Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, but I’m still trying to figure out how we got here. What is the compelling interest of Congress in the internal efforts of a professional entertainment industry’s attempts to regulate performance enhancement on the part of it’s entertainers?
What is it that makes it a Congressional issue? No one seems to be hot in Congress over the use of caffeine or nootropics by the software industry, or of cosmetic surgery by the modeling, acting, or porn industries. What makes baseball special? Why does Major League Baseball owe Congress? The Anti-Trust Exemption? Pshaw. It’s been overcome by events; the players are in a much better position now, and, according to one of the smattering of articles I recently read, because of a Supreme Court ruling, they aren’t even eligible to sue under anti-trust. The NFL has successfully managed to survive in the face of competition, and there is lots of baseball around the world that isn’t controlled by MLB; I just don’t see the salient points of this legacy of early Twentieth Century labor politics being relevant anymore. Microsoft is a convicted anti-trust violator and there isn’t any visible sign that Congress cares about the deep harm caused to the American people by the monopoly abuse perpetuated by Redmond.
All that Anti-Trust Exemption seems to be doing is maintaining the independence of the clubs and the federation of the Leagues, instead of having franchises. I don’t know what the practical difference is, but I’m sure it has to do with money. If anyone knows, I’d love to hear some details.
I also am hearing the “kids look up to ballplayers” angle a lot. Yeah, they do. But kids look up to a lot of celebrities and we don’t consider that grounds for Congressional interest in the inner workings of the things like the NBA; rap & hip hop music; supermodels; movie stars; or computer nerds. My point is that just because a kid idealizes someone, doesn’t mean that the government has a compelling interest in regulating their behavior. We didn’t have a Congressional hearing when Kobe was accused of rape, when Michael was accused of gambling, when the cover girl du jour is accused of bulimia, when Keanu Reeves is accused of bad acting, or when Ja Rule is accused of lying about his street-cred, so why is it that when baseball players are accused of taking steroids Congress has a compelling interest?
Is it because steroids are controlled substances and bad acting isn’t? (I’d rather that we be dealing with the heroin and cocaine industry than the sports performance enhancement industry.) Is it because the public isn’t hurt when a celebrity can buy their way out of a civil lawsuit? (Isn’t that what civil suits are for, to get the plaintiff and their lawyers rich?) I think it is because baseball is way more sexy than social security reform, better politics than honesty about the failures of government, and better theater than Michael Jackson for the media.
Look, baseball is a game. Professional baseball is a business. Having juiced up players who get paid millions to jack longballs into the stratosphere isn’t just good business, it’s great business. Ichiro broke a record last year that was generally considered unbreakable, no one but baseball geeks cared. What sluggers bring to the spectacle is epic. That puts butts in the seats. Whether or not it is “good for the game” is a completely different conversation, but one that Congress isn’t invited to.
Personally, I think that what the NCAA and big-time college athletics does to unpaid student athletes is far more egregious and far more deserving of governmental intrusion than Major League Baseball’s pee-in-the-cup program.