Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it presented by Disruption. Now I'm James Keys and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss the LIV Golf Tour and the concept of sports washing. And we'll consider why with all the business that's being done with unsavory characters around the world, this upstart competitor for the PGA Golf Tour has really seemed to struck a nerve in our society. To strike a nerve in our society.
And later on we're going to consider whether Juneteenth going commercial is something that we should be concerned about or an indication of a job well done for a newly adopted recognized federal holiday.
Joining me today is a man whose consistently smooth delivery can surprise when he. Well, honestly. Nevermind. Tunde. Ogo and Lana Tunde, are you ready to give the people something good out of the blue today?
[00:01:12] Speaker B: Smooth sailing, brother. Of course.
[00:01:15] Speaker A: All right. All right. Now we're recording this on June 20, 2022. And over the past few weeks we've seen a lot of discussion and controversy surrounding this newly launched LIV Golf Tour. Now this golf tour was started as a competitor to the status quo for professional golf in the US which is the PGA Tour. And generally speaking, it aims to deliver more money more consistently to higher end and or more popular performers. You know, where there's a pga, the, the earnings are distributed more widely and you got to win to earn and so forth. Where this is saying, hey, if you're the cream of the crop, then we're just delivering more money to you more consistently.
Now many believe though that this tour and its money are tainted because they're backed by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund and are a part of the Saudis effort to use sports to improve their image around the world and make people forget or at least stop talking as much about their record of human rights abuses. So Tunde, what is your reaction to the controversy surrounding this LIV Golf Tour, which again, it seems to really struck a nerve and people talk about it a lot more than you would think. Just another upstart sports league or something like that.
[00:02:29] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean the first reaction is kind of interesting. I thought, what's going on here? And then I thought, as I looked more, I thought, okay, just another outrage factory moment. Just you know, the kind of media making something that for everyone. Because I'm thinking, okay, it's Saudi Arabia. They're paying golfers a bunch of money to show up. We all know Saudis got a ton of money and you know, they want to throw money at something, they usually make it work, right? Just like that mile high building in Dubai. They threw a lot of money at it and it worked. So, you know, the, you know, that was my initial reaction. But then in looking into it deeper, I kind of, I kind of felt number one, it's another thing that a lot of people making a big deal when it's a really, really, really small drop in a bucket and a bigger picture of all of our lives, meaning it's 11 U.S. golfers out of every golfer in the U.S. it's professional, so it's not a huge block of people choosing to go play for another country's thing than ours. However, I recognize that these are some of the biggest names in golf and this is a disruption. You mentioned it well, that the PGA Tour, I think, has had a lock on golf, right? Professional golf and the spotlight. So I think, yeah, as I looked into it, I said, okay, this is a bigger deal than I just thought in the sense that this is just upsetting the apple cart of a sport. And if I can put it this way, an industry, meaning golf itself, I guess being an industry on its own and an ecosystem within its own that has had one central player that's been dominant and now is being challenged by another player who, who knows if they'll be dominant or not, but they clearly got the cash to make themselves known early here.
[00:04:10] Speaker A: So definitely the way they reacted, they definitely see them as a threat. They don't look at them as just, oh, you know, who cares about these guys? I actually, it's interesting to me because I think you can come down pretty easily on any side of this and have some level of consistent principle. You know, like in general, we're saying we're pro competition here. So this is, I mean, I think the PGA Tour is definitely overstating their outrage because they have enjoyed no real competition for a long time and now somebody who has bankroll is going to take them on and they're going to compete with them for especially the best talent. Not just, you know, the guys who can't bring eyeballs to televisions or whatever, but the guy, the people who are, you know, the better players. You know, the numbers out there that they're offering these, these good players are jarring. You know, there's. You get, get up into, you know, eight figures, nine figures potentially. And it's like, wow, you know, so. But they're not in it for the, for profit. And so it changes the calculation in that. And then on the other side, the Saudi, like, record and so Forth isn't one that's trumped up like they are. They deserve their reputation, you know, in terms of the abuses and so forth. So it does take a certain level of compromise potentially on your own principles to say, okay, well I'll take this money. Understanding that this money is meant to distract people from the way that the people who have this money operate. But then again, then you can look at somebody else and say, well, hold on, we do business with the Saudis all the time.
So it's not like we don't do business with them right now. Joe Biden just went over there or he's about to go over there asking for them to give us more oil, pull out more oil out the ground. So it's like, it's really one of those things that it kind of the reason I actually wanted to talk about this today is it kind of reveals how we're all twisted and tied up in these things anyway. And this is really an example of whatever side you want to come down on. You can really come up, you can actually come up with a coherent argument to support you on that side of that argument.
[00:06:12] Speaker B: Yeah, and it's, it's, you know, and going that direction, I, in preparing for today, there was, it was interesting to me how there were the detractors of this, were coming from different circles. It wasn't like one group alone is saying, oh, this is so bad, and then kind of everyone else. So I saw a diversity, you know, as, from as far end as one side was the one group of 911 families, you know, the survivors, which we can all appreciate understanding Saudi Arabia's role in fomenting Wahhabi Islam and then the well documented financial support they gave to what we've traditionally considered terrorists, certain terrorist organizations. So I could appreciate that. And then the other end of the spectrum were the kind of people that didn't like the killing of the journalist Jamal.
