AIG: Today it’s “Thank you, America.” Will it be “Screw you, America” tomorrow?

ScrewThis just in from NYT’s DealBook:

Rescued by a Bailout, A.I.G. May Sue Its Savior

The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show. The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation.”

By all means, give AIG a fair shake and read the NYT piece in its entirety. The board is indeed stuck between a rock and a hard place. If it doesn’t join the suit, it may face additional suits from shareholders for abstaining. If it does join the lawsuit, there will be plenty of pissed off Americans.

Here’s the thing going unmentioned by AIG at this juncture: the board could very well make the case that abstention is ultimately in the best interest of shareholder value. Heads may roll, but the case could be made. As noted by the article, it is currently unclear which direction the board will take. They will probably decide by the end of January. If they do plan to make the case for abstention, playing their cards close to the vest for now is a savvy move, perhaps, but nevertheless exposes the government to substantial legal costs in the meantime. Heads they win. Tails we lose.

The AIG bailout, and the Wall Street bailout in general, has already cost us too much. Should AIG join the suit and effectively tell the American public, “screw you,” they will have taken us from Too Big to Fail to Too Big to Jail to Too Big to Bail.

And what are we going to do about it?

[insert raucous, maniacal laughter here]

Not a damned thing, unless, that is, we think we can persuade the major shareholders that they should just accept the sentiments of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Judge Paul A. Engelmayer with grace and sit the fuck back down. Quietly. And gratefully.

The Treasury Department declined to comment. A spokesman for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Jack Gutt, said, “There is no merit to these allegations.” He noted that “A.I.G.’s board of directors had an alternative choice to borrowing from the Federal Reserve, and that choice was bankruptcy.”

A federal judge in Manhattan agreed, dismissing the case in November. In an 89-page opinion, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer wrote that while Starr’s complaint “paints a portrait of government treachery worthy of an Oliver Stone movie,” the company “voluntarily accepted the hard terms offered by the one and only rescuer that stood between it and imminent bankruptcy.”

[insert raucous, maniacal laughter here]

My prediction? We’ll take it up the collective pooper yet again. Maybe next time we’ll elect a president, hell, we’ll have a choice of candidates who won’t be hellbent on shoveling our money straight into the voracious maws of these modern day Gilded Agers?

[insert raucous, maniacal laughter here]

Who am I kidding? Keep it up, America. Great job.

Talk about your unintended consequences.


Image credit: Photo of screw by LawPrieR, licensed under Creative Commons.

Playing with pain: RGIII and the challenge of The Sport Ethic

Robert Griffin III

It’s not often you get to see one of your research interests play out in real-time. But last night, during the Seahawks-Redskins playoff game, we saw The Sport Ethic clearly illustrated.

Quick refresher: The Sport Ethic is a concept from sports sociology (Hughes & Coakely, 1991) in which they found four traits that elite athletes believe. One of them is accepting risks and playing through pain. The point of The Sport Ethic is that elite athletes are so dedicated to it, believing in it with an almost religious intensity, that it leads to what the sociologists call Deviant Overconformity. They conform so much to this ethic that it leads them to deviant behavior. Like using performance-enhancing drugs. Like eliminating everything from their lives that doesn’t revolve around sports.

Like playing while injured.

“I’d probably been right back out there on the field. You respect authority and I respect coach Shanahan but at the same time you have to step up and be a man sometimes.There was no way I was coming out of the game,” Griffin said. “It’s an awkward conversation you never want to have with a head coach. You don’t want him to ever feel like you’re lying to him. I wasn’t lying to him, I was able to play. Period. If he would have pulled me out, I would have been highly upset but that’s his prerogative. He kept me in.” – Robert Griffin III, Sunday night (quote courtesy Pro Football Talk).

One of the things that interests me is how the sports media portrays and reinforces The Sport Ethic as normal, desirable behavior. I’ve only done one pilot study so far, but what that study suggested is that the media reflect the Sport Ethic mainly by giving it a voice. The Sport Ethic is primarily reflected in quotes from players and coaches, rather than in the coverage itself (subject to change with future research).

But think about this: Think about what the coverage would have been like had RGIII stayed in the game and the Redskins had won?

Would the coverage have been as critical for allowing an injured player to continue?

Or would he be lionized for playing through pain, playing while injured, putting his team ahead of himself?

What Griffin’s quote from after the game shows (and what Dan Wetzel so brilliantly points out) is how deeply RGIII has apparently accepted The Sport Ethic as a part of his life.

It also shows, to me, one of the big challenges facing sports in 2013. The culture around sports is changing, with more attention being paid to the long-term physical toll sports like football and hockey are taking on players. Look no further than the concussion debate. Player safety is important. But one of the challenges facing it is the fact that the culture of sports is at odds with a culture of playing safety.

Mike Silver raised this point in his Yahoo column today:

“Before you rail against Redskins coach Mike Shanahan for allowing Griffin to play through obvious knee discomfort and exposing him to a potentially serious injury, ask yourself how you reacted when Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler left the 2010 NFC championship game with what turned out to be a torn medial collateral ligament. Did you question Cutler’s toughness? Did you feel like he let down his teammates in that home defeat to the Packers? Did you laud him for being honest with coach Lovie Smith about his condition, for realizing that playing hurt might negatively impact his team’s chances, and for not putting the Bears’ team doctors in a potentially compromising position? Think about the answers to these questions, and then decide how you feel about RG3 and the Battle of Wounded Knee.”

What was interesting about the Cutler story last year was the fact that it was fellow players who started the issue by criticizing the QB on Twitter. That’s how deep the Sport Ethic runs in the sports culture. And trying to change a culture that is so ingrained and pervasive is not easy.

And when reporters value players’ opinions because they are the experts in their field (journalism routines’ research has consistently shown that the media favor official sources because of their perceived expertise), that culture will continue to be reflected in sports media.

Which makes the debate over player safety all the more challenging.

Brian Moritz is a doctoral student at Syracuse University and blogs at Sports Media Guy, where this post first appeared.