Sports Absolutely Do Not Need Politicians More Involved

Yahoo

24-06-2025

Hello and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Why not try getting a little creative with your wedges today?
Congratulations to the half of you that were rooting for the Oklahoma City Thunder and the half of you that were rooting for the Florida Panthers. (Glad I'm not the only one who noticed the Thunder celebration was weirdly muted.) Today, we're talking about a proposal to regulate sports broadcasts, and get into a little sports betting legalization debate. Then we'll get into taxes and the NHL, plus a quick hit on a soccer movie. Let's go!
Locker Room Links
Keep Politicians Away From Sports
Does anyone really want more political bickering over sports?
Advertisement
In a truly terrible New York Times guest essay (thanks to subscriber Nathan for sending it my way), that's what former ESPN staff writer Joon Lee calls for. Not directly, of course, but more political bickering over sports would be the obvious result of what he wants. Politicians disagree about most things, often in stupid ways, and getting them more involved in sports will just make them disagree about sports in stupid ways.
For example, Lee writes that "Congress could also take inspiration from Britain's 'crown jewel' rule and designate key sporting events—perhaps the World Series, the Super Bowl, the N.B.A. Finals—as nationally significant and require that they air on free, widely accessible platforms." [Emphasis added.]
Note the absences from that list: the Stanley Cup Finals, for one, but there are also zero women's sporting events. Think that's going to fly with Democrats? Republicans from SEC country might be aghast at the lack of college football events on the list. Or imagine Congress delegates the designation of these events to some agency in the president's bureaucracy: Every time the White House changes parties we'd get another round of bickering or glad-handing from league officials who either do, or don't, want to get on the list.
Lee probably imagines his preferred regulations would be cleanly implemented by politicians he likes who agree with his aims—but that's just so clearly not how it would go.
Advertisement
The main issue Lee takes with modern sports broadcasting is cost. He estimates that he spends $2,634 a year on various subscription services to stream all the live sports. (Lee runs a sports media YouTube channel, so I hope he is deducting this business expense from his taxes.)
Watching every single game in every single sport is expensive, I get it. But the vast majority of sports fans are not doing this. Most of them are not even doing this for their favorite teams. If your favorite baseball team is on Apple TV+ and you're not subscribed, you'll probably skip that game. There are plenty more.
Most fans are probably watching whatever games are already included in their basic cable package or chosen streaming services. Pushing one-off games to other subscription services is the leagues' way of getting extra income from the super fans who are willing to pay. But let's not pretend every fan is like that, and let's not get politicians more involved in sports to fix this "problem."
After bemoaning that Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) held a hearing on sports broadcasting but hasn't introduced any regulations yet, Lee writes, "If public money is going to support professional sports, then public obligations—like ensuring access—should come with it." Maybe the better plan is to get people like Cruz and his ilk out of sports altogether, and to stop paying for sports with public money.
Bet On It
In National Review's August issue, Jack Butler (who I'm friendly with in real life—hopefully still so after he reads this) writes on the scourge of sports gambling. I don't think anything in the article is untrue—Jack is a great writer who gets his facts right. He writes about people losing a lot of money gambling and people harassing athletes over lost bets.
Advertisement
But like most of the articles I see criticizing sports betting legalization, there's an argument that isn't addressed: What about the rest of us?
There are millions of people betting on sports who aren't doing those things. They lose a little money on sports betting (and have fun doing it), they text their friends about what bets they won and lost, and they post their parlays online (don't post your parlays online—no one cares and they're not smart bets). Why should we take away their freedom to bet because some people did bad things?
Many people do bad things under the influence of alcohol. The right course of action is not banning alcohol altogether—it's punishing specific people for the specific bad things they do under the influence of alcohol. There's nothing fair about collective punishment.
Some people lose too much money on betting. They should not do that. Some people harass athletes on social media over their lost bets. They should not do that. That doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to place bets in peace.
Tax-Off
The Florida Panthers winning the Stanley Cup (again) has some hockey fans up in arms (again) about the league's hard salary cap and the advantages for teams in states with no income tax. Some say the league should adjust the cap based on each state and province's income tax level.
Advertisement
Perhaps the best thing NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has ever done is nip that idea in the bud, saying "it's a ridiculous issue."
The issue is that players don't want to pay taxes, so free agents might accept a lower or equal salary offer from a team in a place with a lower tax burden. But where does the issue stop? Players also want to live in cities with a lower cost of living. Or maybe they want to be in a bigger market so they can get bigger endorsement deals. Or maybe they want to play in a city where the weather doesn't suck in January. Or maybe they want to play near their hometown.
The NHL can't be expected to make adjustments in its salary cap for all the different reasons players might prefer a certain team or city. Taxes do affect how well teams do, and players are indeed drawn to states with no income taxes. But that's not the NHL's problem; it's for state governments to deal with.
Just Score One Goal
If you're looking for a soccer movie to watch, Next Goal Wins (2023) is pretty good. I watched it on a plane, and that's the right place to watch it (which sounds insulting, but also implies that it was better than everything else in United's movie collection at the time). I appreciate a film based on real events that also admits at the beginning that the film is exaggerating some.
Advertisement
The film tells the story of Dutch-American soccer coach Thomas Rongen, who, after various coaching jobs in MLS, had a short stint coaching the American Samoa national team. After a few weeks of training, Rongen led the team into World Cup qualifying, with the nation still seeking its first FIFA-recognized victory. I won't spoil it for you, but it's a feel-good comeback story, and they didn't make a movie about a scoreless draw, so you can probably guess what happened. It's a short, fun watch anyway (as long as your viewing options are constricted to the United Airlines entertainment library).
Replay of the Week
Not sure how this happened but it's great (although I prefer the Mets over the Phillies).
That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real event of the week, the PGA's Rocket Classic tournament in Detroit, Thursday–Sunday on CBS, Golf Channel, ESPN+, and Paramount+ (admittedly, this absurd number of platforms does not help with my earlier point).
The post Sports Absolutely Do Not Need Politicians More Involved appeared first on Reason.com.