[00:07:04] Speaker A: I think it's the same end of the spectrum. You have like the human rights people, which is like the people. And so.
[00:07:09] Speaker B: No, I'm just saying. But someone who might be a, let's say someone that in that 911 families group, had they not lost a family member, may have never even been on this topic.
[00:07:18] Speaker A: But the media thing is this here, let me give you an example though, because what you have here is, it's definitely looking at it from, it's myopic to a degree, but it's also talking about principles or whatever. But you understand why the 911 people are there. You understand why media organizations are upset about this and journalists because one of their own, they don't like the idea of governments killing journalists. So while there's a principle there, it's also kind of like, hey, you know, like, it's protecting your own to an extent. But again, I don't want to minimize it there because there is a principle. And I'd say the flip side of that is like the pga, you know, who is, who has a financial. They don't have a principle involved here, really. They just, they just, you know, they're like, hey, this is going to cut in on our turf. And so, like, I think those would be the two ends of the spectrum where you have people who can literally, literally look at the Saudis and say, they have wronged me or my type or my kind or, you know, my principles. And then you have the other people like, hey, these people are going to get in our money. You know, I think, though, I would look at those as the two ends of the spectrum.
[00:08:15] Speaker B: Yeah. And.
Or you got the people going to play saying, I'm going to make a lot of money.
And, and that's what I'm saying. Like, like, part of the way I looked at it was the Saudis are making a market that, that was the way I looked at it is, you know, there maybe because PGA basically was a monopoly. There was no market for golfers to kind of, you know, be kind of traded like horses, you know, in terms of, in different leagues being able to command different salaries, all that kind of stuff. And now the Saudis have created something interesting because who's to say that another wealthy backer, quote unquote, from another part of the world, let's say, you know, there's some Chinese group of billionaires or something that want to have the Beijing Open or some sort of tournaments in that part of the world, and they don't start throwing a bunch of money at American golfers, the same group, you know, and these, they get all these international groups that are forming these things to compete for them. So it just, I just found that interesting from, from those levels, one of the things, Let me, before you leave.
[00:09:19] Speaker A: I wanted to say something on the market piece because you're right, I mean, that, that is, there have been. This isn't. This wasn't a new complaint amongst golfers. And some golfers have taken this, this more strongly than others, Phil Mickelson being one of them, or Greg Norman, where they're saying that the, the way the PGA operates, they've been saying this for a long time, is unfair. It's unfair to us people to bring in the eyeballs to TVs, people that are bringing this thing to prominence. We are not being compensated in a way that's consistent to what we deliver here. And so what's happening here, and there have been other attempts to do this, but really what they didn't have until the Saudis stepped in is someone that can say, okay, I'll put the money up and you don't need to deliver their immediate return. We can put the money up and we can build this over five or 10 years. We don't need to make money right away, but we can come in with the amount of money to draw the type of names that we would need to even get a foothold here. Because you're not going to be able to challenge the PGA operating on a shoestring budget, and you're not going to be able to turn around an immediate profit. So the fact that they have found a financial backer, that profit motive either right away, definitely isn't their concern. Arguably, it may not be their concern in the distant future either, as long as they get the benefits from, you know, which we'll talk about later, what's been called the sports washing. But ultimately what it was, a movement met a financial backer, so to speak, or a grievance met a financial backer who could address that grievance. And so that's what we have here, you know, so. But this didn't come out of the blue where just golfers were all okay with whatever the status quo was. There was a discontent with the status quo, and this was kind of the opportunity somebody took to take advantage of that.
[00:11:03] Speaker B: Yeah. And as you say that, it reminds me a bit of the NCAA discussion with, with, you know, the kids, players in the NCAA getting paid, you know, this, this idea that someone, meaning some organization, whether the NCAA or pga, has benefited for decades in a way that hasn't been shared with those who are actually doing, you know, toiling in the soil. Right. Doing the labor part of it, in terms of whether the NCAA athlete, kids, or here, the golfers.
[00:11:33] Speaker A: And that, or admittedly, let me say this, the extent to which it was shared was arbitrary.
[00:11:38] Speaker B: That was permanent to not get the market. Yeah, I was going to get it because I recognize that kids playing NCAA sports generally are getting, you know, their education paid for, they're getting meals, they're getting free housing and board, you know, room and board covered when they go to university. So there is an exchange of value there. I recognize that. And of course, but they're not allowed.
[00:11:56] Speaker A: To bargain for that, basically. Yeah, yeah. But go ahead. Yeah.
[00:11:59] Speaker B: And that's all I'm saying. And I recognize that, that PGA golfers get paid a few million bucks when they win, and they're compensated, too. But to your point, when you only have one body that is allowing you in this door to do this, whether it be play college sports or play professional golf type of thing, and like you're saying there's no ability to really bargain, then it's just interesting. Right? It's just interesting that the Saudis came up and were like, all right, well, and to your point, they don't need to make money immediately on this, so they can afford to make a large investment without an immediate financial return in order to disrupt the marketplace, let's put it that way.
[00:12:37] Speaker A: Exactly.
[00:12:38] Speaker B: So it's just interesting. That's right. From. It's kind of like a business espionage move, but under guise of a nice calm game called golf.
