OT - Senator Wants to End Charging for Autographs

[NoMyths]

And in this week's corner of "let's shake our head at the politicians" (and note that it's a Democrat this time), here's the latest sports-related word from Washington. Yeah, it sucks that someone would charge money at all for their signature, but this IS a capitalist country, and the free market DOES hold sway. If the market is paying $100 for a scribble, they can certainly ask it. To a certain degree it reminds me of endorsement deals.

Link: Senator Wants to End Charging For Autographs

Full Text:
A Bad Sign
Pol wants to fine athletes for charging for autographs

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- Professional athletes who try to pad their million-dollar paychecks with paid autograph signings wouldn't be welcome in Rhode Island under legislation introduced this week.

Sen. Roger Badeau said he is fed up with athletes charging upwards of $100 for an autograph at large-scale autograph signing events. What really irks him is that children have to pay for the signatures of their sports heroes.

"They get paid millions and millions. Where do we stop with this? It doesn't make sense," Badeau said Friday. "It's not even realistic anymore."

Badeau's bill would ban professional athletes, entertainers or promoters from charging a fee for an autograph to a child under age 16. They would be fined $100 for each violation.

A Democrat who represents the Northern Rhode Island communities of Cumberland and Woonsocket, Badeau said he was appalled after the Boston Red Sox won the World Series last year and several players participated in an autograph signing event in Providence.

He said it sickened him to see parents shelling out $125 so their children could get a baseball, photo or bat signed by a player.

"There's a buck with everything," he said.

Badeau said it didn't matter that some of those signed baseballs and bats will end up online or with sports memorabilia dealers. He said it still sends the wrong message.

The Red Sox declined to comment on the legislation.

Badeau said he's gotten a lot of support for his bill. And though he doesn't expect it to pass, that's not the point.

"Whether the bill passes or not, I'll do it again next year," Badeau said. "I'm just trying to send a message to these guys."

[Easy Mac]

The chances of a pro athlete going to Rhode Island is as likely as a senator living going to compton.

[mgadfly]

Not to start an argument but if market forces were the only considerations we wouldn't have laws against a whole bunch of "immoral" activities. Like dealing drugs.

That said, it appears as though the politician knows his bill has no chance and is just trying to shame professional athletes by getting some free air time. Mission accomplished in this case.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course the question to be asked is whether most sport stars will feel shamed .

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course the question to be asked is whether most sport stars will feel shamed .

That is about as likely as the senator's bill passing.

[Tekneek]

And we wouldn't have "tort reform" either. The government is always seeking to limit the 'free market' unless it involves off-shoring jobs, in which case they extoll the virtues of the "free market." In nearly all other aspects, they can hardly resist getting their hands on it.

[gstelmack]

I think a key bit is that as pointed out by the baseball players, many of the autographed bits end up on Ebay, etc, making the owner a quick buck. So I don't mind the players getting a buck. And if the bill passes, you'll see people paying young kids to get the autographs for free.

[Bad-example]

If you are paying for an autograph, you have too much money.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

If you are paying for an autograph, you have too much money.

If you are selling an autograph you got for free, you have no personal ethics.

[cuervo72]

I suppose the senator is looking to shut down any card shows or expos that rely on having players or ex-players.

I'm really surprised that the senators aren't pushing to tax these signatures instead.

[Solecismic]

Given all the abusive behavior I've witnessed from kids and their parents over the years, it's a miracle any sports star will sign anything. My hat's off to any pro athlete who still makes the time and effort to sign for free.

The card shows are expensive. They have to be in order to draw the players. I'd imagine this is very unpleasant work for them. If the kids want to take part in that, great. They're guaranteed to get the opportunity to meet the player briefly and get something signed that they know is real. It's not my cup of tea, but I understand why people pay $100 for an autograph like that.

That senator in Rhode Island is just another example of an idiot trying to legislate the society of entitlement. He should be sentenced to sit next to the dugout during the hour before a Red Sox game. After an hour of listening to all those nasty kids and their parents*, he'll realize why no one is going to feel "shamed" by his stupid grandstanding.

I can only hope the people of that region of Rhode Island will wake up and recognize that their representative is more interested in getting his name into newspapers than representing their interests.

(*-yes, it's the minority of boorish kids and parents that spoil it for everyone, but it's a significant minority. IMO, ballplayers are not paid to play the game, they're paid to put up with being celebrities.)

[CamEdwards]

just for the record, this guy is a STATE senator, not a U.S. Senator. We have enough chuckleheads in D.C. right now that we don't need to be artifically inflating their numbers.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If you are selling an autograph you got for free, you have no personal ethics.

So it is always unethical to sell an asset which was freely given to you?

[Shkspr]

So basically the price for an autograph in Rhode Island is going to go up $100 for kids under 16.

Or the location of card shows is going to move 25 miles away to the Massachussetts border.

Or the senator is really just pushing for more child labor in the memorabilia market.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Given all the abusive behavior I've witnessed from kids and their parents over the years, it's a miracle any sports star will sign anything. My hat's off to any pro athlete who still makes the time and effort to sign for free.

The card shows are expensive. They have to be in order to draw the players. I'd imagine this is very unpleasant work for them. If the kids want to take part in that, great. They're guaranteed to get the opportunity to meet the player briefly and get something signed that they know is real. It's not my cup of tea, but I understand why people pay $100 for an autograph like that.

That senator in Rhode Island is just another example of an idiot trying to legislate the society of entitlement. He should be sentenced to sit next to the dugout during the hour before a Red Sox game. After an hour of listening to all those nasty kids and their parents*, he'll realize why no one is going to feel "shamed" by his stupid grandstanding.

I can only hope the people of that region of Rhode Island will wake up and recognize that their representative is more interested in getting his name into newspapers than representing their interests.

(*-yes, it's the minority of boorish kids and parents that spoil it for everyone, but it's a significant minority. IMO, ballplayers are not paid to play the game, they're paid to put up with being celebrities.)

Athletes take a lot of shit but I can still see how some reasonably decent people might feel shamed in taking $100 from a seven year old for an autograph.

I don't have too strong of an opinion here, but I'm not exactly sure why we should give baseball players (or whoever) a free pass on questionable behavior just because sometimes they have to deal with crap. Two wrongs don't make a right, or something like that...

I'm fine with this: the state congress should pass one of those opinion of the senate things (I'm not recalling the name of them) that says they think all athletes who take money from children for autographs are not good role-models. Then they should pass another one that says all asshole kids that sit behind the dugout of Redsox games should be disciplined by their parents (who are usually just as bad as the children, from my experience).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

So it is always unethical to sell an asset which was freely given to you?

I've never sold anything that was given to me, that I can recall. I'm not of the mindset that another person's generosity should be turned into my cash.

[lynchjm24]

I'm sure whatever this guy does for a living, he'd love to spend his weekends talking to people stupid enough to pay hundreds of dollars for an autograph.

There isn't a bigger bunch of losers in the world then adult autograph seekers. I was at the AA all-star game a few years ago, what a bunch of clowns. They had boxes full of stuff and would use fishing poles to get the item into the dugout and the players would be in there signing it. Personally, I'd be signing the wrong card or the wrong name if I were a player in that situation.

At what salary level can players charge for their autograph? How about guys who played years ago who didn't make millions? Why are people entitled to having Johnny Damon come to their town to sign their stupid crap, half of which would end up on ebay before the night was over?

It's good to see the state legislature of the great state of Rhode Island is such a bunch of forward thinking innovators.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The chances of a pro athlete going to Rhode Island is as likely as a senator living going to compton.

You've never been to the strip bars in Providence. Guys like Mo Vaughn spend more time there then playing.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I've never sold anything that was given to me, that I can recall. I'm not of the mindset that another person's generosity should be turned into my cash.

I am not trying to be a jerk here. I am just curious as to why one asset would be ok to sell and another one would be unethical. If a player signs my baseball card for free and increases the value by doing so, I wouldn't feel bad about selling it at some point.

That said, I don't ask players for autographs because I just don't care about owning signatures.

[Franklinnoble]

This is why I never could become a big Darrell Green fan. He doesn't sign ANY autographs for free... although, supposedly, all the proceeds go to his charity.

Still, it pissed me off when I took my kid brother to RFK and got him on the sidelines (back when I could still weasel a press credential for games), and he asked Green for an autograph and was denied.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

I am not trying to be a jerk here. I am just curious as to why one asset would be ok to sell and another one would be unethical. If a player signs my baseball card for free and increases the value by doing so, I wouldn't feel bad about selling it at some point.

That said, I don't ask players for autographs because I just don't care about owning signatures.

We're just different. I should clarify, that doing so would compromise my personal ethics. Other people are free to do what they wish. I certainly would not justify having the force of government used to enforce my opinion on the matter.