Ep 24: The Politics of Lawyering - Featuring Andrew Brandt

On this week’s filibuster, Jemele takes the Los Angeles Dodgers to task for visiting the White House after Donald Trump’s administration temporarily erased Jackie Robinson’s military history on the Department of Defense’s website. Jemele is then joined by sports business guru Andrew Brandt, who has worked in a NFL front office, negotiated player contacts, and is the  executive director of the Moorad Center for the Study of Sports Law at Villanova University. Andrew breaks down the $6.1 billion sale of the Boston Celtics, why he believes the Dallas Cowboys are worth $10 billion, and what revenue sharing will bring to college sports. Andrew also shares his choice for the Sports Business Hall of Fame, meaning which players who have secured great contracts despite not having the results to match. Plus, Jemele answers an intriguing question from a SPOLITICS listener: Who is her all-time Detroit Pistons starting 5?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, what's up, everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm Jamel Hill and welcome to politics and I heeart
podcasts and Unbothered production.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Time to get spolitical.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
This week, the Los Angeles Doctors made their way to
the White House to commemorate their World series win, making
them the first professional team to visit Donald Trump in
the White House during his second presidency. Now, I'm not
surprised the Doctors went to the White House, but I'm
still disappointed they chose to kei key with the President,
whose administration just recently tried to literally erase Jackie Robinson's

(00:40):
military contributions from the Department of Defense's website as part
of this administration's endless and thoughtless campaign to rid all
government institutions of dei, which has come to encompass any
piece of history that tells the truth about the legacy
of white supremacy in this country. It was only after
the Trump administration was shamed by journalists and the public

(01:02):
did the Department of Defense restore the web page that
featured Jackie Robinson, who served in the United States Army
before being honorably discharged after he was found not guilty
following a bogus attempt to court martial him because he
wouldn't sit in the back of the bus. But that
embarrassing incident has not at all slowed down this administration's
continued efforts to erase and whitewash this country's history. The

(01:25):
National Park Service removed references to Harriet Tubman from their
web page on the Underground Railroad. The website used to
state the truth that Tubman organized and operated the Underground
Railroad partially in response to the Fugitive Slave Act, a
federal law that passed in eighteen fifty that allowed fugitive
and free slaves to be captured and enslaved, and those

(01:46):
who aided in slave fugitives were punished. Side note, go
look at Texas's abortion law. Let's just say they copied
a little bit off the Fugitive Slave Act's paper. In
the National Park Services updated version of the Significance of
the Underground Railroad, they failed to mention that nasty business
about hunting people who were owned by other people. Instead,
it reads like a bunch of black folks just decided

(02:08):
to take a little road trip in the name of togetherness.
And oh how I wish I was being facetious. Here's
the National Park's exact description of what the underground Railroad was.
The underground railroad flourished from the end of the eighteenth
century to the end of the Civil War, was one
of the most significant expressions of the American civil rights

(02:29):
movement and expression. So suddenly, the underground Railroad is interpretive dance.
During its evolution over more than three centuries, the underground
Railroad bridged the divid of race, religion, sectional differences, and nationality.
Wait a minute, bridges the divide. The enslaved black people
were running from the white people who were trying to

(02:49):
put them back into bondage. It was an escape, not
a meet cute. It spanned state lines and international borders,
and joined the American ideals of liberty and freedom expressed
in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to the
extraordinary actions of ordinary men and women working in.

Speaker 1 (03:06):
Common purpose to free of people the deepest of Negro size.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
Now not to go off on a longer tangent, but
to kind of go off on a longer tangent. Trump
is also coming after the National Museum of African American
History and Culture in Washington, d C. Which is part
of the prestigious Smithsonian. Trump is specifically targeting the museum's
slavery exhibit because it is a raw experience. I've been
to this museum and it's one of the best museums

(03:33):
in the world. The slavery exhibit takes up the entire
bottom floor and is one of its most powerful components.
It does not back down from the truth that America
became an economic and global superpower because of slavery. On
top of the precious artifacts in this exhibit, it tells
the painful story of America's foundation and how we came
to this country. Trump has called the museum quote ideologically unacceptable.

(03:58):
Now I'm trying to be a Christian this week, so
I'm I'm not going to say what I really want
to say, but you already know what I'm thinking. But
let me just say this. The people who are dedicated
to e racing history do so because they actually want
to repeat it. So the Trump administration's efforts to erase
Jackie Robinson is on brand. And when they did that,
you would think you would have heard a loud and

(04:19):
angry response from the Dodgers. Instead, you heard this. And
when it came to Major League Baseball, you heard a
whole lot of cowardice from Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob.

Speaker 3 (04:32):
Manfred to see the headline that you guys took diversity
out off the website and all of the stuff that's
going on there. I understand deis under attack, but why
remove that word, the diversity word, especially being as though
that MLB is the most diverse league of all the
professional sports by far right the most diverse league, and
you look at the history there, Jackie Robinson D's coming up,

(04:55):
Why remove that world? What was the thinking behind that?

Speaker 1 (04:57):
The citson.

Speaker 4 (04:57):
Well, you know, I am, if nothing else, pragmatic. You know,
I have paid very close attention to what's going on
in Washington. The EOC issued some guidance just last week.
There was pretty pointed about, you know, certain red flag
issues with respective programs. Our view was that we should

(05:21):
go through our programs do the very best we could
to make sure that we would not be a target.
And if we avoid being a target, we can continue
with those programs to do all the good work we've
done over a series of years and avoid the situation
where you've become a target and the programs get blown

(05:41):
up altogether. I just don't I was managing my downside.
Maybe it's the best way to say it.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
If you scare, just that you scared, you bit the knee.
And what's so insulting and infuriating about Manfred's approach is
that this is the same league that asked Jackie Robinson
to take all the smoke so that they could sell
white people on the idea of baseball's integration and most importantly,
it would allow the league to gain access to black
baseball talent. But now that Jackie Robinson needs the league

(06:11):
to stand ten toes down for his legacy, this is
all they got.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
Does Jackie Robinson? They change at all with the fact
that the diversity issue and then the obviously the government
removing Jackie Robinson's history replacing the back. But does that
change that off of MLB?

Speaker 4 (06:26):
You know, I think Jackie Robinson transcends any debate that's
going on in today's society about issues surrounding DEI. I mean,
what Jackie Robinson stands for was moving us past and
an overt kind of segregation that I don't believe anybody

(06:48):
actually supports today, and he's a symbol of that. He's
an important part of our history and we will continue
to celebrate him as we always have.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Only Jackie Robinson doesn't transcend diverse the equity and inclusion
he personifies it. Despite the NonStop campaign to weaponize DEI,
the entire purpose of DEI always has been rooted in
giving qualified Let me repeat that for the cheap seats
qualified people an opportunity that they wouldn't have otherwise received

(07:17):
because they have historically been barred or overlooked from those opportunities.
Jackie Robinson is the ultimate example of DEI. He was
qualified to play in Major League Baseball, but without Dodgers
executive branch Ricky, he doesn't get that opportunity. And without
Jackie Robinson, there is no Mookie Bets and there is
no show. Hey Otani, I recently went to see the

(07:38):
Dodgers play against my Detroit Tigers, and their stadium is
filled with.