[00:12:46] Speaker A: Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, because that's really what it is. I mean, you had these. What it is we see is these. It's an unnatural business arrangement. You know, you have one party, just like you pointed out, NCAA was a similar thing or has been a similar thing, where it's just one side saying, okay, here are the terms. You know, everybody, you can either participate or. Or not, but you can't say, oh, well, I want to participate, but let's change these terms. I can deliver a million eyeballs to a tv. You still get paid the same amount or you still get just a scholarship. It doesn't matter how many eyeballs you deliver, how much money you make us and so forth. So this is disruptive to that. And so ultimately, I know we touched on this a little bit, but I do want to ask you specifically, Americans do business with a lot of questionable characters all over the world. You know, like, there's people talk about, you know, the businesses. Up until, I guess, recently, up until this year, the level of business that was done with Russian, Russia, you know, the Russian state interests or whatever, or the oligarchs, China, you know, people there. There's a lot of people that rightfully complain about their human rights abuses. The Saudis, they have all this money in large part because we're a country that pays them a lot of money, you know, and so. But in this instance, you know, we see a very strong pushback, and it may be from circles that have particular interest in it. It may not be it not exaggerated. And again, I don't want to push to minimize the discontent that we're seeing at all, but it may be coming from parties that have a particular interest in it. And so therefore, because one of those parties is the media, then we may hear about it more than actually your run of the mill person is actually offended by it. But either way, why do you think this seems to have struck a nerve or is that the reason is because the media is one of the people that are mad and so they're going to make us hear about it all the time?
[00:14:28] Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's part of it. I definitely think that you made a good point earlier that most people kind of close ranks or circle the wagons when it's one of their own that's been a victim of anything. Right. And I think the fact that we had a Washington Post journalist kind of in a sloppy, ham fisted way, assassinated basically by his own government in a foreign embassy, just almost the perfect kind of spy movie type of thing.
I think that does bother our media. Right? Because it feels like that's one of their own and understandably so.
[00:15:03] Speaker A: Again, not to minimize it at all like that.
[00:15:06] Speaker B: So I think yes, anything. Yeah. So if as a human being, I'm sure if you're a journalist now and you didn't like that, anything that comes up regarding Saudi Arabia is going to be attracting your attention and something like this would have thrown a huge amount of money to attract, you know, famous golfers to go there. You know, people are going to have like we talk about all the time in these shows, right? It's a free country, freedom of speech. They have a right to say whatever they want to say. However, you asked me a good question because this is where I say, you know. And I know that you always walk me off the ledge of talking about hypocrisy because it's a waste of time. And I agree with you generally. But I can't help to call out the situational ethics that so many people play when I see moments like this. I mean, number one, you're 100% right that Saudi Arabia, it's probably not a place I'd want to be from a human rights perspective.
They just let women drive cars by themselves. Like in 2018, not that long ago, they still have religious police on the street. It's still a theocracy for lack of a better term. So those are all reasons. And then the others are things like they have a war right now with Yemen, that they aren't treating civilians too great. You know, they're targeting civilian areas. You talk about our symbiotic relationship with them. Not only is it oil, between 2015 and 2021, they've spent, meaning the Saudis have spent $60 billion in with our defense contractors. So we're selling on average in the last few years, $10 billion a month of weapons to them. And so, and my point is, I don't care about that. I mean, that's kind of the way of the world and commerce. I'm just making the point that Saudi Arabia has similar human rights violations, as you mentioned, to China, I'd say up until kind of Ukraine and take out the Syrian conflict, maybe Russia, similar human rights violations and a lot of other countries which we do business with. So you're right. I think people just tend to pick and choose what situations they feel are the ones that they want to care about without recognizing that they look the other way when the same thing is happening to other groups and they tend not to care as much.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I mean, there definitely seems to be a, oftentimes at least a kind of a double take to see who the victim is before people figure out how outraged they'll be about human rights violations. Because we've saw there have been organizations, international organizations that have looked at the US in terms of its policing situations and called that with the way that blacks are getting killed by agents of the state, which police officers are agents of the state, that being human rights issues. And so without, I don't know, I'm not going down that path to get messy with it. But just to point out that there are a lot of fingers that are pointed from a human rights violation standpoint and some of those get pointed at the US and so either way, I do think that the reason this struck a nerve, I think that there are sufficient interested parties to try to call attention to this. That's really driving it. And the reason I'll say that is because this isn't the first time we've seen in a sports context even the Saudis or it blow up from the standpoint of, oh, how come, you know, the Saudi money is creating problems for the status quo? Or, you know, we don't, we don't believe in this because in European soccer, high level European soccer, they've been, there've been, the Saudis have put money up, bought teams or been major investors in teams. And then some of the other people are either complaining here, complaining that they're throwing off the market because they're spending more because profit isn't that big of a concern to them, they're spending more, they're Driving up the prices on everybody else. People who may be trying to turn a profit or at least break even. They're saying you're throwing off the salaries, you're throwing off everything like that. Of course they're not complaining as they drive up the values of the teams. But either way that's, there's your situational ethics there again.
