Since the inception of MLS I've always been very appreciative of Phil Anschutz's commitment to soccer. And, I've always shrugged off his financial shennanigans as being of a world so above mine that it doesn't really impact me directly and as long as he has enough pocket change for soccer, that's all I care about it. But things like this make me pretty queezy about putting so much of my hard-earned money into his coffers. http://www.nypost.com/business/75901.htm Anschutz personally crusaded, unsuccessfully, against Colorado's recent law protecting rights of homosexuals, and fought a another new law allowing medical use of marijuana. He's told colleagues that he's "morally outraged" how Broadway shows are too sexy for children. His Anschutz Foundation has backed conservative college newspapers, funded radio prayer programs and bankrolled several Christian conservative causes, such as Morality in Media. It's his money and certainly his right to spend it how sees fit and to use his influence in whatever way he wants. That's part of the American way. But, even as a politcal moderate I'm uncomfortable with such a Right Wing zealot being soccer's Sugar Daddy. While I respect any person's right to their political opinion, I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable that by supporting MLS I'm helping someone so involved with the religious right? It never hit me till I read this article but all the money I spend on DCU stuff and the MLS Shootout package, etc... goes to someone who has a political ideolgy that is very intolerant. The irony of this is that both DC United and MLS have always advocated inclusion and unity and embracing different cultures and that kind of mind set is generally associated with political tolerance that is pretty much opposed to what Phil Anschutz stands for. So, as much as I appreciate what "St. Phil" does for American soccer, I sure wish the club's biggest benefactor - not to mention the owner of the team I have supported for eight years - was someone whose actions away from soccer I had an easier time stomaching. I hate turning sports discussions into political ones. I totally respect people whose poilitical opinions are different than mine and I'm not anti-Republican. I'm actually a political moderate and I voted for our current president and supported the war in Iraq and even read the Washington Times! But, there is Republican and then there's the Religious Right, whose intolerance I can't stomach and I'm suddenly bothered that someone whom I can't stomach owns our club. Mod's Note Just fixed the link.
This thread should be moved to MLS (non-news and analysis). It's simply not appropriate here. Sandon wants to discuss Anschutz's dirty laundry. When he wanted to discuss Santino's dirty laundry that's closer, but this is either business or MLS general, but not DC United. Yeah, he's our owner, but the topic has little to do with soccer in general (politics forum maybe?) and certainly is not DC United specific. Chat about it if you like, but it's really off-base here. There are plenty of political debates on the net, would you guys mind if we actually kept this site to soccer stuff? -Digital
First I think you have the wrong link. Second, look at some of the things he's funding and ask yourself if you have a problem with it. A national radio prayer, Morality in the Media, it's not like he's funding terrorists. These are good things. So do you have a problem with wearing shoes because they were all made in sweat shops? Almost every product you buy will spend their money on something you don't support. What's so bad about supporting someone so involved in religion? I'm a Christian. If I wanted to sell you a jersey or something would you refuse because I might give the money to my local church? It sounds to me more like you have a problem with the religious side of Anschutz than the political side. To say that he's intolerant is unfair. He believes in a right and a wrong. If everyone was right, that means I could go rape some girl, claim that because it was right in my mind, it was OK and get away with it. That's stupid. Because he supports what he feels is right doesn't make him intolerant, the same way that I'm a Christian doesn't mean that I can't be open minded to other people's beliefs.
I don't know. It's a hard line for me to walk as well, especially because of Anschutz's connections with the oil companies, which I really don't like. And I truly despise the Christian Right for its closed-mindedness and attitude that we will all go to hell if we don't agree with them. Anschuz is also very much one of the Republican Party's 'fat cats' but at the same time he's trying to singlehandedly keep afloat the sport I love more than any other. I guess I just try to make the soccer part of things as apolitical as possible, even though I know that I can't wish away what he does the rest of the time. As to whether or not we should be discussing this stuff, we all (or at least most of us) live and/or work in arguably the most political city in the world. What happens on Capitol Hill, at the White House, etc. is literally our local news. I am sure that some of the people on this board work for the government in some way. So it's almost natural for some of us to talk about politics at times. I'm a little surprised that this kind of stuff doesn't come up here more often. It probably says something that despite being where we are and spending our weekends in one of the only venues this city has to truly manifest itself as an entity separate from the federal government, I don't really know the political affiliations of anyone on this board. I remember that some time ago someone tried to start a movement of DC United fans who wanted to get involved with the push to get the District voting rights in Congress, but that died out pretty quickly. So I think we can have a sound, reasoned political debate here, or at least have a thread where people can air their views on an issue like this which is broader than just soccer or just homosexuality or just anything else.
See, this is the beauty of sports. A "closed-minded-everyone-is-going-to-hell" guy such as myself can stand next to a guy like dcajedi and cheer together. How 'bout that?
