RUSH: Adrian Peterson, running back, Minnesota Vikings. Have you heard about this? This is a great example of what I was talking about in the first hour about how there's so much sympathy for minorities. They're just not held to very high standards. They can pretty much say and do whatever they want and there's always a reason for it, including maybe they just didn't think about it before they spoke.
"Adrian Peterson joined fellow players in decrying the negotiating tactics of NFL owners in the current labor battle, but Adrian Peterson used an unusual analogy to describe the status of players. 'It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, "Hey -- without us, there's no football."'"
Wrong, Mr. Peterson, I hate to tell you, without owners there's no football.
Now, here's what happened. Let me tell you something, though. He said it's modern-day slavery. Look, Spike Lee said this about LeBron James on ESPN. It's modern-day slavery. Now, when you read left-wing sports commentary, "Well, you know, maybe we don't have this in context. We need to get hold of Adrian and see what he really meant." In the meantime, Yahoo Sports removed that from his post. They just took it upon themselves to take the modern-day slavery comments out of the story. Then they talked to Adrian Peterson's agent, "No, he meant it." So they put it back in. "Well, you just have to understand where these players are coming from." My point is is that what would allow for this to be excused? Sympathy. "Well, he really didn't know what he was saying. Well, you know, maybe we didn't have it quite in the right context." The proof that they know this is damaging is that they take it out. Do you think they would ever remove some quote of mine that they made up? Remember these same people make up things that I never said about slavery and insert 'em into news stories. Here this guy says it and they take it out at Yahoo so as not to embarrass him.
One sportswriter said, "Well, what he really means is indentured servant. He really means indentured servant, a la Curt Flood, meaning he doesn't have the choice to play where he wants to. He's an indentured servant, but he really didn't mean slavery." And it's about time they say that 'cause the guy makes millions upon millions. Slaves did not get paid. They didn't get six months off. They didn't have universal health care. It's just ridiculous. But kid gloves, can't be condemnatory because, well, we have to understand. But this notion there would be football without players. Folks, understand something now. I live in Literalville, I understand economics, and I love the NFL, as you well know. Many of you in the stick-to-the-issues crowd hate the fact that I love the NFL. And you know that I have, like everybody else does, supreme admiration for the athletes that can play that game. It's something I wish I could do, can't do it, never have been able to do it, but I would love to be able to.
But there would not be football without owners. Football players can go out on the sandlot and play all they want. But if one of the players or a series of them didn't start making investments to try to own franchises, build stadiums, do whatever it is they have to do to have a professional league, there would not be a professional league. This is not criticism. I'm not taking sides. Just like Obama hasn't chosen sides between Khadafy and the rebels. He hasn't. I'm not choosing sides here yet. I'm just saying this notion that there wouldn't be the NFL without players is not really true.