Was this the Year of the Corrupt Ruling?

Sports can be a hard thing to watch sometimes. This is true for a variety of reasons; every once in a while you'll see your favorite team get beaten by 40 points, or witness a player pull a Joe Theismann and suffer a graphic injury on the field, or get stuck in a bar where they're only showing hockey. But for me, the most infuriating aspect of sports is the fact that the spectator is positively powerless to do anything when he witnesses something he wants to change. Want universal instant replay in baseball? You'd better wait until Bud Selig is good and ready to implement it, and not a moment sooner. Want a college football playoff? You'll have to pry it from the cold, dead hands of the millionaires who run the BCS bowls. No matter how badly you want these changes, in the end, you can either stop being a sports fan or continue to watch begrudgingly, knowing that the product isn't as good as it could be but being aware that it's either a faulty product or nothing.

Usually, these desires for change stem from simple disagreements with the system in place. I think it's ridiculous that there is no replay in baseball, but I don't think all of baseball is ruined because of the absence of this feature (in fact my favorite team, the Kansas City Royals, arguably hold their only championship due to the very absence of instant replay during a famous botched call in the 1985 World Series). This makes it more tolerable to deal with these disagreements. And I can take solace in the fact that it appears likely that within the next 10 or even five years, there likely will be universal replay in baseball. However, sometimes these frustrations stem from something far more sinister. Having the curtain pulled back and being exposed to the darker side of sports, whether it's steroids in baseball, post-retirement medical hardships in the NFL, or alleged corruption in international soccer, is the ultimate way to remind fans that those who participate in and operate sports are all too human, and their human failings can be all that's needed to partially (or entirely) ruin the fan experience.

This year, we got yet another dose of this harsh reality in at least one form: corrupt and self-interested rulings from athletic bodies. I have long argued that the U.S. Congress, despite cries from some that they "should have better things to do," should take a keen interest in the goings-on of sports bodies, since most of them are allowed to operate as monopolies and thus should be held to a certain level of scrutiny. Obviously this should go beyond the circus we saw during the Congressional steroid hearings, which were largely an excuse for John McCain to get his name in the paper and for various senators to nab photo ops with Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa; they should be legitimate inquiries into the business practices of leagues like the NFL and MLB, leagues which have no legitimate competition, and these inquiries should be followed through upon. This is doubly true for the NCAA, when such a large percentage of its members are public schools that run their sports programs on public financing. To those who believe Congress shouldn't get involved in these matters, perhaps some of the rulings we saw this year, particularly from the NFL and NCAA, should serve as a wakeup call and a signal that when left unchecked, these leagues take it upon themselves to treat its workers (or "student-athletes") unfairly in the interest of the almighty dollar. These rulings, which took place over the final quarter of 2010, were more than enough for a full year of corruption.

The first glaring example of this bias was the NFL's ruling on the status of Houston’s Andre Johnson after an on-field incident with the Tennessee Titans' Cortland Finnegan in November. After some back and forth between both players, they eventually went at it in a full-on brawl following a play in the Texans' eventual 20-0 win. Video clearly showed Johnson ripping off Finnegan's helmet and landing several hard punches to his head before they were separated and ejected from the game. Most pundits assumed both players would be suspended for at least one game for their actions; heck, the NFL had already suspended the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger for four games earlier in the year for sexual assault accusations, and Roethlisberger was never even charged. There was even almost direct precedent for the incident; in 2006, Albert Haynesworth, then of the Titans, removed the helmet of Cowboys center Andre Gurode and stomped on his head, subsequently receiving a 5-game suspension from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Since previous incidents of helmet removal and subsequent attack were punished that harshly, one would have imagined the fate of Johnson would have been similarly severe, especially given the example it set for the league's younger viewers.

The verdict? A $25,000 fine for both Johnson and Finnegan (an absolute slap on the wrist considering Johnson's $5.5 million salary in 2010) and no suspension for either player. At first, such a ruling might strike one as merely odd. But there was an ulterior motive: Johnson and the Texans were scheduled to play the following Thursday on the NFL Network's weekly game. The NFL Network, as you might have guessed, is owned by the NFL, and Johnson just happens to be one of the league's best and most marketable players. The Texans were already considered underdogs against their scheduled opponents, the Philadelphia Eagles, and the absence of Johnson likely would have made the game a sure blowout that far fewer people would have tuned into. The NFL Network is already struggling to take it to the next level in terms of revenue and viewership, and having Johnson play in the game went a long way toward that goal. So, while Albert Haynesworth got a five-game suspension for his transgression (a modern NFL record for an on-field incident), Johnson got zero games for an action with very similar details (ripping off an opponent's helmet and attacking his bare head following a play). Naturally, since the NFL answers to no one, they offered no real explanation for the disparity, and they correctly predicted that the average fan ended up watching the game due to Johnson's participation instead of avoiding it due to the NFL's hypocrisy. The NFL made some extra money, while they set a precedent allowing for their own players to be violently attacked on the field with little or no consequence. If that doesn't sound so bad to you, try viciously beating one of your work colleagues during a meeting and see if you just get slapped with a small fine.