But also that people have brought up the human rights stuff as well, you know, like in terms of, oh well, you know, like what we're doing. Why are we getting in bed with people who we look at these human rights violations. And so I think that it's one of those things that they're dueling kind of interests, dueling masters, so to speak. You have this, this market based capitalism or you know, because you can't even fully call the Saudi Arabia sovereign wealth fund. I mean that's not capital that, that's generated in that traditional sense when we talk capitalism, but it's capital nonetheless. But capitalism, market based capitalism. I mean if you, if that's your master, then what the Saudis are doing, and when I say master, I mean your priority, that's the number one in the pecking order. Then what they're doing is just normal, so to speak. Like that's what they got a bunch of money, they want to do something with the money. And whether that gives them actual cash return or some other kind of return, that's what they're allowed to do with their capital, you know. And so that's all that, that's your master. If your master is something else, something a little less clear, but still something that involves some level of market economics and some level of concern over the, the world being a fair and decent place, then if that, if you're going to prioritize that higher here, then yeah, you will look at this. Since I had it, this is screwed up. Why are we almost given the seal of approval or endorsement to the Saudis here? You know, like. So I get it. And again, as I said, I think it really, this actually where you, what you think about this actually says more about you than you, you know, Tunde Ogon line now. But even, you know, listeners, everybody, what you think about this says more about you than what it says about anything else that's going on. Because there are very clear paths to any position that you want to take here, you know, that you can make and you can make very logically and very coherently.
[00:20:58] Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it. I think. Look, that takes someone's an ability for someone to actually introspect and ask themselves a question, how. Why do I feel? Why do I have this reaction? I mean, somebody could have zero reaction to say, I don't freaking care about Saudi Arabian golfers. And that's. You could ask yourself, why have that reaction. But anyone who has any opinion greater than that probably should check in because.
[00:21:24] Speaker A: Because it's a Rorschach test.
[00:21:25] Speaker B: Well, yeah. And as I was. I was just reading and preparing, and I was thinking about this, you know, how we talk about these situational ethics. I started thinking about things like the Ukraine crisis, you know, and I'll say this. The people of Ukraine deserve all of our sympathy and all of our help.
And so I'll say. And so did the people of Syria, because in looking at this now, post invasion of Ukraine, I've seen a lot of footage and stories about that. Russia basically trained for this in Syria from, like 2014 to 2018. You know, all those years when it was disruptive and there were 500,000 Syrian civilians killed, and it caused all that disruption. Remember the migration to Europe that caused all that disruption in Europe. And then I thought about the refugees coming over our border from areas like Venezuela that also have been disrupted by Russia specifically. And it's just interesting that what comes back into what the kind of tie that binds them all is this idea of refugees. And that's where I started thinking, really, about the situational ethics. Because the definition of a refugee is the same is a person that is displaced due to some sort of conflict and in maybe lesser cases, natural disaster. Because, remember, they were even calling the American people inside America from New Orleans refugees when they were just trying to go somewhere else. And they were in a lot of times, remember, there were stories about them being met with hostility, trying to go to other parts of their state or other parts of the country and looked down upon. So again, this is. So a refugee is a refugee. The definition's the same, no matter what. Race, gender, part of the world, ethnicity, religion is just that. That's why it's a good point you make as a raw shack test. We tend to treat people in these conditions differently based on our own perception of who deserves sympathy and who doesn't. And it's. It's pretty. I guess, with this era of. Of all this media, it's interesting to watch it because we're constantly getting hit with all these new stories.
[00:23:27] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:23:27] Speaker B: And then different groups sit there and make these appeals, and it's more and more I'm just thinking, like, man, we're all missing a point. And like, it's about a humanity, you know, and that sounds hokey, but if you don't think of it that way, then all you're doing is picking sides. And is that right? You know what I mean?
[00:23:44] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you're picking sides in a way that is like, whether you know it or not, you're constantly. And this is why I say I don't lean into hypocrisy much, because people are pretty flagrantly hypocritical, you know, so it's like, you point that out and people will find a way to dismiss, like, oh, no, I'm not being hypocritical, but it's like, no. And so it leans into it almost, you know, so. But that's a better way to say it.
[00:24:09] Speaker B: Remember the one I've always rail against because I fall on my sword with my own group, remember? And we're doing Juneteenth next. The separation of children at the southern border in the last few years, you know, every African American should have been railing against that if they have any upsetness about the separation of families during slavery. Yeah, that to me, you know, so, hey, situational ethics. Everybody is a victim of it, of having it. And I can point that to my. I can point to my own group and just say, hey, we do it.
[00:24:41] Speaker A: Too sometimes, because that's humanity, man. It's that. That shows. We try to categorize ourselves, but really, I mean, that's our humanness that comes out in that sense. And so, I mean, in this case, you know, I pointed out only because if you care to look beyond that and kind of see, okay, well, here's what's really going on. And you know, like, you could take a strong position, or you could take a position that's more about, okay, well, how do we address the issue? Or is this. Are we just in the interim right now? Which is where I think we are. We're in the interim right now. Where we are now isn't where we're going to end up. This is a agitator, so to speak, that's going to what? Maybe it causes the PGA to change. Maybe it causes some other upstarts to form. Maybe, like, it could go a lot of different directions. It's not necessarily the end of the world. Ideally, I would like to see a nation who is not have such a bad record with human rights to be able to take such a prominent role. But that's where you get into sports. Washing, which is a term. It's a Relatively new term, but it's something that's existed for a long time. And really what you look at it as is you use sports, you get into sports to paper over or to cover over, to change the subject from topics that you don't want, where you may be looked at negatively from a societal level or from a world society level, you know, whatever. You use sports, you get involved in sports because sports stir passions unrelated to judgment of human rights or of any other types of things. And so with that, what do you think of the Saudis effort here? You know, and which is apparently ongoing, you know, like. But it also, you can see the Saudis here, you can see China's been big on this. This is why they've been pushing for the Olympics and so forth. And with the sports watching, do you think this is going to pay dividends for them? Do you think this is something that makes sense from the Saudi's perspective?
