Categorized in | Columns, Opinion

By Gilbert Gutierrez III and Adan Vasquez
Published: October 13, 2009

By Gilbert Gutierrez III

Daily Titan Staff Writer

Who would have thought that conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh would be the one to step forward and attempt to take the struggling St. Louis Rams under his wing?

Limbaugh, along with the NHL’s St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts, has begun talks of placing a bid on the 0-5 Rams.

Can a NFL player honestly force himself to play for a man that said, “I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think that we’ve had here a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” These remarks were referenced to Donovan McNabb by Limbaugh on ESPN’s NFL pre-game show in 2003.

This man’s blatantly offensive remarks have even pissed off Rev. Al Sharpton, and he too is taking sides with the NFL players and sports columnists that are against his bid for the Rams.

In a letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell published in full in the Oct. 9 New York Daily News, Sharpton wrote: “Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing.”

Players don’t need to put up with his ignorance and lack of tolerance. Should this man take the reins of the team, then it is entirely up to the players to do whatever they choose.

They can either play for a man that makes racist comments about America’s athletes and politicians, or they can sit on the sidelines and watch him burn his money on amateur replacement players taking a shot at the NFL’s finest.

In 1987, NFL teams fielded lineups of amateur athletes, and many of the millionaire players walked picket lines like blue-collar workers on strike for better working conditions. The owners were not willing to satisfy the players’ request to be allowed to free agency and partake in the league’s growing revenue.

After five weeks of refusing to play, the players’ demands were not met by the league and owners, and they returned back to work empty-handed.

In 1919, eight professional baseball players from the Chicago White Sox threw the World Series when owner Charles Comiskey refused to pay them their well-deserved monetary bonus after winning the American League pennant toward the end of the regular season. This goes to show that players of the past have rebelled against the owners that smite them time and time again.

The players don’t need to put up with his racist representation; in fact, they should kick each other right in the middle of their jockstrap before every game if they choose to suit up and play for him.

By Adan Vasquez

Daily Titan Sports Editor

If ever there was a public figure who should not own a team in the National Football League, it’s Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh, who is best known as the voice of the Republican party and an extreme conservative, is vying to become co-owner of the St. Louis Rams should the current owners decide to sell the franchise.

Over the years, Limbaugh has brought up a lot of controversy with comments he has made aimed primarily at black people. He claimed Gen. Colin Powell only supported President Barack Obama because he is black.

He accused the media of over praising black quarterbacks, and that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb did not deserve credit for his team’s success.

It’s pretty obvious that McNabb has blossomed into a bona fide signal caller.

So then what happens if Limbaugh’s bid is accepted and he does become an NFL owner? Many players have voiced their concerns over the possibility of playing for an owner who has made headlines primarily by making controversial comments.

Even Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said he wouldn’t vote to approve Limbaugh.

Should players have to work for a team owner that they feel looks down on them and can cut them loose at any time he pleases?

Regretfully, the answer would be yes. As much as it pains me to say, a contract is a contract. Players are legally bound to their contract and must fulfill their duties if they want to get paid. After all, the NFL is a business, and they have to show up for work. It doesn’t mean they have to like it, but they have to be professional about it.

In no other type of job, other than sports, can someone simply not show up (hold-out) and demand they be transferred (traded) somewhere else without getting the boot.

Show up, do your job and when your contract is up, go your separate ways and find a new team.

This applies to drafted rookies as well. Everyone knows that rookie holdouts always end up signing at the last minute, or in the case of San Francisco 49ers 2009 first-round draft pick Michael Crabtree, decide to play “hard to get” until finally agreeing to a contract five weeks into the season.

Holding out and threatening not to play for your team, or just Limbaugh, would be unprofessional.

As painful and agonizing as it may be to have to play for an owner who has verbally degraded non-Caucasians over the years, at the end of the day you have to put those shoulder pads on and go out and hit somebody and make plays on the football field.

Luckily for the Rams’ players, Limbaugh won’t become an owner. The owners won’t vote him in, and the league won’t risk losing a franchise.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print this post

Gilbert Gutierrez III has written 30 posts on DailyTitan.com.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


One Response to “The Devil’s Advocate: If Rush Limbaugh buys a stake in the St. Louis Rams, should those players be forced to stay?”

  1. CLo says:

    “This man’s blatantly offensive remarks have even pissed off Rev. Al Sharpton…”

    Yes, the “Reverend” (of what?) Sharpton would never jump in front of a story on which he couldn’t paint a racist hue. He’s never shouted into cameras things that weren’t well documented, well researched and above reproach. He’s never made comments or acted in a manner that could be confused with being racially motivated…

    Never, I mean, except for that whole Tawana Brawley incident, but that was way back in 1987. It’s not like he meant anything racially motivated when put the Attorney General of NY in league with Hitler. Going so far as to smear a local prosecutor with no evidence to back it up (he was eventually cleared). When that didn’t stick, he started a new song – it was the white police officers who did it. It wasn’t. As a matter of fact a security guard working for Tawana testified that Sharpton knew that Tawana was lying – and yet he went after the cops and the prosecutor anyhow. So what if none of the claims were ever corroborated, it played well to the media.

    Or there was the famous 1991 quote from Sharpton during the Crown Heights crisis where he proclaimed, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”
    Now…would we all throw a fit if the “Reverend” wanted to buy a professional football team?

    Nah. Which of course, in of itself is somewhat racist – is it not?


Post a Comment

The Daily Titan wants your comments! Please know that we reserve the right to moderate these. If you'd like to display your photo, go and get a Gravatar.

By submitting this comment, you agree to our commenting policy.

Stay connected

  • Popular
  • Featured
  • Comments
  • Tags
  • Subscribe