Well, you knew Rush Limbaugh wasn’t going to go quietly into the night after St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts dropped him from the group bidding to become the next owner of the Rams.
He also said Checketts assured him his involvement as a minority investor had been vetted by the National Football League.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Colts owner Jim Irsay both expressed misgivings this week about Limbaugh’s involvement. Late Wednesday, Checketts said Limbaugh had been dropped from the bid.Limbaugh says he believes he has been made an example by a players’ union seeking leverage in talks over a new collective bargaining agreement. And he says he believes what happened to him was an illustration of “Obama’s America on full display.”
People can put a racial spin on this situation if they want, but the bottom line is that Limbaugh was dropped because he is a controversial figure. Whether it’s far to Limbaugh or not, the NFL ultimately didn’t want to open Pandora’s box by allowing Rush to become an owner.
But Limbaugh’s comments regarding the players’ union are interesting. The NFL is heading into an uncapped 2010, but would like to renew with the union at some point so that football doesn’t become like baseball where the teams with the most money sign the best players. It’s not impossible to think that the NFL made this decision based on being able to sign a new collective bargaining agreement.
Another interesting debate that is developing is whether or not the NFL is being hypocritical by not allowing Limbaugh to become an owner. After all, Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, Chris Henry, Leonard Little and a host of other players have gotten into controversial situations off the field and have still been allowed to participate in the league. But Limbaugh can’t because of his controversial political views?
I get that allowing Limbaugh into the league is a deicer situation than suspending a player and then allowing him to return, but the debate is interesting nonetheless.