Speaker 1 (07:42):
Jackie Robinson memorabilia.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
They're more than happy to display Jackie Robinson, more than
happy to be part of Jackie Robinson Day on April fifteenth.
But if you're not willing to defend the name and
legacy of the most important player in baseball's history against
the same white supremacy, then I have to wonder if
what Jackie Robinson thought was even worth it.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
I'm Jamel Hill and I approved this message.

Speaker 2 (08:05):
On this episode of Politics, We're going to have an
elevated sports business conversation with one of the top sports.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
Business experts in the game.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
He's worked in the front office in the NFL, been
an agent, a deal maker, having managed salary caps and
negotiated contracts on behalf of Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing,
among others.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
On top of.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
Writing for Sports Illustrated and hosting a podcast, he's also
executive director of Villanova's Morad Center for the Study of
Sports Law.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
We're going to chop it up about the transfer portal, how.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
College sports is about to be completely transformed by a
current judicial decision. Plus, he has some incredible advice for
young people who want to get into the business of sports.
Coming up next on his politics sports business guru Andrew Brand. Andrew,

(08:57):
I want to thank you so much for joining me here, Ontz.
We have so much to get to I can't wait
to dive in deep about this six billion dollars sale
of the Boston Celtics. But before we even get there,
let me start by asking you a question that I
asked every guest that appears on politics, and that is
name an athlete or a sports moment that made you
love sports.

Speaker 5 (09:16):
Oh, it's a great one. I'm going to show my
age here. I grew up in Washington, d C. And
they were called I grew up rooting for two teams
that have different names now. One was the Washington Redskins.
I think I'm allowed to say that, and one was
the Washington Bullets. I know I'm allowed to say that.

(09:38):
But the Washington Redskins as they were called, finally won
a Super Bowl at the height of my youth. And
it was John Riggins, the big bulking fullback that ran
over a Miami Dolphins player I believe named Don McNeil,
who was the last shot at him after the line
of scrimmage and then he was gone. It was just
one of those moments where this well of energy and

(10:01):
burst of emotion came into me, like that's the team
that I followed since I was a baby. My dad
taken me to Washington games at RFK Stadium growing up.
It was such a bonding experience for me my father,
and then it happened with that Super Bowl championship. We'd
actually weren't at that game where at the game of
the year before where they lost to the Oakland Raiders

(10:21):
and Marcus Allen. So that's the moment that just sort
of welled up in me and like, isn't sports great?
I mean, isn't sports just a wonderful, romantic thing?

Speaker 2 (10:30):
And considering those emotional memories most of us have, it's
to me even more fascinating that you go from, you know,
loving it as a fan and as a consumer to
then making the daring decision to become a part of
the sports industry where you actually learn how the steak
is made, which takes away a little bit of the

(10:52):
unsexiness no, I know, of loving sports. And just to
give people a little bit of insight into your background,
I mean, you know, right now, I believe you're still
the executive director of the Jeffrey S.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Morat Center.

Speaker 2 (11:06):
Hopefully I'm saying that correct, for the study of sports
law at Villanova, so you have a very academic title. However,
you know that being said, You've been a sports executive,
You've been a sports agent. You're a columnist, you know,
featured in Sports Illustrated and The Athletic. You have a podcast,
The Business of Sports. You know, with Andrew Brant, just
have an extensive knowledge of this industry from the executive

(11:31):
level and from also from a point of like negotiating
and understanding how these big deals you know, are made,
and of course like a lot of people. And maybe
this isn't necessarily the go to content when for sports fans,
But when I saw that the Boston Celtics have been
sold for six billion dollars, and this is off them

(11:53):
coming off of course winning an NBA championship.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
Last year, clearly their value.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
Everyone knew that the Celtics, being the brand that they
are in sports, that their value was incredible. But looking
at this sale, to me, the implications of this sale
means so much for sports. And I know you've taken
a broader, you know, kind of perspective about what this
sale actually means. So let's just start with the bare
bones of it again. Boston Celtics sold for six billion dollars.

(12:23):
What is this signaling to us about the market for
sports teams?

Speaker 5 (12:28):
First, if you allow me, before I get to the Celtics,
when you talked about seeing the underbelly of sports and
my background and now advising so many young people, everyone
wants to get into sports, and what I tell them as, yes,
it's exciting, it's sexy, it's glamorous, but you've got to
understand why you're getting in because it's hard work and
it's so competitive. And when you get into sports, you

(12:49):
can maintain that. We talked about that love, that romanticism,
that passion about sports, but it'll fade pretty quickly.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
You know.

Speaker 5 (12:57):
I was an agent at a young age working with
Mike Jordan and Patrick Ewing and I'm like, this is
so cool. Well that faded about a week and then
it's like, get to work. You have very demanding clients
on the agent on the agent side that happen to
be athletes, but you gotta work. And when you go
to the team side, yeah, some days you win a
big game, some days you lose a big game, but

(13:19):
you just got to keep it going and it's hard work.
So I hope everyone understands getting into sports, it's if
you're getting in because the glamour of the sexiness you're
going to be around famous athletes, it's not going to last.
You'll get burned out very quickly. You've got to the passion.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
Helps.

Speaker 5 (13:36):
Of course, we love sports, but I always tell young people.
You've got to figure out what it is about you
that differentiates you from the pack. What's your special sauce.
Let's people coming to me say, I want to be
an agent. All right, let's role play. I'm an agent,
you're an agent. I'm a player. Why would I sign
with you? Why would I sign with you? And that

(13:56):
gets people's attention. Okay, monologue over.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
The insulted and that's the end of your hollogue? Too quick?

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Is that understanding that in certain you know than in leagues?
Now you know the contracts are structured the way they're structured,
Like the rookie deal is the rookie deal when you get.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
In the NFL. It's the same way in the NBA.
So if you're an agent trying to procure an athlete services,
to your point about the special sauce, it needs to
be something very apparent because they could literally not have
you there, and they could have a stuffed animal who
could negotiate that first deal because the money's sort of
baked into what it is.

Speaker 5 (14:30):
I know a lot of young people listen to your
podcasts that maybe want to get into sports, and I
would say this when you're applying, when you're getting into
someone when you want to meet a people like me,
or you show something different, as I said, but have
more than the next person, than the next guy or
the next girl. In other words, so people come to
me I love the salary cap. I'm like, great, what

(14:50):
do you know about it? Have you blogged about it?
Have you podcasted about it? Are you sending me a
spreadsheet of how you would manage a certain team's cap?
Have you done research on it? I met a kid
the other day, Well, I have a podcast, but only
thirty people.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
Listen to it.

Speaker 5 (15:04):
I'm like, great, You're ahead of all your peers who
have no podcasts and no listeners. So keep that going.
So I think you have to understand that if you're
in sports, it's great, we all love it, but we're
not the sports. The sports are the athletes. We're the periphery.
Whether it's media, agents, team executives, sponsors, it's all periphery.

