- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 69,534
- Reaction score
- 15,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Here's my issue with that, and I honestly don't remember your stance on the Vick situation so not speaking about you directly but many of those in the media using that argument.
Many of the same people now using the "image to uphold" and "its a business" excuse are the same people who were saying Mike Vick had a RIGHT to play in the NFL again. That the NFL would be WRONG to suspend him an extra year, or to ban him outright, for what they did. That its taking a mans "livelihood" away (as if Mike Vick couldn't make money anywhere besides the NFL). That the NFL shouldn't disallow Mike Vick back into the league if a team will have him no matter what hit the image of the NFL would take.
Vick paid his debt. He can play. Vick took responsibility for his mistake. Ultimately, it's up to the league if they want him to play or not. Vick puts butts in seats.
Limbaugh doesn't have that upside. Ultimately, that's what the league does. They do a cost/benefit analysis. I believe the current owners vote on new owners, but I might be mistaken. Maybe that's baseball. If the league said "No." I would certainly understand it would be due to image. He is too polarizing a figure. If they said "Yes." then it's because owners are behind the scenes and don't usually don't figure into the image of the league.