[00:26:30] Speaker B: Yeah, I think so. Generally, whether it pays dividends in the terms of 10 years from now, the whole world thinks that they're great and that nobody's complaining about human rights abuses, I don't think that's going to be the case. But will it pay dividends in terms of continuing to let. Let's just on a serious note, like the business community feel, okay, you know, this is Saudi Arabia's legit.
I can fly to Riyadh for a meeting and not feel like I gotta hide that from people and all that. I think if they continue to go down this road, I think, yes, it'll have an outcome that the rest of the world will not look at them maybe in the way they have in the past is just kind of this oil nation that has this wealthy royal family that we just got to deal with because they got all this oil and money. I think that they are on their way to diversifying their economy and the way that people see them. So I do think it'll have an effect. And I think historically this has happened a lot. I mean, one of the things I was reminded in preparing for today were the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.
[00:27:39] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:27:40] Speaker B: Where, you know, Hitler, Hitler had already started his concentration camps. There's already news pouring out of the abuses that the Nazi regime was inflicting upon a lot of people in the European theater, so to speak. And the Olympics were his chance to try and say, oh, this is a softer, more, more gentle thing than you were being told. And it also gave a chance for Jesse Owens to show the world a few things.
I thought about, like the sochi Olympics in 20 in Russia, you know, that was the same year they made their big invasion on Ukraine, remember? And after they had done stuff in Georgia and Chechnya and all that. So that was a similar thing trying to make them Crimea. So, yeah. So I mean, that's just a couple examples, but I'm sure we could rattle off.
[00:28:27] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, no, and that that's why they do it. I mean, I would tend to think that it is something that the people who do it seem to think it works and they look at it much more closely than I do.
[00:28:38] Speaker B: You know, I'm sure it's fun too, to put on a big sporting event and just have a good time.
[00:28:42] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. So I would imagine that it's going to pay the kind of dividends that they want it to pay. It's going to change the subject or at least give something else to talk about, like when, if they didn't do it. I think if you want to question whether something like this works, what you have to do is think about how our attentions work. And that's two things. One, the outrage usually doesn't last as long as whatever they're doing to cause the outrage. So the outrage will come and go and people be outraged about something else in a couple months and they'll still be doing this, and so it'll outlast the outrage. And then two, what it does is, is that at minimum it gives a competing narrative in your mind about them. And so if they don't do something like this altogether, then anytime you hear Saudi Arabia, you will think, if you're paying attention to this kind of stuff, you'll think human rights abuses, or you'll think oil money or whatever, but. And then ultimately theocracy. Human rights abuses. But if they do this, then you might think that stuff. But you also think, oh yeah, the golf tournament. And if they golf tournament becomes popular, if it starts the biggest and the baddest people out there, you know, participating in it, then you'll think of that and it'll be. So at minimum, we only have X amount of attention, you know, in our mind for, for this issue. So it. Instead of Saudi being associated with just one thing and that's very bad, or two things, and one of them is. Is neutral or bad and the other one's bad, then you'll think of three things or you'll think of, you know, other things that. So it'll crowd out the negative, so to speak, or at least make space other than the negative. And so you won't think of them as all bad. You'll think of them as, oh well, you know, they do this stuff. But you know, that golf tournament is dope though, you know, like, so it'll be. And I think that's the point of it basically is to put in people's minds, competing narratives, understanding that you only have so much in your space in your mind for something like this anyway. Because for most people it doesn't, it isn't something that triggers them or dominates their consciousness. For the people who were triggered by this, it won't work at all. But they know they're never going to get those people anyway. So that's not the target, you know, from that standpoint. So I think, I mean it's unfortunate, but this is. They're counting on us generally prioritizing capitalism and markets over humanity and human rights. And that is a pretty safe bet over the past, you know, few hundred years, minimum. You know, like in terms of how we've looked at how our societies have evolved.
[00:31:01] Speaker B: Yeah. And the other thing they're doing is they're actually like this is where it could work because the PGA hasn't had competition. I mean this is the interesting thing about markets and why we generally have.
The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to be doing antitrust and I would hope they do it more in terms of breaking up companies that appear to be so big that, you know, they're becoming, or they have become monopolies and don't allow for, you know, smaller players to compete. And my point is, is that PGA Tour has been around a long time and sports have changed a lot in that period of time as well as technology and the use of technology within sports. So something that I'm not even into but a lot of people are and especially a lot of younger people younger than me, I'm 44. Are things like fantasy sports?
[00:31:50] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:31:51] Speaker B: And so what's interesting is the live tournament, the Saudis, they, they added elements of fantasy sports where you know, 12 players are dubbed as captains. They have a rapid fire draft in a way that they select their four member squads and then the rosters will change for every tournament and players on the winning team get an extra $3 million each. So even if you aren't a star of that team, you still incentivize to, to do well and you're going to make more than, I guess the winner of the PGA gets a one in one tourname.
[00:32:22] Speaker A: Let me add to this because I want to say it a little more generally they are trying to innovate basically, they are trying and whereas the PGA has not tried to innovate and tried to kind of keep things the same in the. Because that's what you do when you're a monopoly normally is you off that. That's one of the reasons we try to avoid monopolies, is monopolies spend most of their time just trying to keep the market cornered, not trying to push things forward. And where they are trying to innovate, they are trying different things. They are doing things a little bit differently in ways that may resonate in modern society. Like you're pointing out, like, that's just one example. So, yeah, I mean, in that, like I said, like, that's why we're kind of in an in between point right now where this is happening. There's going to be a reaction, I would imagine, from the PGA as well, not just banning people, I would hope at least, I mean, you would think that they would say, okay, well let's try to make our offering better. Let's make it so that we don't have these aggrieved golfers, you know, at least not as aggrieved, you know. And so, you know, like, yeah, it's. It is competition that may end up making the whole thing better, but, you know, it's messy.
[00:33:27] Speaker B: Yeah, well, yeah, what's messy is I thought Monopoly was the little guy with the monocle and the top hat with a handlebar mustache that I got to give him.
[00:33:35] Speaker A: The point of that is to get a monopoly, remember?
[00:33:37] Speaker B: Remember, I got. I got to give him $200 every time he passed go. And no one's explaining me why.
[00:33:41] Speaker A: So. Yeah, well, no, I want to move on to the next topic, but you know, like, we just celebrated Juneteenth. Now. This was just recognized as a federal holiday last year and already this year we saw there were. It has become commercialized or it's heading that direction, you know, much faster I think maybe than people were expecting. You know, we saw Juneteenth ice cream that was put forward by Walmart and then pulled back initially. And we've seen other types of products or things that people were doing for Juneteenth in addition to the traditional celebrations and so forth. But we've in with this, you know, every action there's a reaction. There have been some that have complained about the commercial, about the commercialization of Juneteenth, which was a holiday that was honored that honors emancipated enslaved blacks. And, you know. So what are your thoughts on these complaints? I'll start with people saying, oh, you shouldn't be commercializing this like this, or, you know, this is, it's doing a disservice to the holiday or whatever. What's your thoughts on that?
[00:34:42] Speaker B: I think they got to stand in line with everyone complaining about every single holiday being commercialized. Let's start with Christmas, Hanukkah, Easter.
I used to tell my wife when she would buy the Easter eggs, I said, when's the last time a rabbit laid an egg? I don't understand how this represented the birth of Jesus. You know, so then we can go to Valentine's Day, we can go to Halloween, we can go to Thanksgiving because it's supposed to be about the pilgrims and all that. But we get, you know, but it become about shopping on Black Friday. Think about Memorial Day, supposed to be honoring our veterans who died in service to this country. It becomes about mattress sales on that weekend and barbecues. So every single holiday in America has been commercialized. So I say bring it on for Juneteenth. I'm upset that Walmart stopped serving that ice cream. They should have just rolled out with it and not listen to the complaining.
[00:35:35] Speaker A: When you put it like that. No, when you put it like that, it's almost like a rite of passage.
[00:35:38] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying. It's like the commercialization is like, yeah, exactly. It's normalized. Like, okay, this is an official American holiday. This is great. That's what I'm saying.
I get it.
[00:35:49] Speaker A: I think there is a line, but. Yeah, well, no, I think there is a line. I saw one complaint that was more directed towards, I think a watermelon salad or something like that. I think there is a line where you can cross into mocking.
But I mean that's something that we see with other holidays as well. Like, I think that there's a line with, when you look at Cinco de Mayo, you know, where it's like, oh, well, is this how much of this is kind of, you know, like in good spirits, just enjoying yourself on the holiday? And how much is this is trying to mock somebody or something. But generally speaking, I side more on where you're going. I think that this is kind of just. This just means that the holiday is kind of being accepted and creating all these, like, we're a, you know, we're a market based system. We are, this is what we do is commerce. And so putting all this out there in the commercial ecosystem actually brings it to more acceptance, brings and makes it more something that people are going to look forward to. Or remember or ask questions about. If it's all the somber, reserved type of celebrations, so to speak, or remembrances, then it's probably not going to get as much pub, you know, it's probably not going to get. And I think a big part of this we want is for people to know what it is and to be like, okay, yeah, this is something that's important in America. And so, I mean, unfortunately or fortunately, if you want to make something important in America, make it commercial.
That's how you make something important in America is like, oh, yeah, I can't wait for Juneteenth because of the ice cream or something like that. And that people will remember it, people will look forward to it and so forth. And people ask and learn about what it is.
