HOW CORRECT TO POLITICIZE SPORT?

How correct is it to politicize sport? Sports lovers will say not correct. Politicians will say correct. But sport is game, not politics. Sport is played by rules. Politics is unruly. Game may be rowdy some time. But game cannot be unruly at any time. You cannot make politics of sport therefore. That is, politicize sport. You can make politics sport. But that is making politic apolitical, which is no politics.

Making it all confusing. Which is not the purpose of writing this piece. It is to note how so often sports is politicized by leaders of countries and how far this politicizing is correct.

Consider the recent India-Pakistan cricket series. The idea of it itself had a political bearing while the series was invested with very serious and heavy political agenda on the part of both the countries. When it concluded without a hitch the series became a milestone the political authorities of the two countries to have reached in the path that they were prepared to take to end their years old differences sportingly.

But look to this another instance of a sports event becoming a political platform.

Forca (Go for it) Portugal! From a boisterous chant football fan coined to bolster the local team playing in the ongoing Euro 2004 football championships in Lisbon, it became instantly a political slogan in Portugal. The Portuguese government turned it into its banner to fight European Parliament elections held in the country on Sunday, June 13.However, when mobile phone operator TMN based its television advertising campaign on this slogan, the National Election Commission stepped in to stop it.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso turned the catch phrase to his political advantage. “Good results,” he observed, “will help kick start the economy after a sharp downturn, lift the mood of despondency that has weighed the country down for three years and boost the tourism industry.”

The Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, not given to such circumlocution, likened football to politics as he gave tips to individual players in Sweden’s squad. “It’s results that count,” he observed.

Who says politics cannot take over sports? For that matter is there any field that politics does not intrude? To stretch the argument, it depends on what one understands as politics. The behavior between mother and child, even the talk between the two, is in a sense politics. Haven’t we heard of someone being politically correct, or told by someone to be politically correct?

But this is politics as politic in civility. The reference to politics in this article is to its civic sense.

It is as politics is commonly understood. Namely, politics of people in government, of people in power, of persons in legislative authority, and of those such like that. Politics of those supposing as placed in authority to shape the destiny of people at large.

Politics may be the last refuge of scoundrels. But scoundrels only can tell the rest what is right or wrong, what is good and bad, what is fair and unfair, and what is to their advantage or not.

It is politics like this to encroach on sports that is in question.

To analyze and examine the question look to this offshoot of another happening at Euro 2004 football championships.

When David Beckham did not bend like BECKHAM in England’s opener with France played on Sunday, June 13, the vast folk of his still growing female fan which is spread far and wide in and beyond England did not fret but instead wept.

France beat England 2-1. This, as fan felt, was because Beckham did not bend like he does playing football.

Disappointed though they were as England’s captain did not live up to his reputation, they roundly applauded Zinedine Zindane, called the finest footballer, as he scored goal the second time in second-half for France to win the game.

It was sports at full play, without politics in play.

The India-Pakistan cricket series is another instance to illustrate sports’ strong bonds. The event drew crowds from both the countries. The enthusiasts watching the game on the field were equally generous in applause for winners of both the sides. Players intermingled in a spirit of camaraderie. The series provided home base for people of one ethnicity separated in two countries.

Politics went into making this possible. But play of politics in sports is fine so long as it is aimed to bring people together.

Politics in bonding people by medium of sports is sporting. But in politicizing sports, it is simply plain politics.

GOING AFTER GRASSO’s MONEY - III

Court, Consent, or Common Cause?

It may be well nigh unlikely looking to their declared positions that Mr. Eliot Spitzer and Mr. Richard Grasso can be mutually consenting to compromising their interests to end their lawsuits. However, in the earlier two parts of this article on Grasso’s money, it was pointed out how consent is preferred to court action in the matter. But to consent there is to be a common cause.

Ordinarily, it is fear of losing a lawsuit that makes opposite parties to compromise, rather than run risk to battle in court. Such force to foreclose court action may not be there in the minds of the New York State’s Attorney General and the former chairman and chief executive of the New York Stock Exchange to impel them to end their legal wrangle.

But in Spitzer-Grasso hassle there fortunately obtains a common cause to resolve it. What is appealing is that it runs further to their contentious claims and beyond to the greater interest of the market. Let alone the two to the issue, a lot others, well-spirited ones, may favor it.

Those in the background, like the NYSE’s present chief, Mr. John Reed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, Mr. William Donaldson, may be drawn to it. At the same time, the NYSE, which also is made a party by Spitzer in his lawsuit, can immensely benefit by it.

The court itself may see it as a reasonable way to close the lawsuits.

The way out in the Spitzer-Grasso spar is not magical as it may sound. It is apparent in the squabble between the two itself. Because of conceit or convenience it has been lost in sight. It is brought in focus in this third and concluding part of the Grasso money article.

The option to resolve this controversial matter lies in letting Grasso keep his money but on the condition that he puts it back in NYSE. This may seem presumptuous, even paradoxical. But it is possible to be a reality.

At the height of controversy over Grasso’s money, it was made out that this had snowballed simply because of the clubbing together of the exchange’s two disparate functions, marketplace and regulation, into one single authority of the NYSE’s Board and the chairman and CEO. Governance become the catch word by then, it was further said that due to this one combined authority NYSE’s corporate governance was in disarray while the chairman-cum-CEO lorded as supreme.

