Fake humanitarian team owners

• "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into Suns' games without paying?"...

"If leagues, team owners and teams are so demonstratively inclined to exploit

• their public positions for political purposes -- see: Phoenix Suns, aka Los Suns --

• shouldn't they also try to restore some sport to their sports?

Where are the humanitarians among team owners who would as aggressively stand up against, oh, must-buy preseason games? Or $5 bottles of water? Or made-for-TV-money NBA Finals that begin and end so late that the only kids with a shot at them are those who work the night shift?

• Where are all the people-sensitive NBA team owners when it's time for them to take care of basketball, and not vice versa?

That brings us to Suns' principal and principled owner, Robert Sarver, who, with the NBA's approval, recently had his team wear "Los Suns" uniforms to register disapproval of Arizona's new immigration laws.

• That drew a sizable and pretty standard response from readers who picked up the scent of hollow grandstanding. Their responses created a composite that reads like this:

What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into Suns' games without paying? What if the owners had a good idea as to who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were

• not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs,

• thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.

Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured,

• the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?

"Furthermore," adds Brooklyn's Tommy Mitchell, "what if one of those 'fans' gave birth? Not only couldn't you eject them, you'd have to provide another free seat."

• If charity in Arizona begins at home, why not at home games?

Twenty years ago, the NFL decided to muscle in on Arizona politics, leveraging the Super Bowl as the carrot-on-a-stick -- if voters didn't resolve to make Martin Luther King Day an official, paid day off, state holiday, then no Supe for you!

• Leading the NFL's noble charge was Eagles' owner Norman Braman, who declared that Arizonans who did not support such a proposition were, at best, disrespectful to the legacy of Dr. King, and, at worst, racist.

• Regardless, Arizona would suffer the financial punishment of losing the Super Bowl.

Braman owned auto dealerships throughout Florida. On MLK Day, that year, Jody McDonald, then with WFAN, had an idea:

He called Braman dealerships to see if they were open, to gauge Braman's genuine, money-where-your-mouth-is regard for King's legacy, to discover whether his employees were given the day off in tribute to King.

• Nope, his dealerships all were open for business.

• Braman's employees were on site and ready to sell cars. With folks off from work, there was no better day or way to cash in than by exploiting Martin Luther King Day."...

from NY Post column by Phil Mushnick, "'Humanitarian' owners never fight for fans," 5/16

• Why does MLB give Mexico all the cash and glory of the World Baseball Classic when Mexico itself treats its own immigrants so brutally, demanding excessive documentation then often beating, robbing, and raping them? ed.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon