The SEC (the Sports One) Is Acting Like It's Invincible
Good morning and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Maybe think twice before jumping for joy today (especially because the A's still lost).
Plenty to talk about today, with college football in turmoil again (I could copy and paste that every week), plus an interesting sports-related tax issue to discuss, along with two new racing documentaries and the NBA and NHL reaching the final stages of their playoffs. Let's get to it.
Locker Room Links
S-E-C Guarantee?
The SEC seems to think it's invincible. If it gets its way, it just might be.
Advertisement
We've only had one 12-team College Football Playoff and even though the format is already changing for this season, the college football world can't stop talking about expanding the playoff (again) and changing the format (again).
The all-powerful SEC and Big Ten don't want to take any chances. They think they can design the best system: four automatic qualifiers for each of them, plus two each from the ACC and Big 12, one team from the midmajor Group of 6 conferences, and three at-large spots.
Based on tradition and hubris, they think they're the best conferences, they've always been the best conferences, and they always will be the best conferences, so they deserve multiple automatic qualifiers even if their top teams have a relatively bad year.
Multiple automatic qualifiers would be unprecedented in American sports. The other college sports, to my knowledge, don't give out more than one automatic qualifier per conference. The NFL doesn't guarantee the NFC East two playoff spots just because the division has some of the league's most powerful and historic teams. The only parallel I can think of is European soccer, where the international club competitions dish out a given number of qualification spots to the top teams in each country (though the number of spots per country is based on a coefficient formula calculated by team performance in the last five years of the competitions—sounds a bit like the old BCS, doesn't it?).
Advertisement
It's not, however, all that unprecedented in American business. Startups rise to the top of their new fields, and once they become powerful enough to crush their competition, they call for rules and regulations that will hold back any new upstarts with funny ideas or better business practices. But no matter how dominant they get, a new competitor eventually comes along to knock them off their pedestal.
The SEC is following this playbook, the sports version of crony capitalism. It has long been the best conference in college football, but its grip might be slipping—they haven't sent a team to the national championship in two years. The system is changing (expanded playoff; name, image, and likeness payments; direct "revenue-sharing" payments to players) and different teams in other conferences might find different ways to succeed amid the chaos. But if the SEC can guarantee that a quarter of its conference gets into the College Football Playoff, that's going to be an advantage in recruiting players and coaches.
Of course, if the SEC and Big Ten each have four of the best 16 teams in the country, they don't need to worry about automatic qualification. So why not just stick to proving it on the field? We'll see if they decide to take their ball and go home.
They're the Ones Writing It Off
Did you know the Los Angeles Dodgers can write off Shohei Ohtani's contract for tax purposes?
Advertisement
Not just Ohtani's contract—Mookie Betts', Freddie Freeman's, Yoshinobu Yamamoto's, and everyone else on the team too. For tax purposes, these contracts are "intangible assets" that can be written off over 15 years.
It's a good deal if you can get it, but the gravy train may soon slow down (but it's not getting scrapped).
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by the House of Representatives, only half the value of those contracts could be written off instead of the full value, the New York Times reports. But that change will only affect future owners.
One NFL owner told the Times the provision "felt punitive" and speculated that Trump is using the possible change to get leverage over sports owners. (Leverage for what isn't exactly clear, but who knows when Trump will want leverage for some kind of deal.) A White House spokesperson suggested to the Times that the change had more to do with ticket prices to sporting events: "The president is committed to ensuring that sports teams overcharging ticketholders do not receive favorable tax treatment. His focus is on fairness for fans, not team ownership." (This feels like grabbing a screwdriver to try to put out a grill fire—they don't seem especially related.)
Advertisement
One team to watch in this space is the Atlanta Braves. The team is owned by a publicly traded company. Under the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, publicly traded companies will have limitations (starting in 2027) on how much of a write-off they can take from their highest-paid salaries. It could mean a $19 million tax hike for the Braves—though not if their new lobbyists have something to say about it.
Green Flag
Let's go racing. Two new documentaries dropped last week that will be of interest to motorsports fans.
There are a ton of new sports documentaries these days, but Earnhardt (four episodes, one hour each, on Amazon Prime Video) shows them all how it's done. Too often we get documentaries that are too one-sided—usually too deferential to the star power of the main character. Earnhardt could have been like that, and if anything, the racing aspects could have used a little more of a "Raise Hell, praise Dale" vibe. But with the late Dale Earnhardt only able to speak for himself through archival footage, the documentary gets three of Earnhardt's four children to open up about their family life—the positives and the negatives (with a lot of the latter). Sports documentaries should give viewers a fuller picture of their subjects, and Earnhardt absolutely succeeds.
Advertisement
On a completely different note, Netflix gave the Drive to Survive treatment to the 2024 season of the all-female F1 Academy racing series in the super creatively titled docuseries F1: The Academy (seven episodes, 30–40 minutes each). Whether you saw all the racing action last year or skipped it but had your interest piqued, it's worth a watch (as long as you can put up with a bunch of "girl boss" pop music in the soundtrack). The stakes and racing action are compelling enough on their own, and they're coupled with the interesting backgrounds of girls who dream of making it to Formula One someday. Plus, Americans Lia Block and Chloe Chambers get a solid amount of airtime. It's unlikely anyone from this crop will eventually make it to Formula 1, but it's fun nonetheless to learn their stories and watch them compete.
The Finals
Who you got? We're doing another Free Agent reader survey, and I want to know who you're rooting for in the NBA and Stanley Cup finals.
Personally, I'm pulling for the Indiana Pacers. I don't have much against the Thunder (other than their crazy stadium deal—$1,200 in tax dollars per resident!). But I have forgiven the Pacers (franchise, not the players of the time) for the Malice at the Palace and I think some Midwestern solidarity has them pulling at my heartstrings. Also, apparently they're weird.
Advertisement
On the ice, I'm hoping for a Florida Panthers repeat. I'm not super happy about rooting for a repeat, but I'd rather see that than see Canada finally break their three-decade Stanley Cup drought. Canada already got to win the 4 Nations Face-Off this year, they can't get the Stanley Cup too. (Although los petroleros are one of my preferred Canadian teams.)
Take a minute to fill out the survey here and let me know what you're thinking.
Replay of the Week
I knew this was legal in pickleball. I had no idea it was legal in tennis.
That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, the Kalamazoo Growlers against the Battle Creek Battle Jacks.
The post The SEC (the Sports One) Is Acting Like It's Invincible appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Self Sends Strong Message on New Assistant Coach at Kansas
Bill Self Sends Strong Message on New Assistant Coach at Kansas originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The Kansas Jayhawks are three years removed from winning the men's NCAA championship, but they haven't had much success since, and they're looking to return to prominence. Advertisement This spring, they lost several players to the transfer portal, and they gained forward Tre White from Illinois and guard Jayden Dawson from Loyola Chicago. They will also have a new assistant coach in Jacque Vaughn, a former NBA player who spent four seasons at Kansas in the mid-1990s. He has extensive experience as an NBA coach, most recently with the Brooklyn Nets. Head coach Bill Self seemed happy with the addition of Vaughn during a recent press conference. "He brings something to us that's different than what we've ever had before," Self said. As a player at Kansas, Vaughn, a 6-foot-1 guard, averaged 9.6 points and 6.4 assists a game and shot 45.9% from the field and 38.3% from 3-point range. He was named the Big Eight Player of the Year during the 1995-96 season when he was a junior. Advertisement He had a 12-year playing career in the NBA, first with the Utah Jazz in the 1997-98 campaign after they made him the No. 27 pick in the 1997 draft. He eventually made his way to the San Antonio Spurs, where he won an NBA championship in 2007 alongside Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. After a couple of years as a Spurs assistant coach under Gregg Popovich, he became the head coach of the Orlando Magic in 2012. He had two separate stints as the Brooklyn Nets' head coach, and his second stint there ended when he was fired in February 2024. Brooklyn Nets head coach Jacque Vaughn watches from the sideline at they take on the Boston Celtics at TD Butler II-Imagn Images Vaughn will be replacing the retired Norm Roberts and will look to guide the Jayhawks past the second round of the men's NCAA Tournament for the first time since they won it all in 2022. Advertisement This past season, they lost in the first round to Arkansas by seven points. Related: Top College Basketball Recruit Sends Strong Message After Visit With Duke This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 5, 2025, where it first appeared.
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Set to Square Off With New German Chancellor Merz on Trade, Ukraine
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump will meet Thursday with new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for the first time since Merz swept into power vowing to distance Germany from the United States. The centrist conservative German leader won an election in February with a promise to establish "independence" from Washington, signaling a potential break between the U.S. and one of its most important European allies. "Merz will be trying to create a positive working relationship, but he probably won't just come into the Oval Office and endorse Donald Trump's view of the world," said Jeff Rathke, the president of the American-German Institute, a think tank in Washington. The White House meeting between Trump and Merz will take place amid a backdrop of tensions between the U.S. and Europe over issues ranging from free speech to trade to Russia's war in Ukraine. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz takes part in the Bundestag's topical hour on transatlantic relations. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz takes part in the Bundestag's topical hour on transatlantic relations. Kay Nietfeld/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Berlin and Washington have maintained a close relationship for decades, with Germany — the largest economy in Europe — serving as a key ally on economic and national security issues. Former President Joe Biden and Merz's predecessor, Olaf Scholz, maintained close ties even as they debated how to best aid Ukraine in its fight with Russia. But Merz signaled a new approach after winning the February election and forming a coalition government with his center-right Christian Democratic Union party and Scholz's center-left Social Democrats. Merz told the U.S. not to meddle in German domestic politics after Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized Germany's intelligence agency for labeling the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) group a "right-wing extremist organization." Billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk had sparked an uproar in Germany by backing the AfD last year. "That is our business. We decide that, not the American government," Merz told reporters after he was sworn in last month. The episode followed Merz's election night promise to upend the transatlantic partnership. "My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.A," Merz said at the time. "For Germany the partnership with the U.S. dating back to the Cold War has been a cornerstone of its policy," said Garret Martin, an expert on transatlantic relations at American University. "Real independence, depending on how you define it, would be a major shift." Merz's approach will be tested on issues like aiding Ukraine in the war with Russia. Trump is eager to end the conflict, but he has been far more critical of Ukraine than Russia since returning to the White House. More recently, the president's tone has shifted somewhat, marked by social media posts in which Trump wondered aloud "what the hell happened" to Vladimir Putin, who had gone "absolutely crazy." It's also unclear if Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will approve more military aid for Ukraine once the current tranche of funding runs out later this year. From left, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk speak at the Presidential Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday May... From left, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk speak at the Presidential Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday May 10, 2025. More Stefan Rousseau/Pool Photo via AP In contrast, Germany and other EU nations have promised to continue aiding Ukraine even without a negotiated peace in sight. Germany is the third-largest provider of aid to Ukraine, trailing only the U.S. and European Union as a whole. Merz has also joined other foreign leaders in criticizing Trump's trade war, a topic that will be front and center when the leaders meet at the White House. The administration is negotiating tariff deals with individual countries as well as the EU. The German leader would be wise to avoid provoking Trump on tariffs, said Emily Kilcrease, the director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. "Germany and Europe can work with the U.S. to address some of the concerns that [Trump] has raised," Kilcrease said. There are other areas where it may be easier for Trump and Merz to find common ground. Earlier this year Germany changed its debt rules to ramp up defense spending, an initiative backed by Merz that was passed before he took office. Trump has long urged NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations and may welcome Merz's efforts to boost Germany's defense industry. Under Merz, Germany has also taken steps to toughen its immigration system to reduce the number of asylum-seekers entering the country. The changes have been challenged in court, like many of Trump's own immigration policies in the U.S. "Immigration is an area where I imagine Merz would try to placate and court Trump," Martin said. FILE - Vice President JD Vance, right, speaks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, as President Donald Trump listens in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. FILE - Vice President JD Vance, right, speaks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, as President Donald Trump listens in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. Mystyslav Chernov/AP The two leaders are scheduled to attend a lunch together Thursday and also meet separately with a small group of advisers. Analysts said not to expect the public fireworks that marked Trump's meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa. "Merz is not coming here to pick a fight," Rathke said. Germany understands "there are major tectonic shifts underway on the international scene, but they also want to preserve the transatlantic relationship to the extent they can."