To lend diligence to the board of directors, therefore, it was argued the NYSE should go public, like a listed company, and the positions of chairman and CEO should be separated. The exchange’s two separate functions could then vest in the two different authorities: regulation in the board and chairman, and market activity in the CEO reporting to the board of directors.

Nothing came of this, once Grasso left. But with Grasso still shadowing NYSE, the idea can be renewed. Left to his money, Grasso can be made to put it back to NYSE. He can be asked to subscribe to NYSE’s public offering, if not all of his money, a good part of it. It may be to Grasso’s heart to do this. It may also appeal to him, as investment in NYSE shares over time can be earning for him more than 8 per cent his accumulated dues did.

Fuming over Grasso’s money will cause unnecessary ruptures. Funneling it into NYSE can further interests of all. To this end Grasso can even be called back to head NYSE as the CEO. Nobody can deny as chairman and CEO Grasso led NYSE ably. Even Spitzer concedes as in his lawsuit he says, “Dick Grasso was a superb CEO”.

Grasso tells how superb he was in these words: “Under my leadership the NYSE earned over $900 million during my eight years as chairman and was sitting on over $800 million in cash and other liquid assets.”

Grasso can be depended to lend NYSE greater strength in its incarnation as a public corporation.

To conclude, therefore, there is a way out, a very honorable way to say, to deal in Grasso’s money. That is, if there is a will to make it a deal. It can be a delectable deal putting behind unlimited rancor that court action is bound to unleash.

Let the standing of NYSE rule the minds of all. Over the 211 years of existence NYSE has grown to be the world’s greatest stock exchange. It has grown out from a corporation into an institution. All owe it that it is not sullied in lawsuits but stands tall and towers as an institution.

GOING AFTER GRASSO’s MONEY - II

Court, Consent, or Common Cause?

Is resort to mutual consent the right course to take to resolve the issue of Grasso’s money when the recourse by the New York State’s Attorney General to court looks ill conceived? So often in claims suits, rather than adjudge themselves, courts ask opposing parties to compromise. Will the court in Mr. Eliot Spitzer’s lawsuit against Mr. Richard Grasso, regardless of the latter filing a counter suit he has said he will be, doing just that?

Should this be happening would the AG be saying his suit is itself to reach a settlement? For he is not claiming all of the $139.5 million which the Big Board has awarded the former chairman and chief executive officer of the New York Stock Exchange in retirement pay. He is asking for less, $100 million, of the amount.

But this would not mean a settlement really.

When court intervenes asking opposing parties in lawsuits to settle among themselves, it means this in lieu of court action. Spitzer’s saying he does not ask for all of Grasso’s money does not mean he wants less than what he has claimed in his lawsuit.

What about Grasso?

He has already pledged the very next day of Spitzer’s filing the suit against him on May 24 to file a counter suit. This means he would not give Spitzer $100 million the AG has claimed.

In the counter suit, as he has said in a signed article published in Wall Street Journal (May 25), he will be contending that all of his $139.5 million of retirement pay is “fully earned”. Furthermore, he would also claim the remainder of $48.5 million, which was not disclosed by the NYSE’s Board in his retirement package on August 27 last.

So what is there to expect by way of settlement in Spitzer v. Grasso case?

But when positions of Spitzer and Grasso are set so wide apart, compromise looks as the way out in Grasso’s money. Proceeded with on the other hand in court, the proceedings certainly are to be prolonged and prove costly. At the same time, the outcome may not be satisfactory in resolution of the matter.

As against Spitzer’s case that Grasso’s pay itself (not to mention retirement package) happened to be out of proportion of NYSE’s not-for-profit status, Grasso’s justification for all of his payment is that it was provided in contract made by the NYSE.

Even if made an issue of covenant v. contract, nowhere in Grasso’s pay was covenant made a stipulation of the contract. What was not there when contract was made cannot be brought in when the contract is to be fulfilled.

NYSE made with Grasso during his tenure of office not one but three contracts covering the terms of his pay, retirement dues and compensation. The NYSE’s board itself made them. When on August 27 last it disclosed his retirement package, the Board had unanimously endorsed it. It can be said that the Board did so because the package was covered by contract. But if that was understandable, it was important that the Board also decided to extend Grasso’s contract till the year 2007.

When as public disclosure was made concerned persons like Mr.William Donaldson, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, kicked up a howl of protest, it was still not over the package, but for demand that Grasso resign as NYSE’s chairman and CEO. In the wake of this Grasso called for a meeting of the Board to consider his position. Influential board members pre-empted Grasso and called a conference call meeting on September 17 for the single purpose to have Grasso to resign. Seven out of 27 Board members did not participate. Of the 20 who did 13 voted for Grasso to resign seven against. Grasso was ordered out of NYSE. But yet again, the Board did not question his retirement package, but told him to take it and go.

The Board was with Grasso in his millions till the end likely by way of contractual obligation.

Grasso did not defraud. Nor did he steal.

Contract is sacrosanct like property rights in democracy even if it were made to be egalitarian.

Can court abrogate NYSE’s contracts, as AG Spitzer demands, as having been outside its not-for-profit status?

All this said of Grasso’s package notwithstanding, consent is unavoidable to resolve it.

Grasso himself seems to be seeing this. Questioning Spitzer’s lawsuit challenging his package he has maintained that all of his dues were duly earned. So saying however he unwittingly gives vent to his own gut feeling that it was too much, if not far too much.

Grasso has said of his move to counter Spitzer’s suit that he would be vindicated in courtroom. He might as well think to be redeemed. Redemption will come with giving. By yielding.