(15:28):
So that's the athletes are the product. And speaking of which,
the most expensive product in the NBA all five starters
make over thirty million dollars. They just came off winning
the championship. Before the last confetti even fell, it seemed
like they went on the market. I was shocked, but
I thought about it afterwards. When the Boston Celtics went

(15:49):
on the market in July, Jamel, I'm like after shock,
I'm like, oh, I get it sell high. You know,
they just won the championship. The guy the leading ownership,
grouse Beck, has owned it for a while. They've built
it up. They have the highest payroll in the league,
not only highest peril, the highest luxury tax ever with

(16:09):
the new CBA and the second apron and all that's
going to be extraordinary tax penalties. So put it on
the market and the July start date ended last week.
We have liftoff. We have a sale to a guy
named Bill Chisholm who's from the private equity world, who's
got a group with him, and like we've talked about

(16:31):
six point one billion dollars. I was struck because I
knew as part of this sale there was not, I
repeat not an arena. So a lot of the sales
in the NBA, including Matt Ishbia buying the Suns for
four billion three years ago with the arena, this has
no arena. The TD Bank not part of that. That's

(16:51):
owned by the Jacobs Group in Boston, with the Bruins,
et cetera. So that's not even part of it. And
I also looked at at Jamel as okay, this this
is like players. You know, somebody made forty million a year,
so Jamar Chase makes forty point twenty five a year.
The Celtics are like the Commander's sold for six point
oh five billion, so we're going to sell for six

(17:13):
point one and they got it. They got it. And
my point is we can talk more about this is
that NFL owners were to my primarily cover have to
be smiling ear to year because yes, it's a dual
franchise in the NBA, I get it, but it's the
NBA with total revenues a twelve billion a year, the
NFL last report maybe twenty two to twenty three billion

(17:36):
a year. And imagine what pick a team, any team
is going to make after this sale. It's extraordinary.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
So putting on your you know, sports executive business had
was this a good deal? Because I want people to
understand this. They have paid six billion for a team
and don't own the arena. All right, And as you mentioned,
the Celtics have the highest payroll in the league. The
taxes they are going the luxury tax they're going to

(18:05):
have to pay for the salaries they're paying right now,
is going to be what would you ballpark it?

Speaker 5 (18:10):
Or?

Speaker 1 (18:10):
I mean, is there a ballpark figure you can give me?

Speaker 5 (18:13):
Well, going forward, if we look two years out, probably
a cumulative two hundred and seventy five eighty million dollars.

Speaker 1 (18:18):
Okay, so that's in luck taxes.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
So that's that's another two seventy five all right, on
top of the six billion you have paid and you
don't own. You can't get any money from concessions, tickets, concerts,
none of that. Was this a good deal for Was
this a good deal for Chisholm.

Speaker 1 (18:38):
For the buyer?

Speaker 5 (18:39):
But obviously it's a good deal for the sealery.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
Yes, it's a good deal for the Grosspec family for sure.

Speaker 5 (18:43):
Yeah. I guess I'll answer it this way. A story
about the Commander's sale. I'm from DC. As I mentioned,
the richest guy I was friends with calls me one day.
He's looking at this prospectus from Josh Harris, the owner
of the Commanders before he bought it, and he's like, Andrew,
am I getting this right? I'm seeing that I have
to I give him two hundred million dollars and all

(19:05):
I see I really get is good tickets in a
parking pass. I'm like, yeah, that's about all you're going
to get. And people have to understand. And the sale
came out at six billions, so two hundred million was
three percent. I called my friend. I said, yeah, for
three percent, that's all you get. He didn't make that purchase.
But this is what I would say about Chisholm optics

(19:27):
are No, that's not a good deal. It's whatever percent
above the four billion that is should be paid for
the sons who had an arena. It's extraordinary price. But
but why do you get in? Why would my friend
have gotten in on the Commanders Because that's six billion
in pick a year, ten years is going to be

(19:48):
worth eighteen billion and he'll sell it for a three
time profit there. I mean, it's just like, where is
the end? I thought when Steve Balmer bought the Clippers
for two billion in twenty that twenty two thousand and
five or six, like, oh my god, that was the bubble,
I thought, Jamal. I really did, because before that the

(20:10):
highest purchase price in the NBA was the Bucks for
five hundred and fifty million dollars, so they almost quadrupled that.
So I am an expert and I have no idea
where this is going, but I think it's only going up,
only north.

Speaker 2 (20:28):
So from that standpoint, if this team, if this wasn't
the Celtics fake for sale, you know, let's say it
was the Cavaliers or the Pistons, that's.

Speaker 1 (20:39):
My hometown team.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Yeah, is this A lot of this has to do
with the brand, because could the Celtics or not the Celtics.
Could the Pistons have sold for six billion? I mean,
is so much of this exactly?

Speaker 1 (20:53):
So a lot of this is tied up in the
fact that this is the brand of the Celtics.

Speaker 5 (20:57):
Having said that, I'm not sure Pistons, Cavaliers, Pelicans, any Wizards,
any of them would not eclipse the four billion, because
I think we're in this phase now where it would
have eclipsed the four billion any NBA franchise because that's
the last best sale. And yes, but on the other hand,

(21:18):
I do think the name brand value of the Celtics
did put it at that elevated.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
Level you said a moment ago, And this is kind
of where I wanted to go with this discussion. About
where this is going. I think there's an assumption that
at some point there's got to be a bubble, right,
there's got to be a ceiling where people say, no more,
this is it. I think probably over the last five years,
and you kind of alluded to this, we have seen

(21:43):
the value of sports franchises absolutely skyrocket.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
And I think you've mentioned this before in your own podcast.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
That they it's skyrocketed passed player salary. Yes, right, because
I think people see the player salaries, they see a show, Hey,
a tany making five hundred million or and they think like,
oh my god, this is out of control.

Speaker 1 (22:02):
No, y'all don't know what these franchises are worth.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
So what would you say is attributing to the fact
that these franchises, their values are skyrocketing so much.

Speaker 5 (22:15):
One thing I know about player contract negotiations, it applies
to team contract negotiations scarcity. Think about that word. That
word brings so much value. Why quarterbacks make so much,
why defensive ends make so much, why shut down cornerbacks
make so much. There's a scarcity. So on that level,
you see the value of so few at a position

(22:36):
that are at high level. And I think the same
thing is true about franchises live. I know friends all
over Europe that follow soccer. Those are open leagues as relegation,
there's promotion. We live in a world in American sports
with closed leagues. You can't get in. The only way
you can get in is an expansion franchise. And we
can talk about how high those vyers are going now,

(22:58):
but you can't get these things. They are the precious jewels.
And as everyone knows, we didn't know who Bill Chisholm
was until last week. He's a billionaire, but we didn't know.
And if that's part of the psychosocial reasons, that's another
part of it. You just can't get these things. They're
so scarce, and that trajectory again, twenty eighteen doesn't seem

(23:22):
like long ago. Carolina Panthers sold for two point two
billion record, two years later, Denver Broncos sold for four
point six billion record, one year later Commander six point
oh five billion. So I don't know where the next
one is going now. The Patriots are never going to
sell in the family, the Cowboys are never going to

(23:42):
sell in the family, the Steelers are never going to
sell in the family. A lot of these franchises are
never going to sell, and that makes it even more scarce.
The Eagles and the Lowery family, it's just not going
to happen. So these are why it just becomes such
a special thing. You can apply that to baseball teams
and basketball teams and our teams. I don't know where

(24:05):
it's going, but I do know it's going north. I
just think scarcity makes these franchises such precious, rare resources.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
Now, the new owner of the Celtics comes from the
private equity world. Correct in the best most layman, most
simple explanation that you can, can you explain to my
politics listeners what private equity is.

