Center Field Shot 

                                                                Baseball as a Valence Issue

           Because of its status as the “national pastime,” Baseball has frequently provoked the interest of the U.S. Congress. Although baseball is no longer the nation’s most popular sport, the historical stature of the game continues to make it a flashpoint for Congressional inquiry.  In the last fifteen years, Congress repeatedly has threatened action against Major League Baseball.  The attempt of MLB to move its “Extra Innings” package of out of market games exclusively to DirecTV generated considerable Congressional concern in 2007.  After the media saturated coverage of the steroids issue in March of 2005, Congress introduced legislation designed to “clean up” the game. During the work stoppage of 1994-95, Congress held hearings and members introduced legislation to remove or modify MLB’s antitrust exemption.  In the early 1990s, the perceived widening of the gap between the rich and poor teams provoked both the House and the Senate to introduce legislation forcing a more equitable sharing of local revenues.

            Introducing legislation is one thing, but passing it quite another. Congress approved none of this legislation. Although this inertia might reflect increasing failure of the Congress to act on matters of importance, it is “baseballcentric” to regard such legislation as an especially pressing national need. Of course, not every Congressional action addresses pressing national needs or “pork barrel” legislation would never get passed. If the “pork” can be passed, why not pass baseball legislation on steroids, contraction, or revenue sharing? 

            Politicians often view baseball controversies as valence issues, which allows politicians to stake out a safe position on a matter that interests the public.  Stokes notes that valence issues “merely involve the linking of parties with some condition that is positively or negatively valued by the electorate."  For example, a politician may “fearlessly” support a Constitutional ban on flag burning.  Although the legislator may not really regard the issue as serious, she or he knows that almost no one is in favor of flag burning.  Thus, the politician stakes out a no-lose position on an issue that excites at least part of the electorate.  In the case of baseball, who could have been in favor of steroid abuse? Of the continuation of the work stoppage? Of the growing revenue gap between teams? Of franchise contraction? The answer, of course, is very few.  Even if an opposite view is expressed, the argument tends to be more theoretical and complex. In short, much of the Congressional action on baseball and other sports has been “grandstanding,” appearing to be on the “side of the angels.” It has rarely been about actually doing anything to directly control the sport.