### MODERATOR'S NOTE ### I've rethought my initial idea about considering this on topic with the stipulations that 1) we keep the DC United angle going 2) we don't make this into a political debate and 3) we keep the discussion serious and respectful. Let's see how things develop before making a decision about this thread's fate. If they do go OK then it can stay. If things don't go well then I'll move this thread ... somewhere. And if the other mods think it should be moved then that's OK by me too.
But here's the thing. Without getting into the merits of Phil's (or anyone else's) political views, to its opponents, Morality In Media is an organization that limits consumer choice and possibly undermines the right to free expression. So yes, it's possible for a reasonable person to be against it and other issues that you may consider to be "right". Now, does supporting one of Phil's MLS franchises translate to supporting his political causes? Yes and no, I think. Yes, his causes certainly aren't hurt every time you buy a DC United ticket. But as far as MLS is concerned, probably not, as soccer is such a small part of his empire. Anyhoo, as much as I disagree with the Christian Right, Phil certainly has the right to support any political cause he chooses to champion, just as one day when I'm filthy rich, I will support my own deviant causes.
Mike, I certainly don't disagree with Anschutz's right to assert his political views. In fact, even though I may disagree with some of them, I encourage him to express them. (Not that he needs my encouragement.) But, he's the owner of the team I support. If Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson owned DC United, I don't think I'd support the team. But, what if there were no other owner out there? Then what? Then I'd have quite a dilema to make because it would either be support a guy I had a strong disagreement with politcally or not support soccer at all. I see this as the same thing. I guess in some wierd way I'm intrigued by the conflict. I wish DCU had a different owner but even though I disagree with a lot of what he does, I still support him. I guess that testifies to how much I love soccer and DCU that despite what Anschutz stands for I still am grateful to him for his commitment to the sport and for bankrolling DCU when no one else would. BTW, sorry about posting the wrong link - this "should" be the right one. chttp://www.nypost.com/business/75901.htm Oh, and this is why I think this is relevant to DCU - I remember going to a meeting of season ticketholders back in 96 or 97 where Kevin Payne stood up and said that "United" wasn't just the team name but stood for what he wanted the team to help do in the community. Well, what if that included gays or liberals or anything else that Anschutz is opposed to? I guess I just see the causes Anschutz supports as being intolerant and I always saw DCU as being the opposite of that. Of course, the commitment to United helping united the community was made before Anschutz owned the team and I wonder if now that he owns it the team still stands for the same thing.
"Anschutz personally crusaded, unsuccessfully, against Colorado's recent law protecting rights of homosexuals, and fought a another new law allowing medical use of marijuana. He's told colleagues that he's "morally outraged" how Broadway shows are too sexy for children. " I LIKE ANSCHUTZ EVEN MORE NOW!! good to know major league soccer has a good moral man at the helm another reason to support teams owned by Anschutz
I hope this is staying on topic but if its not it is at least respectful and has to do with Uncle Phil. 8) I think this is an obvious case in point where we see that "the Repuplican Party's 'fat cats'" are very good for the country. Now I don't want to discuss political issues like taxes and stuff like that, but would just like to say that only the people who have an extreme excess of funds have the funds it takes to start and get going many business adventures that benefit big portions of society. Bill Gates was blasted in the media for making the arguement that it is better to take 1 billion dollars and start new businesses with it than it is to give $1 Billion to charities because the billion investment will pay out many times more over time and the charity stuff will help a lot of people today or this year and then need to be given again tomorrow. I wish people would look at things like this.
I actually don't agree with what you said. What I do disagree with is those people using their money to gain influence over politicians, and using that influence on the Hill, in the White House, etc. for their own personal ends instead of those of the greater good. A few examples are: the oil industry and our "national energy policy" which does not do enough to directly promote alternative-energy vehicles, the massive consolidation in the radio industry, and the ending of the assault rifle ban.
And as far as where Phil's money is going I'll just quote and comment real quick: "Anschutz personally crusaded, unsuccessfully, against Colorado's recent law protecting rights of homosexuals" I don't know the specifics of the laws, but when I see legislation proposed I wonder why homosexuals need more protection than nonhomosexuals. Can't we just have protection and basic rights for all human beings reguardless of race, gender, or sexual preference? "and fought a another new law allowing medical use of marijuana." I don't know whether Marijuana should be medically legal, but I might be one of the few "conservative Christians" who think Marijuana should be legal PERIOD. Even though I disagree with him I don't see the difference of opinion on this to be a serious issue. "He's told colleagues that he's "morally outraged" how Broadway shows are too sexy for children." And what is the problem with that? Come on that is HIS OPINION. My wife's grandfather thought it was abhorrant for her to be out past dark when we were dating. I don't hold that against him. "His Anschutz Foundation has backed conservative college newspapers," I think all newspapers are good because they promote the flow of information. However what is backing? I bought girlscout cookies, but in no way do I actually consider myself BACKING the girlscouts. They just make good cookies. "funded radio prayer programs and bankrolled several Christian conservative causes, such as Morality in Media" Real data would be nice, but again I think this is getting silly. I have given a lot of money to Christian causes from paying for the building of hospitals in third world countries to providing food for starving children to helping pay for the construction of roofs on houses with straw roofs. If anybody is offended because I spend my money to back things like this I think the issue is with the person offended. "Christian causes" is very broad and seems to be used as a phrase with a negative connotation rather than as a substance filled arguement. I don't know what Morality in the Media is. The sad thing is that there is a conception of a "Christian Right" at all. Christians over the course of the US were typically for regulation of big business and other policies that are considered "left" and for morality legislation which we'd consider "right". There was actually a party that held both of those views called the Populists. Now, the media makes up this left to right spectrum and people actually believe it. This branding of individuals as the "far right" or the "Christian right" serves more as a stereotype and the neoracism (really sectarianism) than it does to actually provide constructive discussion. BTW, if Pat Robertson sold his home he could probably buy an MLS stadium. His home is worth about $6 million. If he put in $6 million I bet he coudl get a package to get the rest done! Of course if an MLS team was owned by Jessie Jackson would people feel the same way? When the black man was pulled behind a pickup to his death in Texas Jessie Jackson called the mother and let her know he would speak at his funeral for $6000 according to the statement she made to the Houston Chronicle. There are just a lot of sleazy people with a lot of money and as far as I can tell Uncle Phil is one of the best ones we, MLS, could hope for.
Guys, let's try to keep this from being a debate about conservative causes and more a discussion about whether what Phil supports impacts the team's views on being "united" and whether that decision,or his political views, impact how any of us feel about supporting the team. And for the record, I think this discussion would have just as much merit if, instead of Phil Anschutz, we were talking about Phil Donahue or Martin Sheen or any other rich and influential liberal owning United.
Segroves is right, and... WAIT!! OH DEAR GOD NO!! IT'S THE APOCALYPSE! FLEE!! Seriously, in a market economy it sometimes pays to keep the transactions simple. If someone is selling a product you enjoy and appreciate, and want them to continue providing it, you're well within your (moral) rights to purchase and enjoy said product. You've upheld your end of the bargain. Now in cases where there are suitable replacements for the product, you can occassionally consider which proprietor is more worthy of your support, but that's not the case with MLS. Anschutz provides a product you enjoy that no one else is providing (local top flight soccer). Buy it.
It gets worse "To his credit, the 63-year-old billionaire was branded the greediest executive in America by Forbes magazine—the magazine that calls itself "the capitalist tool"—topping a list that included consensus vulture Gary Winnick, founder of Global Crossing." When you top the list "scumbags" at Forbes, well you know you have been one naughty boy. He pretty much pulled an Enron, it just wasn't as obvious and he wasn't as close to the White House as "Kenny Boy" ( W's pet name for Ken Lay ). As for crusading against the law protecting the rights of homosexuals, don't you think homosexuals in Colorado have had it bad enough? They aren't getting any "extra" rights, they are just trying to protect the ones they have. When your trying to take peoples freedom from them, thats when things get sticky. Some more love for Uncle Phil http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/35/news-callahan.php With that said, I think the mentioning of Pat Robertson owning an MLS team was unfunny and uncalled for and just down right scary. The image of that man blaming a teams loss on premarital sex and gay marriage would be an abomination.
Soccer has a long history of helping people learn about other cultures and peoples and helping in a small way at times to make them more tolerant of others so I'll remember that as I give money to AEG. The above doesn't apply to LA/San Jose as we hate them more now!!!
[sarcasm] I was shocked, SHOCKED, when I found out that the person holding the bag for MLS might actually have political views. This may make me rethink my love for the sport in general. [/sarcasm] Oh, good God. Bottom line: if Phil Anschutz bothers you that much, don't go to United games. Don't use Qwest or any other company he may own. Don't go to LA Kings games or the Home Depot Center. You've got a right to do all of them. Or not. But relentless moralizing over where to spend your money puts you just about in the same boat as him, albeit on the other end of the spectrum.
As far as I'm concerned, the MLS could be run by an unholy alliance of Hitler's brain, Saddam Hussein, Jim Bakker, Ramsey Clark, and Jacques Chirac and I'd still go to games. I don't care where Anshutz wants to spend his money nor do I care what his political beliefs are. Without him, there would very likely be no MLS.
Sandon Mibut , everybody has opinions just like everyone has an a$$hole. As far as Anshutz goes, its his money, and his opinion. Whoo the hell cares if it doesn't agree with yours. If you don't like it - go make a billion dollars and support your own cause.
it makes me uncomfortable that you have a problem with a guy who is a highly moral man! So he wants prayer and it anti gay??? Wow. I guess if he isn't some kind of tree hugging shallow hollywood cause which have some merit sometimes, but when I see kids dying in the streets and homeless in Asmerica and then I watch Barbra Streisand worry about little animals for fur, It just makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with Hollywood!?!! So the guy is not cut from that mold!!!! Thank God!! he support causes that can actually have a positive influence!!!
Re: Re: Anschutz - does this make anyone else uncomfortable? Replies like this show why starting political threads in team fora is a bad idea. Mods, how about either closing this thread or moving it to the Politics board?