Speaker 5 (24:34):
Private equity is fund money. I guess the best way
to describe it is quote unquote corporate money, or institutional money,
or passive money. So in other words, when we talk
about individual ownership, there's a person, there's a face. In
the case of the NFL, you go to these meetings,
there's a face of every team. And we haven't allowed
for corporate ownership until this year. Now we have private

(24:54):
equity money. It's basically an investment fund of a lot
of people that is put forward by an investment firm,
a private equity firm into the funding of a franchise. Now,
twenty nineteen was the first of the major American sports
leagues to allow this. That was the NBA, then Major

(25:15):
League Baseball, then hockey, and just as I mentioned, this year,
private equity is coming into the NFL. For the other leagues,
they allow up to twenty percent of franchise value and
private equity. So in the Celtics case, not only is
Chisholm's money in it, but there's a billion from Sixth Street,
which is a private equity firm. A billion is under

(25:36):
the twenty percent maximum allowed by the NBA, So private
equity is actually funding sixteen seventeen percent of the Celtics purchase.
NFL it's up to ten percent already. The Bills, the Eagles,
and the Dolphins have taken advantage of that. So imagine
you're the owner of the Eagles, Jeff Lori say your

(25:58):
franchise is worth roughly seven billion dollars. You can sell
off and as he did, seven hundred million dollars in
liquidation and just have the money. Private equity gets no control,
doesn't tell you who a fire, coach, or hire or
pick players. They have no control whatsoever. They're just passive money.
So when I talked about my friend, he's like, why

(26:20):
would I do that? Well, he's an individual, he cares.
Private EQUITYMIA doesn't care. They're in it for the exit,
and the exit could be five, ten, fifteen, thirty years
and their investors get paid off when that happens. And
there's no shortage of people trying to invest in these
funds that have an ability to invest in sports teams
because of all the reasons I talk about, it's a

(26:42):
recession proof investment right now.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
You know, one of the things that has always been
a topic of conversation is whether or not we will
see majority African American ownership. We do have a majority
minority owner in the NFL in Shag Cohan, who owns
the Jacksonville Jaguars, but the NFL has never had a

(27:08):
majority black team owner. Considering the scarcity, considering now we know, hey,
last sale Washington Commander's six billion dollars, what does that
do when these as these the escalation of these franchises,
the value of them rise. How much does that impact

(27:31):
or influence whether or not we will see different kinds
of ownerships, ownership groups or majority ownership in these type
of leagues.

Speaker 1 (27:43):
It's a good point.

Speaker 5 (27:44):
I mean, and we have seen minority owners sometimes celebrity owners.
I'm imagining they have extreme small shares. You know, when
we talk about Lewis Hamilton being partner of the Denver Broncos,
and Serena with the Dolphins, and and Nelly with the
Charlotte Hornets and Usher with the Cavaliers. I don't know

(28:05):
for sure what I think it's very extremely low percentages
in the single digits. Whether we're going to see what
you're talking about with a majority owner controlling owner African American,
it's the same discussion you always have. We always have
in society. Do we have the generational, historical traditional wealth

(28:28):
to bring forward that kind of investment. You just mentioned
the numbers. A little thing we didn't talk about with
the NFL is the individual owner, the name owner Josh
Harris with the Commanders has to provide for thirty percent
of that number in order to purchase. So that's close.
That's two billion dollars from Harris alone, now not Harris alone,

(28:49):
but people investing in his group and the rest comes
from other investors. But you can see the challenges to
get to that kind of wealth, and the reason they've
opened up private equity is they're running out of multi billionaires.
You can't have individual owners when you get to these
kind of numbers. They needed some institutional funding and a

(29:10):
lot of people are asking me, well, Andrew, is that
going to even at the Saudi Public Investment Fund, the
Sovereign Wealth Fund. I'm not ruling it out. I'm not
ruling it out because when we start seeing valuations ten
billion and up, who's going to provide that funding? And
we may look at international sovereign wealth funds as the

(29:31):
next frontier for these franchises.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
As always, the most the thing that fans want to
know as these values increase is how is that.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
Going to impact the fan experience?

Speaker 4 (29:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (29:44):
How is that going to impact consumption habits? How will
it impact your ability to take your family or you
and your boys or whatever, or you know, for everybody
to socialize and go to these games. What do you
see as the fan impact as we continue to see
these values skyrocket?

Speaker 5 (30:02):
You know, I don't know if there's been a correlation
between the rise skyrocketing franchise valuations and something like say
ticket prices. It's hard to know how much I think
people that think that they're priced out of Major League football, baseball,
basketball now, the only thing I could say is that's
not going to get better, you know. So I don't

(30:26):
know if it will get worse. I don't know if
Chisholm buying the Celtics is going to mean Celtics raised prices.
Celtics do that. What tends to allow for franchises to
raise prices success on the field, success on the court,
success on the diamond. People feel better about it, more
invested though it buy more suites, the buy more corporate boxes.

(30:48):
I think fans, in my experience, want to know a
few things about an owner, primarily will he or she spend?
I think that's the number one question I get about owners,
Well they spend? And when a Cincinnati Bengals owner is
seen as cheap until recently with these new contracts for
the receivers, or is it you know, is Jerry Jones

(31:10):
is now in the crosshairs of a lot of fans
because he's not spending, so they won't know if they're spend,
they won't enough, they'll stay out of the way, and
that tends to be an issue with a lot of owners.
And I understand it. If you're going to spend your
hard earned money over decades, you want to do stuff.
You want to control that franchise with some fun stuff

(31:35):
like drafting players and picking players and paying players and
contributing to coaching and all those kind of things. So
just my experience, fans would love an owner that pays
and stays out of the way. They're the favorite, preferred
epitome of an owner.

Speaker 1 (31:52):
But the problem with that is just thinking about what
these teams are worth.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Now, you say, and this is where I think the
fans get frustrated.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
I mean, if you think about it, Andrew.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
If you own a team and you're not a very
good owner, there's really no penalty for it, you know
what I mean. There is a penalty of perception. And yes,
you do have some fan bases that are able to
kind of, you know, cut off the bigot and just
decide I'm not gonna deal with this team, and you
do see some fan backlash. But if you're sitting on
something that is so ultimately value valuable, the one thing

(32:27):
I've often wondered is where does winning actually fall in
the priority of owners, Like, let's look at the Dallas Cowboys.
Since you brought up Jerry Jones that we know has
been a very long time since they have been any
kind of serious Super Bowl contender, and that they've been,
you know, but they're still one of the biggest name
brands in sports. Oh sure, if the Cowboys were on

(32:49):
the market today, what could the Cowboys command?

Speaker 5 (32:54):
I'm going to say north of ten they can.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
Command north of ten billion dollars that being the case.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
And you know, like, given what the values are, what
Jerry Jones, what he paid to get into it, what
is the incentive for Jerry Jones to ever do anything
but put whatever on the field, Because he's already he's
made back seven hundred times the money that he's put in.
There's not a whole lot of other than personal pride.

(33:22):
There's not a whole lot of reason to win.

Speaker 5 (33:24):
I think the pride is something I don't understand with
Jones in terms of the team, because he would not
be an owner that I put in the category of
sit back and get your checks. In fact, going to
NFL meetings those ten years I was with the Packers,
I would see him get in the crosshairs of owners
that he thought weren't marketing the brand, would putting the
product on the field to win. We're just taking their

(33:47):
one thirty second check every year and putting it wherever
in there, maybe in their personal accounts. So that surprises
me that he's been a little shy on the spending front.
Now to be the Cowboys have spent on their own players,
and they haven't done a very gud job in my
opinion of Negotia, because they wait the last minute with Prescott,

(34:08):
with Ceedee Lamb, with others where they have to pay
higher than retail because they simply sat and waited too long.
But a couple things that franchise, as I mentioned earlier,
is never going to be for sale. It's going to
be Jerry Jones kids, Stephen and Jerry. It's going to
be Stephen and Jerry's kids. It's going to be their
kids kids, et cetera, et cetera. So we'll never see

(34:30):
a sale in our lifetimes of the Dallas Cowboys. Listen
for people listening to this podcast that don't know the
NFL is the ultimate socialistic product. You know it is
one hundred percent revenue share, meaning that we knew it.
We have now contracts for over one hundred billion between
Amazon CBS, NBC, ESPN. That's completely revenue shared. What I

(34:55):
mean by that is my team where I worked for
ten years, has a market size of one hundred thousand people.
At Green Bay, New York, has the market size of
eighteen twenty million people. But they get the same the same.
So this is why people love or hate or mostly
love the NFL. It has incredible competitive balance where the

(35:19):
packer I had access to the same revenues on a
national scale that Jerry Jones did. So it makes these
NFL franchises, in my opinion, even more valuable because you're
getting the same revenues. You're getting the exact same check
from the NFL every year, which is now about four
hundred million dollars that every other team is. So could

(35:43):
that lead to less incentive to win?

Speaker 4 (35:47):
It?

Speaker 1 (35:47):
Could?

Speaker 5 (35:48):
It could? We as fans of that of pick your team,
are trusting that ownership wants to do well competitively, and
you're right. I don't know what litt test you can
have for that and kick someone out, et cetera, et cetera.
I mentioned the commanders. We've talked about my upbringing. I

(36:08):
know so many friends and family that gave up on
what are now the Commanders because of Daniel Snyder's ownership.
It actually turned off die hard longtime generational fans. And
they're back, thanks more to Jayden Daniels than to Josh Harris,
but they're back, and that's a great thing.

Speaker 2 (36:26):
I'm going to get into player salaries with you in
a moment, but before I do, the friend that reached
out to you and asked whether or not he should
invest in the franchise, does he regret not investing?

Speaker 5 (36:40):
I think yeah. I think if you had to put
him on the scale, he was more analytical than emotional,
and so I would say no, if he was more
on the emotional scale than analytical, he probably would regret
it because of the success we just talked about. But
I think even today he'd say two hundred million for
a couple of good tickets on a parking past. No, no, no,

(37:06):
he's still that way.

Speaker 1 (37:07):
All right.

Speaker 2 (37:08):
Well, listening, Andrew, I got a lot more that I
want to get to you, or get to talk with
you about. Player has salaries for sure, And this I
know is going to be my favorite part is when
we do your business of Sports Hall of Fame, what
I affectionately call the offiness team We're going to get
to that in the second half of this podcast, but
first let's take a quick break and we'll be right

(37:29):
back with more with Andrew Brandt. As we're talking about
ownership and what that means, tell me if this sort
of theory or thought or observation of mine that I have,

(37:49):
if I may be onto something. So, as you know, Andrew,
there's been an explosion in women's sports. Last year in
twenty twenty four marked the first year in history that
sports generated a billion dollars in revenue. We see the
WNBA is expanding the National Women's Soccer League that they
have experienced amazing growth in just a short period of time.

(38:12):
It's part of the interest in women's sports, not just
fueled by the fact that these are amazing athletes, you know,
great competitive play, you know, those normal sort of sports things,
but as another part of their of the financial interests
now being concentrated on women's sports, because if you think
about it, the value of being involved in women's sports

(38:35):
now is potentially has a higher ceiling to some degree
than men because you can actually get in right and
you can be there for the liftoff. So am I
crazy for well, obviously men's sports, you make more, so
I'm not saying that, but women's sports, I think part
of the reason why they're attracting so much financial attention

(38:58):
is because you see an entry point. It hasn't gotten
to the point where like the values are so out
of control that you can't get in.

Speaker 5 (39:06):
I think it's a great point, and let's put a
note in it to revisit this point when we start
talking about college sports and what's happening now in college sports,
because I think it's a great point here too. Yeah,
women's sports is more accessible. We just spent a lot
of time talking about how inaccessible buying into NFL, NBA,
Major League Baseball franchises and my friend who wasn't going

(39:28):
to give two hundred million for good tickets. So that
is a different world in women's sports, and we're getting passed.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
By the way.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Your friend that two hundred million, he could buy a
WNBA franchise.

Speaker 5 (39:39):
With it, he could buy a team. But that is
going to soon not be the case. So you mentioned it.
This is this explosion is going to there's going to
be a reset. So the valuations already have gone way
beyond what it was, but there's still not a level
of what you would call major American sports leagues, the

(40:01):
Big four, Big five, Big six that's coming though. So
this is a perfect time for Joe Investor or Joanne
Investor to jump in. And there's value. You have to
believe that women's sports, and we can just talk generally,
not basketball, soccer, whatever, is going to continue on a

(40:21):
trajectory north. The one thing I will say, and this
is a little bit Debbie Downer on this, I don't know,
I don't know how to say this. I think the
Caitlyn Clark phenomenon, I don't know how much of that
is a bubble. In other words, I think Caitlyn Clark,

(40:43):
unlike any athlete in history, maybe along with Tiger Woods
and Michael Jordan, changed a sport. In fact, she changed
two sports in one year. She changed women's college basketball
and she changed women's pro basketball. That is not to
say others weren't along for the good in good characters.

(41:03):
I think that will wear off. So what I'm saying
is we have this rise. It's in good part Caitlyn
Clark fueled. The question I have is how much trajectory
are we going to see post the Caitlin Clark settle
in dust, settling on Kaitlin Clark. Okay, now she's in

(41:24):
the league. She's not a new phenomenon anymore. She goes along.
She turned down the unrivaled league, she turned down the Olympics,
or wasn't picked. But where are we going to see
this go? Is it going to? You know, the Caitlin
Clark if you look at me, goes straight up. Now,
I think we're a little more this way, and we're
going to see which way this goes. So again, if

(41:45):
I'm a hard analytical investor, those are the questions I'm asking.
How much of it was Clark related? How much we're
going to see post Clark boom?

Speaker 2 (41:54):
Well, the good thing, at least for if you're at ESPN,
some of that question has already been answered.

Speaker 1 (41:59):
You know.

Speaker 2 (41:59):
I read through as we're recording this podcast to the
early rounds of the tournament. The viewership is up, and
I think the model you compared to you almost have
to take the Caitlin Clark year out of it and
compare whatever happens this year to what happened in twenty
twenty three, and then you'll see exactly who stayed for

(42:20):
the party. Right, Because I'm under no illusion that when
the women's National Championship game is played this year, I
doubt that the women will be able to generate eighteen
million viewers.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
It's unlikely they.

Speaker 2 (42:35):
Will be able to generate more viewers than the men,
especially now that you see all you know, all the
blue Woods are still alive right now in the men's tournament, Dupe,
you got Kentucky, you get you know, the big names.
That being said, if they get eight million, if they
get nine million, it's still a success because before Caitlyn
was in it, it's like they were already trending in

(42:56):
that direction. And now they've been able and it certainly
it was a set back with Juju Watkins going down
with the ACL injury, for sure, but they still have
a very big brand in the tournament, two big brands.
You have South Carolina and you have Yukon, and it
still feels like the momentum is there. And then even

(43:16):
with Kaitlyn Clark not being in the w NBA playoffs,
or she was in the playoffs, but they you know,
they were gone early.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
They set a record in viewership for the w NBA Finals.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
So during the crowded NFL season NBA season, all that,
they still got a million and a half people to
watch all of you know, to watch every game, which
for women, that is a that's a tremendous growth spurt
for them. That shows that we may not be if
Kaitlin brings in ten million, we might not be able
to keep ten, but we probably can keep five, which

(43:49):
is which is kind of what you want to do.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
It regress, you know, to the mean.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
It's like, hey, we know that Tiger Woods when he was,
you know, the best golfer in the world. We know
the Tiger effect at every major, but Tiger's not there now.
People still watch golf and it's still pretty good, and
it's they still do good ratings. They may not do
Tiger ratings, but they still do pretty amazing ratings. So

(44:14):
I more or less look at it from that standpoint,
is that you have a phenomenon bhoo change.

Speaker 4 (44:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
I do too.

Speaker 5 (44:21):
I think we agree with that. We look at pre
Kaitlyn Clark are pre Klin Clark's are going to be
much lower than post Kaitlin Clark, but not Kaitlin Clark
in terms of like the tournament. Yeah, so I think
we're you know, fun fact about me in my early
and my agent days. I had an opportunity and started

(44:41):
representing some women's basketball players. Most appreciative, kind, warm clients
I ever had. Didn't make me much money, didn't make
me a munch income, but loved working with them. I
had a point guard named Tisha Pinicero. Wonderful woman.

Speaker 1 (44:57):
She's one of the best to ever do.

Speaker 5 (44:59):
Yeah, and she's followed my footsteps. She's representing players, she's
an agent, so a lot. I really enjoyed working with
those girls.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Okay, let's pivot to college.

Speaker 2 (45:09):
You know, for people out there who are listening, at
some point in early April, I think the deadline maybe
April seventh, there's anticipation that the final settlement will be
approved that will bring college revenue sharing, you know, that
will have revenue revenue sharing in college sports.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
Something man thirty years ago. It's like this is never
going to happen, and now all of a sudden is here,
you know, with with this billion dollar settlement that I
think the estimate that it's going to allow the teams
that opt in to get about twenty two twenty one,
twenty two million dollars per team.

Speaker 2 (45:43):
You see already, Andrew, you have Stanford you have North Carolina.
All these teams now are hiring general managers, which is
really interesting because they do have they're going.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
To have a roster cap.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
While I know you're not Nostradamus, the impact of revenue sharing,
and we see some of this already, we're just knowing
it's coming. Where do you expect this to take? College sports?
Are we essentially about to be looking at two professional leagues?
As in, you have the NFL, you have college football,

(46:15):
you have the NBA, you have college basketball.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
It's like but they're basically going to be the same.

Speaker 5 (46:20):
Okay, I've got a full disclosure here. I've been offered
a couple of these general manager jobs. I've turned them down.
It's not something I want to do at this point
in my life. I don't want to move to the campuses.
It's certainly the ones that I've offered. Nothing against them.
I am consulting with a couple of major college sports
programs about exactly what you're talking about, how to deal

(46:45):
with the post House settlement world of college sports. So
we can now we can sum up what we're talking
about with now we can say nil stands for now
it's legal. Okay, So paying college athletes for ever has
been illegal, and even in the past three years of NIL,
it's been paid through something called collectives, which are different

(47:08):
than the school. So even the last three years, you
will never hear about a school paying an athlete. You
may have your suspicions, you may know it's under the table,
all the things about SMU thirty years ago, whatever's going
on now, but the legality has not been there until now.
So the House settlement House is a lawsuit, along with

(47:28):
three other lawsuits were settled by the NCAA. There antitrust
lawsuits settled. So the new format, the new structure of
college sports, is not coming from a collective bargaining agreement.
It's not coming from the NCAA. It's coming from a
negotiated settlement between Jeffrey Kesler, the attorney for the players,

(47:51):
and the NCAA lawyers. Three parts to it. One it's
back pay for all the players who didn't get NIL.
Number two, it's roster limits compared to scholarship limits, a
complicated formula of how many players on each team can
get scholarships. But the most important part, as you mentioned,
it's the cap. We will have starting July one, a

(48:11):
salary cap in college sports. The number is we expect
to be twenty point five million, which is determined to
be twenty two percent of athletic department revenue averages for
the Power four conferences. So that's the number. So we
say the Powerful Conferences average about ninety five million of

(48:34):
total revenue. Just like we do an NFL cap NBA cap,
we take a percentage. It's not the high percentage that
the pros have, but it's twenty two percent equals twenty
point five million. That's for all sports football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf,
women's track and field, etc. And it's up to the
schools to apportion that money, and it's up to the

(48:55):
schools to send in contracts with all their players to
be compliant with the cap. So it's going to be
a whole new system. And thus you can see why
someone like me and others with pro sports experience are
being asked what I've been asked. Frankly, Jamal is Andrew
help us. You know, we are moving from college sports

(49:18):
to pro sports, so we will have pro sports in
the Power Conferences and below. And it really comes down
to how are you going to deal with this? How
are you going to portion. How are you going to
manage the cap? How are you going to deal with
contracts legal? How are you going to deal with agents?
All these players have agents now, and what are you

(49:40):
going to do when the others are doing so and so?
And is it going to you know, I'm just interested
to see how the NCA is going to monitor this.
And in the NFL, of course, we have a whole
cap compliance department that we have to submit every contract
to and go through it. We'll see where this goes.
But right now, it's about to be pro sports in
college sports.

Speaker 2 (49:58):
You said something on I believe it was your Twitter
feed that really caught my attention. You said, right now,
the player free agency in college is better than it
is at the professional level, you know mostly I know
you were like sort of referring to the NFL, but
you could be referring to all of them.

Speaker 1 (50:19):
Why did you.

Speaker 5 (50:20):
Say that we have free agency in the NFL after
four years in the NBA, after four years in the
Major League Baseball, after six years in college, we have
freedency every year. We have this transfer portal that allows
players to transfer without penalty every year. Why back to
the lawyers lawsuit, when they tried to prevent that, and

(50:40):
now free agency every year. Imagine that you sign a player,
you pay them could be hundreds of thousands, could be
a million dollars. You have no assurances he'll leave, not
only leave after the season, but a maybe even during
the season, or not get enough playtime. So he says
screw this and keeps the money you paid. All way.

(51:02):
It is free agency without a salary cap. It is
free agency all the time. I said to a big
time college coach, like, I am sorry, you got to
deal with free agency every year. He looks at me,
pulls up his chair right to my face. He says, Andrew,
we deal with free agency every day. You and I
are recording this and there's still the Sweet sixteen left,

(51:23):
and we have free agency. The college basketball portal is open.
There's thirteen hundred players in the portal today, and it's like,
oh my god, you know what, how do you deal
with that if you're a college basketball team, especially one
trying to prepare for a Sweet sixteen game, and that's
what they're dealing with. So yeah, more staff is being hired,
like NFL staff, NBA staff, general managers, cat managers, analytics departments,

(51:48):
where's our best spending going to be on this roster?

Speaker 2 (51:52):
Yeah, And I feel like this point should be made
too about this house settlement, and I think it's a
little bit under just us. The settlement doesn't preclude the
NC double A facing further legal action because the the
other component of this is that because whether or not

(52:14):
this is operating, you know, against the competitive market, because
the reality is that if there was a competitive like
you know, a collective bargaining agreement, or if you know,
players were able to individually determine their work, just like
you know, we see Justin Jefferson got his big deal,
and you know that everybody's deal would be different. But

(52:34):
if you're capping it at twenty two, that doesn't mean
that's what that players or those teams, right, and thus
players are worse. So the NC double A is not
necessarily am I misreading this? They're not necessarily out of
the clear when it comes to what the system will
ultimately look like, like the little framework that's being put
together today, because it's still not getting at competitively what

(52:58):
the player is fully worth.

Speaker 1 (52:59):
On their own. We don't know what this system might
look like in five years. This is just kind of
like a really, really small starting point.

Speaker 5 (53:08):
It's the settlement of only three lawsuits, unfortunately for the NCAA,
And there's objections. So you mentioned I believe the April seventh,
eighth Judge Wilkin, ninth Circuit, California. She will hear her
final arguments. I believe, and I'm asked about this a lot.
She will bless the settlement, but there will be a

(53:29):
lot of objections. The major objection is what you just said.
You still have a cap that was not legally bargained.
So you go from a cap of zero to a
cap of twenty million. Why isn't the cap one hundred million.
Why isn't it like the NFL one hundred and seventy million.
So these are the kind of things that we're going
to have to see if she blesses or not. But

(53:51):
there are gonna be more lawsuits. We didn't even talk
about Title nine. In the final days of the Biden administration,
there was an ocr Office of Civil Rights advisory that
the House settlement payments should be compliant with Title nine,
which would be totally unworkable because millions are going to football.
It doesn't have a female equivalent. But in the opening

(54:13):
days of the Trump administration that was reversed, but still
there will be Title nine lawsuits. Absolutely. What the NCAA
really wants and needs and hopes for and praise every
night before they go to bed is a bill in
Congress that would include the magical two words and I

(54:33):
trust exemption because until they get that, you know, I'm
a lawyer, and my praise, there will be lawyers. There's
going to be so many lawsuits because people think, Okay,
well now they got a cap everyone's getting paid. No,
you're right, there's going to be a lot more lawsuits.
Charlie Baker, the president of the NCAA, I feel for him.
He came into this late. The NCAA had its head

(54:54):
in the sand for fifty years. They could have done
something twenty years ago with Ed O'Bannon, but they didn't.
And poor Charlie Baker, he spends all his time on
Capitol Hill. Now he's a politician. He used to be
governor of Massachusetts, a Republican governor in a democratic state.
So he's trying. And there's a Ted Cruz bill that

(55:15):
will be very NCAA friendly if they can get it passed.
And this administration seems favorable towards that kind of business.
But we'll see. But yes, House settlement will change things,
but not stop the lawsuits.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
For everybody who is a regular listener for his politics
and for those who are new, I end the podcast
with what I call a messy question. This is the
question where we will make a headline, where we will
be on the blogs Andrew brand based off something that
I have asked you. I said this earlier in the
podcast that you came up brilliantly. I might add with

(55:50):
something that you call the business Hall of Football Hall
of Fame. Now, this hall of fame that you created
recognizes the players who had more, say, contract success than
actual football success.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
And you can correct.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
Me if I'm wrong, But here are a few of
your inductees, one of which would be Sam Bradford. One
hundred and thirty million in career earnings nine seasons. His
career record was thirty four and forty eight former number
one pick, started eighty three games, never made a Pro Bowl,
never won a playoff game, but he got one hundred
thirty mil Kirk Cousins.

Speaker 1 (56:27):
He went to my alma mater, fellow Michigan State grad.
He's made three hundred and thirty one million dollars in
the NFL. I mean, I think the only player as
a stands of this.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
This will be different because you know, we see the
deals that Patrick Mahomes has and Josh Allen and those
kind of things.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
We see where this is going.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
His career earnings are only second to Aaron Rodgers, which
is crazy, all right. So you have to tell me now, Andrew,
who among the current crop of NFL players meets the
criteria of your business Hall of Fame, or as I

(57:06):
like to call it, the aw finest Because these dudes
have funnesses, some cash, and the results ain't resultant the
way that they need to.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
So who is on the offeness offinesteam?

Speaker 5 (57:20):
I'm going to give you two sort of we'll give
a co award and you just mentioned one. What Kirk
Cousins has done is extraordinary. He has leveraged his We
talked about the value of free agency. He had two
franchise tags with the Commanders, which is a way to
just sort of sit around get paid from a team
that doesn't want to marry you, only wants to date

(57:41):
you for a couple of years. Then the first ever
fully guaranteed contract with the Vikings. Then he leveraged the
Vikings again for massive top of the market, and then
he becomes a free agent and gets a fifty million
dollars sounding bonus from the Atlanta Falcons and made sixty
three million last year and is going to make twenty
eight million this year as a backup to Michael PENNOCKX Junior.

(58:06):
You mentioned the number three hundred and thirty million dollars.
I don't think anyone would put kirk Cousins up with
the other earners at that bill, which would be Aaron Rodgers,
Matthew Stafford, and Tom Brady. That's the company he keeps.
And we know that Stafford and Rodgers are still playing,
but you just mentioned he has out earned Tom Brady.