Another, more visible ruling happened just days later in the world of college football. Cam Newton, the star Auburn quarterback who seemed well on his way to a coveted Heisman Trophy in only his first year playing NCAA football, had become embroiled in a scandal involving an alleged request for an under-the-table payout to the tune of $180,000 during his recruiting. As the facts came out, it was determined that Newton's father had approached Mississippi State, one of Auburn's SEC rivals, about receiving that payout in exchange for his son's services. Mississippi State, the story goes, turned down the request and reported the incident to the SEC and NCAA. The rest of the story apparently involves Newton then agreeing to attend Auburn for free, which seems unlikely for a variety of reasons, but we can ignore that for now; the important thing is that Newton's father (along with a non-family representative) was found to have requested a large amount of money for Newton's services during his recruiting, a clear violation of NCAA rules. According to NCAA Bylaw 12.3.3:

Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective
student-athlete for compensation in placing the prospect in a collegiate
institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an
agent or organization marketing the individual's athletics ability or
reputation.

Furthermore, the SEC has its own bylaws, 14.01.3.2 of which states:

If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.

Newton seems to be in violation of both of these rules, as again, a member of his family requested payouts from Mississippi State. The SEC claimed that Newton was not in violation of this rule, because no benefits actually changed hands; this is obviously a poor argument because in requesting a payout, one has obviously "agreed" to receive that payout, and that's all the bylaw requires. Moreover, the actual sanction that was handed down damns the NCAA and SEC further; they did rule that a violation had taken place, but they elected not to rule Newton ineligible; instead, they simply ruled that Newton's father, Cecil, was to have "limited" contact with the Auburn team, on the grounds that they couldn’t prove Cam Newton was aware of these dealings.

This ruling, it just so happens, was made the week Auburn was to play South Carolina in the SEC Championship game. This was not an insignificant game for the Tigers; South Carolina had already beaten Alabama, last year's BCS National Champions and then-AP #1, earlier in the year, and they had only lost at Auburn by eight when they played in the regular season. Not having Newton in the SEC Championship game would have meant lower ratings and a chance for a Gamecock upset, for sure, but it also meant something much bigger for the NCAA: the chance that TCU, the BCS #3, would move up to the second spot following an Auburn loss, making them the first school from a non-BCS conference to make the BCS National Championship Game. Replacing an SEC headline-maker with a Mountain West BCS-buster would have almost certainly meant lower ratings and less income from the game, as well as the possibility that TCU would defeat Oregon, prove that it deserved to be BCS National Champions, and fuel talk of a playoff. Removing Newton from the SEC title game seemed to grant this scenario a much greater chance of playing out, but allowing Newton to retain his eligibility provided for the big, money-machine SEC to once again drown out a deserving team from a mid-major conference and once again shut out non-automatic qualifiers from a title shot. Given the backlash against the Newton ruling, as well as comparisons to other athletes who seem to have been suspended or ruled ineligible for far less, one wonders how the NCAA would ever get away with such an openly self-interested ruling if they actually had to answer to someone.

The NCAA made a similar ruling last week, when it was discovered that several players from Ohio State, who are slated to appear opposite Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl, traded team memorabilia in exchange for services at a tattoo parlor. One of these players happened to be junior Terrelle Pryor, Ohio State's star quarterback. This case was far more clear-cut: the players clearly broke the rules, and the NCAA decided they would be punished with 5-game suspensions. The issue? Those suspensions will begin next season; all players will be allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl. Why? According to an NCAA statement:

In relation to the decision last week involving rules violations with football
student-athletes at Ohio State, several current student-athletes were
interviewed as part of our fact-gathering process. They indicated they were not
aware there was a violation and learned of the issue based on later rules
education, which was confirmed by OSU through interviews and supporting
documentation.