[00:37:22] Speaker B: Yeah. No, and I think that it's just interesting because going back to even the first part of our show today, when we talked about human rights and the Rorschach test and all that, you know, what does Juneteenth really celebrate? It actually is a celebration of the extension of human rights to people that were once slaves. And so it's just a very interesting, I guess, just way to have this conversation because we, like you said earlier, we generally don't think of human rights conversations involving our own country as Americans, or at least a lot of us don't. Yeah. And I mean, this is why a lot of Americans don't want to discuss these things, because they don't want to take a look at just facts in history. And I think that's why I appreciate that this has become a national holiday. Like I mentioned offline, the stock market and the bond market being closed on this day is actually a pretty big deal. I mean, it kind of really solidifies as a true federal holiday versus some of the other holidays where the banks are still open, but your kids are home from school and you're trying to figure out if this is a real holiday or not. And so, so the point I'm getting at is to discuss what really the whole concept of Juneteenth, because it's interesting, you and I have both mentioned that as black Americans, we were ignorant to this holiday until we were adults. Right. This isn't a holiday that was.
[00:38:44] Speaker A: Hey, man, don't pull that in me into that. I told you I knew about this in college.
[00:38:47] Speaker B: You were an adult, weren't you? Assuming you were of age. Right. You weren't 15. Unless you.
[00:38:54] Speaker A: And I also went to a historically black school. So, I mean, that's still. Yeah, normally you wouldn't Most people hadn't.
[00:38:59] Speaker B: Heard of this, to your point, and that's my point. It's just. It was regional. It was kind of in the Southwest and maybe parts of the Midwest, but it wasn't well known to everybody in this country. And I think that now we know the whole point of the holiday was, you know, the slaves are freed in 1863 by President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.
And Texas did not free their slaves. And so slaves there, 250,000 people, lived an additional two years in slavery until the year 1865. And so, you know, again, this is where the raw shack test to me comes in. Because people can hear this stuff and they can either not care, which is fine. They can care and say, okay, that's part of history, and blah, blah, blah, or they can have a very visceral rejection of it and feel offended by even hearing this information.
And that should, to me, is the one that it's like, okay, take an internal look in yourself, and if this stuff is bothering you a lot, you gotta ask yourself why? Because this is American history. So the fact that we have not heard about this much before and now it is here that the first Juneteenth celebration was in 1866. So, again, this is another example that there's been many narratives in the American story, but only a very selected few have been the ones that we've all learned in the history book. So I think this is another beautiful example of this country embracing its actual. Its true history and not just a history of a slice of that history.
[00:40:33] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. A more complete look, you know, and, you know, I think that it's good that it's here. And while, like I said, I don't look at most of it, I think there's a line, like I said, I think there have been instances where people cross lines, and there have been instances where people complain. And maybe it doesn't cross a line. That line may vary for different people. I'll say this, though. I'm also not one that thinks that everyone needs to have the same reaction to everything. So I'm not here to say that the people who have been complaining or saying, hey, you know, we need to keep this closer to its original meaning or anything like that. I'm not here to call them out and say they're wrong. I have a different perspective, you know, and I think that it's good, the people who are raising alarms about things like that, they're part of the discussion to help us find where, from a consensus standpoint, where the line should be. And some people are going to be more offended by things, and some people will be less offended by things. And so there's not one person or one reaction that I think everybody should have. But I do think from a big picture standpoint, in this instance, the commercialization was inevitable, and that it's happening already, I would say is probably more of a positive, meaning that the thing that the holiday is reaching a critical mass of adoption, not just as a federal holiday, but something that people are going to actually recognize and celebrate and that it's something that major corporations are comfortable putting out there. And so enough Americans are like, yeah, this is cool, you know, like, this is something that, you know, America. This is American, you know. And so, like, if we're going to. If we're going to do this thing, you know, like, we're going to do this thing together, then, like, you kind of got to take not necessarily the heinous or the crazy, but the things that you're not crazy about, and then also the things that you are crazy about together. And again, that's not saying that things that are just heinous and just nasty, you don't have to take the nasty, you don't have to put up with the nasty. But things that may not play out exactly how you would want them to play out in the pluralistic society, that's how it is. So there's a difference between Juneteenth ice cream and, you know, strange fruit hanging from a tree and where one you could be like, no, I'm not accepting that. Where. When one is like, all right, well, you know, maybe not how I would celebrate, but I get it. It's commercialized, you know.
[00:42:47] Speaker B: No, and that's well said because I know that there's a lot of emotional energy right now in the black community about a lot of things, you know, kind of post George Floyd Summer, some of the animal spirits that have been unleashed kind of in the American. Right, that have made unfortunately, a lot of African Americans a little bit more apprehensious about people in this country that may want to go back to days of old in terms of some of the violence. Like we saw the recent shooting in that Buffalo supermarket from a white supremacist and things that ironically the days of.
[00:43:29] Speaker A: Old that they don't want to learn about.
[00:43:31] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. So that's the whole point, right? Because if you don't teach history, it can happen again, so why teach it?
So if I had a conspiracy theory bone of me, but luckily I don't.
