Talkin' Sports with Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader is best known as a legendary consumer advocate, a person who has touched virtually every aspect of our lives from car safety to the quality of our food. He's also a notable thorn in the side of Democratic Party activists desperate to win a presidential election and flummoxed by his quadrennial candidacy. However, few people know that Nader is also an avid sports fan. He was responsible for the launching of the League of Fans, a sports reform project, and he has also passionately pushed for a "Bill of Rights" for the American sports fan. In addition, he has recently made the sports pages by raising serious criticisms of NBA referees -- assertions he has made for years that are finally being taken seriously in the wake of statements made by disgraced former referee Tim Donaghy.

DZ: When did you become a sports fan?

RN: I was really taken by Lou Gehrig when I was a little boy because of his demeanor and his stamina. Remember, he played in over 2,000 consecutive games at that time, which was since eclipsed by Cal Ripken. But you know how everyone has a sports hero when they're a boy? This one really stayed with me. The concept of stamina and persistence. And it turned me into a Yankees fan.

DZ: Persistence is a word that a lot of people associate with you in your public life. Is Gehrig an inspiration in this regard?

RN: Oh, most definitely. There's only one picture in my office on the wall, only one: Lou Gehrig.

DZ: When did you realize that League of Fans was a project you wanted to be involved in?

RN: Well, actually there's a precursor. We had a fans' group in the 1970s that put out a very probing newsletter. The idea then was how fans are being ripped off; they had no voice; they had no organized role. They were being overcharged. They were being subjected to blackouts in their hometown for example, if the stadium didn't sell out. This was also the beginning of a move for tax-funded stadiums and ballparks. There were really quite a lot of issues. We had 1,000 dues-paying members, but we couldn't get it beyond that. But my desire was to have fans organize -- because after all, they're consumers. They're consumers at the service of mammoth sports enterprises that have antitrust exemptions, that have all sorts of tax-depreciating rights for their players.

I mean, it's almost a mint to produce money. They gouged the fans as consumers; parking, food, tickets, and they gouged them as taxpayers too. So it was really a composite situation that is replayed throughout the economy between large corporations and consumers. Since, as sports fans, we're very, very clever and understanding of the rules of the game, the strategies and the players, and... know the history of the players and teams and [are] loyal to the teams, I said, "Imagine if voters did their homework, and imagine if voters had that kind of tactical and strategic sense. Imagine voters who rooted for rookies -- if voters wanted to give new candidates a chance to play on the field. So we started leagueoffans.org, and once again we came up with all kinds of needs to organize fans -- especially to oppose tax-funded stadiums while clinics, libraries and schools were crumbling in the same cities for lack of public investment.

There was over $600 million dollars spent to build the new Washington Nationals' baseball stadium, but if you look around Washington, DC, you see schools crumbling, clinics--the usual urban deterioration. And not enough recreational facilities for youngsters so they can engage in participatory sports, not just spectator sports.

DZ: That's one thing that sticks in my craw too: the sports industry loves to create passive consumers, when in theory, sports is about active participation.

RN: That's why the sports pages in the newspaper should be called the spectator sports pages. Because they don't cover participatory sports: amateur sports, amateur leagues, what's going on at the local playgrounds or any effort to promote activity and competition.

DZ: Presidential candidates frequently talk of a "patients' bill of rights" or "passengers' bill of rights." What would a fans' bill of rights include? What items would you include in relation to this often abusive relationship between sports owners and fans?

RN: One is in any tax-supported sports facility, the fans should become shareholders. Because they're tax payers. The stadium and ballpark should be called "Taxpayer Stadium," not some sold-off brand name, or some bank, or computer company.

DZ: Like [the former home of the Houston Astros] "Enron Field"?

RN: Yeah, right! But more important than that, there should be organized fans' groups that can sit at the table. Anything that intersects public policy with the sports teams, the fans have got to have representatives at the table. Yankee Stadium is now going to be demolished. Imagine demolishing Carnegie Hall! The new Yankee Stadium is going to be built with heavy -- not total -- taxpayer money, although the Yankees want another $350 million in tax-free bonds to be issued, and the mayor is apparently supporting that.

Anyway, they took over a twenty-acre park, a very important park in the neighborhood, with beautiful trees. The trees have all been cut down and the stadium is going to be built in that park. The residents were promised four or five little parks in the neighborhood that would be refurbished. Well, now there's a two-year delay, and it's not clear that there's enough money, that the city has enough money to do it. There's enough money to build the stadium; that part of the deal was secure, but not the trade-off. The fans and the neighborhood were never there. The fans were never consulted and the taxpayers were never consulted. So a fans' bill of rights really means that there are players at the table. If the food and tickets and parking are going sky-high, the fans should be in on this. The moment a tax dollar touches a stadium, the fans, the taxpayers, the neighborhood, they've got to be given a voice; and that includes the right to take the city and the sports team to court intending to sue.

DZ: You've actually been in the sports pages a lot recently in regard to a 2002 playoff game between the Sacramento Kings and the Los Angeles Lakers. Something occurred during the game that really troubled you. What was it?

RN: The worst performance by referees I've ever seen! The Kings were up three to one -- here's this upstart, small-market team against the giant Lakers big-market, Lakers were favored three-to-one. They were in the sixth game, they could have won the championship. The referees called something like twenty-seven fouls in the fourth quarter against the Sacramento Kings and didn't call fouls -- egregious fouls -- against the Lakers. For example, Kobe Bryant elbowed Mike Bibby in the face, Bibby fell, was bleeding, went to the sidelines. Everyone saw it; no foul against Kobe. So the suspicion arose of the referees being company referees -- after all, they were selected by David Stern, the commissioner of the NBA to officiate in the playoff games. Basically, it was really good for the league financially to throw it into the seventh game. Well, the seventh game went to the Lakers, and the Lakers won the championship.