Essentially, the argument is that Ohio State players should be held to a lower standard because they were improperly educated about this NCAA rule. This is bunk for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it's Ohio State's job to educate its players about these rules, and Ohio State should not be rewarded with having these players for the Sugar Bowl due to their failure to properly educate these players. But the more bizarre insinuation is that somehow, this explanation is a justification for allowing these players to compete in the Sugar Bowl but not the first five games of next season. Supposedly, in the eyes of the NCAA, the rules come first; if the infraction warrants a five-game suspension, then players don't get to pick and choose which games they miss, lest the penalty be rendered meaningless. But that seems to be exactly the case here, especially in the case of Pryor, who is now expected to simply play in the Sugar Bowl, then immediately declare for the 2011 NFL draft and essentially incur absolutely no penalty for this infraction. Obviously, having Pryor and his teammates compete in the Sugar Bowl, one of the most prominent bowls on the postseason calendar, will be an enormous boon to the ratings, and it will make the game far more competitive. Is it just a coincidence that the NCAA has suspended these players for five games but will allow them to play in the one that will be by far the most lucrative and important? And what kind of message does this send? By this logic, shouldn't one of these players be able to petition to miss Ohio State's games versus Akron, Toledo, Colorado, Indiana, and Purdue next year, rather than the immediate first five games (which include Miami and Michigan State), because those are the least "important"?

This week, the NFL, not to be outdone, continued its own pattern of self-interest by failing to take any significant action against Brett Favre for allegedly harassing and sending lewd photos to TV personality Jenn Sterger while they were both employed by the New York Jets. They did fine him $50,000 (a sum so laughable for Favre, he probably paid it in cash straight out of his wallet), but that was apparently for his failure to cooperate with the investigation, not for what he allegedly did. The entire investigation was suspect at best; these allegations came to light months ago, but the NFL dragged its feet in issuing any sort of verdict while collecting the vast amounts of money that came from having Favre continue to play each week. Finally, after what seemed like Favre's 900th injury of the year (a violent hit by Chicago's Corey Wootton that some believe ended his career), the NFL finally came out with this ruling, explaining that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that Favre did anything improper. Never mind that, as pointed out above, Ben Roethlisberger was suspended four games for conduct for which he was never charged, and the evidence that was leaked to the Internet (lewd recordings which clearly sound like Favre, nude photos which reportedly were sent from Favre's cell phone) seems extremely damaging. Allowing Favre to get out relatively cleanly absolves him of wrongdoing, which all but assures that the surefire Hall of Famer will continue to generate tons of publicity for the league; meanwhile, failing to suspend him means that there's even a chance Favre will suit up in his final game for the Vikings, which would bring a lot more money and ratings for the NFL than a game featuring the incomparable Joe Webb. Favre has always seemed to get special treatment from the NFL and its announcers; this was just the sordid icing on the cake.

It's noticeable that these rulings all seem to be football-related. This year, other leagues seemed to deal with their problems in a much more honest and forthright manner. The MLB suspended the Cincinnati Reds' Edinson Volquez, a 2008 Cy Young candidate, for 50 games following a positive drug test, and cracked down on Dominican leagues by suspending a flurry of players who tested positive for banned substances; the MLB could have stood by and allowed some of these players to become stars, but instead it did the right thing and cracked down. Meanwhile, the year started off with the NBA suspending Washington's Gilbert Arenas, one of its most bankable stars in a fairly large market, indefinitely for bringing a gun into the locker room. These incidents seemed to show that these leagues were willing to sacrifice a bit of cheap financial gain for the sake of integrity. Meanwhile, the NFL even boasts some borderline controversial violations, like the allegations that it unfairly targets the Steelers, and in particular James Harrison, with postgame fines. The fact that such controversies are able to take a backseat to more egregious ones should be proof positive that the league is rapidly losing any semblance of integrity toward its fans and players (its much-derided push to expand the schedule to 18 regular-season games and failure to properly care for disabled league retirees only exacerbates these revelations). Although the football season doesn’t even begin until late August, it has so far provided enough crooked actions to make 2010 the Year of the Corrupt Ruling.

And yet again, as fans, we find ourselves unable to do anything but stare through the proverbial glass and watch it all unfold. Since these leagues have no direct competition, they make their decisions free of any significant penalty. And because they answer to no one, they lack any reason to substantially explain their rulings, knowing that being more secretive allows them to make more questionable rulings, and that the average fan will continue to watch no matter what happens. From a business perspective, it's hard to blame them; they know how to keep the cash flowing, even if it means selling out their teams, players, and fans when it benefits them. But from the perspective of those who love sports, and who care above all else about fairness and legitimacy, these incidents of corruption pull back the curtain to a point where it can never be recovered.