace the game should have), let’s check to see if billionaire owners are getting their money’s worth from their “millionaire slaves.”

Peyton Manning of the Broncos is the 4^th highest-paid quarterback who earns an average of $17.5 million/year (in a multi-year contract), while Russell Wilson of the Seahawks is earning a puny $1.2 million/year 9under his rookie contract). Can we therefore expect—to use marketplace value comparison—a seventeen to one ratio between their abilities or performances?

According to SportingNews.com, the Seahawk’s 2013-1014 payroll is the highest in the league with $124.9 million, while the Broncos’ is 5^th with a total of $119.2 million. Is it because Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft) is wealthier than Pat Bowlen (oil drilling wildcatter)? But what is an extra $5 million among billionaires?

The other two championship finalists were the 49ers (9^th in the league with $116.2 million) and the Patriots (19^th in the league with $106.3 million); were they a better bargain for their achievements as compared to the two finalists?

But perhaps we shouldn’t fixate on money and think more broadly about the cultural significance of football in America. Public Religion Research Institute CEO Robert Jones reports that 26 percent of those surveyed “pray for God to help their team,” while 25 percent “think their team has been cursed,” and 19 percent “believe God is involved in determining who wins on the court or in the field.” Overall, “half of Americans fall into one of these groups.”

“As Americans tune in to the Super Bowl this year, fully half of fans — as many as 70 million Americans — believe there may be a twelfth man on the field influencing the outcome,” Jones confirmed. What does this say about the intermingling of religion and sports? It’s not only that fans pray to God for intervention or players thank God when scoring (“Tebowing” has become a cultural signature behavior of players on the field), but the very terminology used in sports is reminiscent of that classically invoked in religious ceremonies and practices.

Whether the topic is belief, sacrifice, work, competition, relics, pilgrimages, or redemption, similar vocabularies are used with the assumption that one discourse is translatable to the other with the same psychological and social impact.

We “believe” in our team (Broncos) and our “hero” (Manning) using reverential words that we typically reserve for our faith in Jesus Christ as our savior. We pray for victory against the heathens of the northwest, and hope that the legalization of marijuana in both states (Colorado and Washington) will not raise the anger of God. Did smoking pot have something to do with our teams’ ability to chill and focus?

So, it’s not simply that billionaires provide expensive entertainment for the masses; they demand (with threats of moving their teams elsewhere) that the public pay for the arenas. The Roman emperors built arenas and supplied slaves (admittedly in a slave economy); our billionaires, working under capitalist pressures, ensure that fans (indirectly) pay for their own entertainment (taxes and product placements).

Since sports is considered by some to be our American religion, and since we pray for victories the way we pray for our souls, perhaps we should consider nationalizing football teams (Packers?) and turning them to religious institutions where all are welcome to seek communal comfort or salvation.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. His latest co-authored book (with Jeff Scholes) is titled Religion and Sports in American Culture. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Pope’s views against idolatry…and more,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 3 – 9, 2014, 17.

Against Idolatry

 We recall the image of Jesus entering the temple in Jerusalem, driving out the merchants and overturning the tables of the money changers. This was a stern reminder to separate the holy from the mundane.

Likewise, we recall the image of a golden calf molten in the absence of Moses on Mount Sinai. Were precious metals more seductive to the impatient Israelites than an invisible power?

But we probably have forgotten the work of Liberation Theology in Latin America (1950s-1960s), where Catholic teachings were used to fight economic, political, and social inequalities. This movement wasn’t condoned by Rome, but had widespread support from local Bishops who tended to their oppressed flocks.

We also haven’t made much of the US Bishops’ Pastoral Letter(s) on the Economy (1970s and 1986) that railed against economic inequalities and the departure from Christian principles of brotherly love and helping the poor.

Economic reality, we have been led to believe, isn’t dictated from above—God or the Treasury Secretary—but moves naturally in the cycles of the “invisible hand”. So invisible, in fact, that any crisis is explicable after the fact in terms of “market forces” or the “laws of supply and demand.” Human agency is absent.

The recent “Apostolic Exhortation” by Pope Francis focuses on human agency in our economic system. Perhaps it’s because of his experiences in Argentina, perhaps it’s because his theological interpretation of a moral life here and now is intertwined with the economy.

To be sure, this is a Catholic view steeped in two-thousand years of tradition; it is also one that saw the fortunes of the Mother Church depend on wars and wealth accumulation. Being the single largest denomination of any religion on earth, the significance of the “exhortation” is global. The action, though, should be local.

Mindful that he speaks as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis deliberately fuses theological concerns of evangelism with economic reality: “The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience.” This situation, for him, means that “there is no longer room for others, no place for the poor.”

The Pope describes our economy as one of “exclusion and inequality.” But his description becomes more critical when he says: “Such an economy kills.” It’s not an economy that hurts or overlooks, benefits some at the expense of others; it kills. Referring to news-media, he asks: “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

When the stock-market index hovers around 16,000, why do commentators even bother to claim the Dow is “up” or “down” when it moves a few points in either direction? The percentage change is so negligible that the very reporting seems hubris. Do greed and fear consume our daily lives? Do these numbers help to reassure us?

Reminding us that the poor are excluded from our midst, he continues: “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless.” Have you heard this assessment lately at your church? Are there more important theological issues?

For the Pope, as for some critics of hyper-capitalism, the economy is part of his theological message: its principles either follow or undermine moral principles. If market exchange of goods and services is exclusively defined in monetary terms, moral hazards are bound to appear. If economic transactions are justified by their potential benefits—the end justifies the means—what happens in the meantime? Will “trickle-down economics” indeed reach the poor?

The Pope answers: "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power." In fact, “the excluded are still waiting.”

The “tyranny” of the current system and the “culture of prosperity” are harmful, according to the Pope. “We have created new idols,” he continues, and we continue to worship them. There is “idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose.” Should we continue to live like this?

Whether one is Catholic or not, as Christmas is celebrated and New Year resolutions are being made, it behooves us to think of Pope Francis’ words: “I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favors human beings.”

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com