But no. So that's my point, is that, understandably, a lot of people are emotionally on edge these days. However, I think you and I have talked offline. I mean, number one is the commercialization of something like Juneteenth is a direct sign of progress in many ways, as we've been discussing, like I mentioned to you before, when John Carlos stood and put his fist in the air on the podium at the 1968 Olympics in signification of black power and equal rights and all that kind of stuff. It's not like IBM and General Electric and Ford Motor Company and all the big industry titans of the 20th century were running to give him endorsement deals. But, you know, Kaep takes a kneel. Takes a knee, sorry. Kaepernick takes a knee and Nike's there, you know, paying him millions of dollars in marketing. And it continues, you know, the George Floyd summer, we got organizations like NASCAR banning the Confederate flag, you know, in states like Mississippi taking the Confederate flag off of their state flag. So these are all small little increments of progress that, on their own mind, look small. But when you put them all together, if you understand American history, which a lot of people don't, because they don't read, these are actually pretty huge gains in terms of. At least symbolically, and some are actual true gains. And so that's where I think that it's a long arc of progress, but it seems to be bending in the right direction over time. And so. So, yeah, that's. That's my thought on that.
[00:45:14] Speaker A: Yeah. And so, I mean. And that's. I mean, honestly. And that's why you'll see, as it bends, you know, you see reaction, you see backlash. You know, like, even a couple years ago, we did. We read that, you know what Martin Luther King's fourth book, and he talked about that even in his time, you know, like, with every bit of progress that they make, that the backlash comes. And so that's inevitable as well. And you don't focus on that. You know, like, you just understand that's coming, but you keep things moving forward. And so in this instance, commercialization in my. From my perspective, from my view, is like, okay, that as you ran through the list earlier, every American holiday is commercialized for the most part, at least the ones that you've heard about. I'm sure there's some obscure holidays that haven't been commercialized. And, I mean, there's probably a relation there. So. But I think we can wrap it up from here, man.
[00:46:01] Speaker B: Well, let me do one more, because I just wanted to Read a quote. It's actually from Major General Gordon Granger, who was the commanding officer on June 9th.
[00:46:10] Speaker A: Let's learn something about Juneteenth. Go ahead.
[00:46:12] Speaker B: Exactly. Because it's about the human rights part. And this is where I get to that this is the journey of us in America, right.
Is the more perfect union and really aspiring to the Bill of Rights and those kind of things. So on June 19th of 1865, Major General Gordon Granger, basically, I'm going to quote what he says. He says to the people of Texas, are informed that in accordance with the proclamation from the executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves. And the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor.
That's that. That was his quote. So it's interesting to me because in that quote there's several things, you know, again, understanding truly culture and American history. This is one reason why there's always been the schism between the south and the North. Right. The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with proclamation from the executive of the United States, that's one thing that the slave owning states resented was that the federal government came and basically took away one of their major economic engines in order to provide human rights to the slaves or former slaves. And so those are things that to me, again, it's a bit of that Rorschach test, that if you can't see that story as a story of pride in American history, then maybe you and I just have a different version of what pride means or what the beauty of American, the story and the ability for us to continue to grow as a country and improve upon ourselves. Maybe we just have two different views.
[00:48:02] Speaker A: Well, but it's also. But it's bittersweet as well though, because the fact that you needed it means that what came before it you have to acknowledge and you have. So it's both. It's like, okay, yeah, that was a nice big step, but where we stepped from was nasty, you know, so like it's, it's, it's, it's.
[00:48:21] Speaker B: But that's why it's such a disservice for those who don't want to be able to discuss it. And that's why that, to me, it's just a. There's a dissonance here because when as things like this continue to be recognized and now that it's a federal holiday, I think it just makes it harder and harder to avoid discussing it. How do you, how can you, you know, reprimand a teacher or someone in a position of educational authority to discuss something that has been cited as a federal holiday and then discuss the reasons that came of being. Because the next question is, right, if I'm thinking about, if I'm, If I'm sitting in a high school and I'm learning this, my hand would go up and say, well, how come it took two years for the word to get to Texas? And I'm sure that opens up a whole nother conversation of discovery. Right? So just, you know, it's a shame, but, you know, people won't be able to hold back this type of information.
[00:49:08] Speaker A: Yeah, well, I mean, and that's, that's. I think we want more information out there, more truthful information out there, not less. Because we've talked about many a times that the, the untruthful information has been working overtime. And remember is steady working overtime, remember.
[00:49:23] Speaker B: Also though, the truth hurts. So that's why it's. It can.
[00:49:26] Speaker A: It can.
[00:49:26] Speaker B: It's often jettisoned for the bs.
[00:49:28] Speaker A: Yeah, it can. So, yeah, it's, it's, it's something that is, you know, it requires the truth. Truth isn't always packaged and neat and make you feel warm and fuzzy all the time, you know, so if that's all you want or if that's all you can handle, you know, some people don't. It seems like they can't handle anything that's not. Or things that aren't warm and fuzzy.
[00:49:46] Speaker B: Well, I was gonna say they should go watch a Disney movie, but they're not allowed to anymore. So I was gonna, I was gonna say Pixar. Then I remember Pixar is owned by Disney, so they can't watch that.
[00:49:55] Speaker A: Oh, man. So I think we can wrap it up there.
[00:49:57] Speaker B: Yeah, we'll set them somewhere else, but I think.
[00:50:00] Speaker A: Think we can. We. We'll close it up from there. But we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It. Subscribe to the podcast. Rate it. Review us. Tell us what you think. Share it with your friends. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:50:12] Speaker B: I'm Tunde.
[00:50:13] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next.