Now, nobody could prove this -- there was no directive, no secret e-mail, no wink by David Stern. There didn't have to be. So is it just a case of massive, sudden incompetence, that favored one team, or is it something else to earn more revenue for the league by throwing it into the seventh game? Well, maybe we'll never know, but it was massive incompetence. Why didn't David Stern -- who I spoke to on the phone after I sent him this objecting letter... he's cordial but very imperious if you can believe the combination. He spoke like he was head of a corporate dictatorship.

The NBA is a corporate dictatorship. Once the contracts, however lucrative, are signed with the players it's dictatorship-land. There is a provision in the contracts with the players called the "antidisparagement provision" where they give up their free-speech rights. So if they complain publicly or criticize a referee or David Stern, they can be fined five-thousand, ten, fifty, a hundred thousand dollars! Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks has already paid $1.5-plus million in fees, in penalties. Now, the government can't fine you for free speech. Most corporations can't fine you -- they can fire you, but they can't fine you if you speak your mind. So my recommendation is the following: I understand that it's very disruptive while the teams are actually playing each other during the season to have people spouting off about managers, coaches, players against players and so on. But the antidisparagement clause should stop after the season, and there should be a free speech period in the off-season so that any potential cover-ups can be exposed.

DZ: With all of the other problems in the world right now, why focus on the world of sports?

RN: There are much more serious problems affecting people in our country, in our community and in our world, to be sure. But people deserve a sanctuary where they can trust what's going on is going to be based on the merits and not influence-peddling or shenanigans of various sorts, and that's sports. One reason people are attracted to sports is because things happen on the merits. Teams win or lose on the merits of their players and coaches and managers. When that trust is betrayed, you can see that there's a real letdown among the fans.

It's more than just a psychological letdown. It's like, "Oh no! This stuff is happening here too? Where will it all end?" If we want to build trust, sports is a good place to do it. But with the commercialization of giant sports conglomerates, you're not going to see that any time soon without strong fan organizations, like the League of Fans, to inspire around the country.

[Dave Zirin is the first sports correspondent for the Nation Magazine. He is the author of Welcome to the Terrordome (Haymarket) and A People's History of Sports in the United States (The New Press), coming out this summer. Receive his column every week by emailing [e-mail]. Contact him at [e-mail].]

Comments

[TheProverbialMan]

Great article. This is what Ralph Nader needs to keep doing. He could not run the office of president, his abilities are best suited elsewhere:

Calling people on their shit (on the left and the right) and sticking up for the average American. That's what you are good at, may you continue as long as possible.

[TRYKER]

Just listening to Nader speak is refreshing. He is direct and knowledgeable and so well informed.
I always wondered why they didn't make a Nader Dept. or a Nader Institute in Govt to put this wise man to work doing what he does best. Oh, because we don't want wisdom in Govt.?
Also, wonder why we have only seen one Ralph Nader come up in this era...wher­e are the new Naders?
The ignorant disrespect shown to Mr. Nader is shameful after all he has done for this country.

[RedDogBear]

ME: Ralph, what are your practical plans for making progressive change as a result of your run for the presidency? How can you claim that you are really trying to build a third party when you have run for the presidency several times and never won a single electoral college vote and while you ignore the green party and when the green party has nominated someone else as their candidate for president?

sound of crickets chirping..­.

ME: Do you really care what other progressives think? Why do you never give out an email address when you publish something? Why are there no discussion threads on your presidential web site, unlike all the other candidates including John McCain?

sound of wind blowing...­.

ME: Why did you take money from Republicans during the 2004 election? Are you going to take their money again this time? Can you name on CONCRETE thing you hope to accomplish by running for the presidency other than "raising awareness" about left wing issues? Ralph? Hello Ralph are you there...

[OnTheLeft]

Oh yeah, and the Democrats are really bringing about change by holding the Bush administration accountable.

They didn't vote for the illegal invasion of Iraq, they didn't vote for the Patriot Act, they didn't grant immunity to telecoms, they are all committed to fighting for single-payer universal health care, they would never consider having impeachment "off the table".

Oh wait, I forgot, the Democrats are the enablers, who enable George Bush and the Republicans.

Whether it's Nader or the Green Party, they have the true progressive platform, not the spineless Democrats.

Oh, and Ralph isn't ignoring the Green Party. He helped build the party up from the grassroots local level, with 228 elected Greens holding local offices across the US. Thanks to Ralph, he really helped to get them on the map. He's not running for the Green Party nomination this year because it's time for someone else to have a chance, and it looks like they're have another great candidate in Cynthia McKinney.

Ralph didn't take money from the Republicans in 2004. And even if he did, so what? Their money isn't going influence his agenda, unlike the Democrats who take big money from weapons manufacturers.

Candidates like Nader and McKinney provide an opportunity for millions of Americans to vote for what they believe in.

I'm sorry you feel that the Democrats deserve to have a monopoly on the center to left vote, that there are third party candidates and parties. But hey, that's a democracy for you.

[steveconn]

A great interview. Ralph Nader demonstrates that the same corporate-big money influences which contaminate other public institutions, affect the very integrity of sports. Also, a rare, open-minded interview without a hint of spite or spin.