(58:29):
And these are the kirk Cousin's story will live on
an infamy as a first ballot Hall of Famer. The
guy I would have to put up there with him.
And I know for some people this is a difficult topic.
It's Deshaun Watson. He was not wanted, not wanted by

(58:51):
the Texans, the Houston Texans. So what I'm saying here
is that through his own misbehavior, he created the most
leverage situation in football because they didn't want them. They
put them up for sale, and there was an auction,
and four teams that are dying to have a quarterback
went after him hard. And he's a Southern kid, and
he eliminated the Browns. He wanted either the Panthers or

(59:14):
the Saints or the Falcons. Browns were out. The Browns
are in. And why were they in because they gave
him the best contract in the history of football, five years,
fully guaranteed, two hundred thirty million dollars. Whatever has happened
on the field for getting everything off the field, it
has been a disaster, but that money is fully, completely
rock solid guaranteed. For people thinking, oh, he had another incident, No,

(59:37):
they're not getting out of that money injury actions. It's
there so different types of stories there, but Business of
Football Hall of Famer's top of the shelf right now,
Cousins and.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
Watson, let me know quickly at this about the Browns.
The Browns giving him the fully guaranteed GOSHA. They were
basically betting against themselves, though, weren't they, because no one
else was offering.

Speaker 5 (59:59):
That, and no one since no one tens. That's how
much owners hated that contract. And the owners. I always
watch are these contracts going to be precedent or are
they going to be an aberration? That one is clearly
an aberration. No one's had it since he's still the
leader in the clubhouse for NFL contract security, if not
the total value, just the security of it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
And even though this next person I'm going to mention it,
you tell me is if he's someone who may eventually
find their resume before the committee often as of the
business Hall of Fame. I tend to think he gets
a lot more crap than he deserves. But Dak Prescott, Yah,
he'll make sixty million this ship.

Speaker 5 (01:00:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
When you look at the results, you look at the money,
I mean, that's an extraordinary deal. But it gets back
to what you said earlier. Is like one of the
cowboys Achilles heels. They keep waiting to wait to do
these deals, and to a point where they don't have
much bargaining room.

Speaker 5 (01:01:02):
I'll say this, that's a great point. He is someone
I should put at the top too, because he actually
did something very shrewd. What he did when so many
players like Mahomes and Allen they took these eight, nine,
ten year deals. He took a four year deal. Four
years is small sample size in the NFL, and got
hurt in the last year, but still made a huge contract.

(01:01:26):
Taking shorter deals as a quarterback is only going to
make you more. The market is so inflated every year
keeps going up and up, and then, of course when
he got the last deal, the one that was done
this year, he played and played and played Jerry Jones like, wait, wait, wait,
I have some insight on that contract negotiation. The fifty

(01:01:47):
five million a year was the highest for Joe Burrow,
and the Cowboys were holding there and he kept saying, no,
I need a six, I need a six in front
of that number, and the Cowboys said no until the
opening day of the season against the Browns, where he
said yes. I mean, now, there's the playbook for negotiating

(01:02:07):
with Jerry Jones. Just wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, and
he'll come to you. Fine, we have to put one
other person in there that's not a football player. But
I hate to admit I'm a Sixers.

Speaker 1 (01:02:18):
Fan, so I already know where this is going.

Speaker 5 (01:02:23):
I think the number is close to three hundred million
dollars for one Ben Simmons. I mean, we don't even
need to go through career. Everyone listening who's heard of
that name has a smirk on their face. Three hundred
million dollars for that performance. And again, NBA not like NFL,

(01:02:45):
fully guaranteed. And I drank the kool aid when I
thought when the Sixers had Ben Simmons, I'm like, sky's
the limit. He's gonna be great, and we see what's happened.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
Andrew, thank you so much for taking this time to
spend with me.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
You've been delightful and breaking down this stuff in a
way that I think everybody can easily digest and also
see that man as a sports fan, we're in for
some changeing time.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
So thank you very much and I appreciate you, and
good luck going forward.

Speaker 5 (01:03:14):
Likewise, Chamil, always going to be with you. I enjoyed this.

Speaker 2 (01:03:17):
All right, take care. One more segment to go, and
you guys know what that means. I got questions to
answer up next, your viewer slash listener questions, and I
have plenty of answers coming up next on the final
segment of Spolatives. All right, y'all know what time it

(01:03:42):
is time for me to answer one of your questions.
And this week's question comes from DeBarge three sixteen. If
the barge is in your handle, I have to assume
you might be from Michigan since the DeBarge family is
from Grand Rapids, Michigan. And secondly, this is my favorite
question of all time in the history of this podcast.
The bars three to sixteen ass who's your all time

(01:04:04):
starting five pistons?

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
Light up? Okay, let me start with the locks.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
Isaiah Thomas at point, Grin Hill at the three, Ben
Wallace at the five locks shooting guard is the one
I'm sweating because my options are Chauncey Billups Rip and
Joe Dumars. That's two finals MVPs and Rip he was
the coldest mid range shooter in the game. At the four,
I've got another tough decision because my options are she Bill,

(01:04:29):
Lambert and Robin.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
Can't have Robin and Ben.

Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
I mean, granted, we would get four hundred and twelve rebounds,
but we need some scoring at those positions as well,
So that leaves Lambier and she Between Lamber and.

Speaker 1 (01:04:40):
She'd who would you guess?

Speaker 2 (01:04:42):
Average more rebounds, shot better from three, shot a better
field goal percentage. Overall toughness, I don't think we have
a question, but the answer is Bill Lambert. Their career
point per game averages are actually pretty similar. Bill Lambier
averaged thirteen a games, She'd average fourteen point four.

Speaker 1 (01:04:59):
Sheet is my guy, but I'm going with Bill Lambert.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
So my all time starting five is this Isaiah Chauncey,
Grant Hill, Bill Lambert, Ben Wallace.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
I reserve the right to change my mind with that lineup.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
We got every possible ingredient though scoring it systs, three
point shooting, defense, and goonery.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
We went in the game and the fight flat out.

Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
Thanks to Bars three sixteen for my favorite question ever
in the young history of politics. Now, if you have
a question for me, you can hit me up on
social media or email. I'm at Jamail Hill across all
social media platforms Twitter, Instagram, fan based, Blue Sky, and threads,
please use the hashtags politics. You also have the option
of emailing me as Politics twenty twenty four at gmail

(01:05:42):
dot com. You can send me a video of your question,
but please make sure it's thirty seconds or less.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
Don't forget to.

Speaker 2 (01:05:48):
Follow and subscribe to spolitics on iHeart and follow spolitics
pod on Instagram and TikTok so Politics is spelled s
PO l I Tics.

Speaker 1 (01:05:57):
A new episode of Politics drops everything on.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
iHeart podcast, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
This is politics where sports and politics don't just mix,
they matter. Also, if you're looking for more, check out
other reason Choice media podcasts, including Off the Cup and
Native Lamp Pod. This week, the hosts at Native Lamp
Pod are welcoming a special guest, my Man Uncle Rowe

(01:06:24):
Roland Martin. So check it out wherever you listen to
your favorite shows. Politics is the production of iHeart Podcasts
and The Unbothered Network. I'm your host Jamel Hill. Executive
producer is Taylor Chakoigne. Lucas Hymen is head of audio
and executive producer. Original music for Spolitics provided by Kyle

(01:06:46):
Visk from wiz fx