Who's Next?

Now that the Pro Football Hall of Fame induction has passed, it's time to start looking at the ballot for 2027 and beyond.  Because the next few Pro Football Hall of Fame ballots will be loaded, and they'll generate just as much conversation about who doesn't get in as who does.  I'm also expecting to see some changes to the voting system after the controversy surrounding Bill Belichick's somehow not getting the required number of votes this year despite being considered an obvious first-ballot lock. 

Regardless of what happens with the Coach/Contributor/Senior category, though, I don't see the Modern Era selection process being much different.  They'll still have the five finalists.  My guess is that if anything changes, it may simply be going back to the old method of a "yes/no" vote once they get down to five (right now, they cut it down to eight and voters select five of the eight, with whoever gets 80 percent making it).  Or, they very well might keep it the same as the process for the last two years (changes that came about because Hall of Famers like Deion Sanders were complaining that it was "too easy" to get in), despite the fact that only seven Modern Era players have been elected over the past two cycles.

The changes made for the 2025 election cycle, quite frankly, are a big part of the problem.  A backlog already existed.  And it was only made worse by the fact that the Modern Era classes are no longer guaranteed to be five players every year.  Throw in the fact that there are some first-ballot locks coming up the pipeline, and you've got some deserving players who are gonna have to wait a while (if they haven't already) before they finally get the knock and gold jacket.

Those two factors make it virtually impossible to predict who'll be in upcoming Pro Football Hall of Fame classes.  Even if they definitely did five every year, it would be difficult to project future classes.  Throw in the fact that you'll have a lot of guys who played the same position (Ben Roethlisberger/Eli Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers, Rob Gronkowski/Jason Witten/Travis Kelce, Frank Gore/Adrian Peterson, about 10 wide receivers, etc.) and it becomes an even harder challenge.  But is that gonna stop me?  Of course not!

One important thing to keep in mind for the sake of this exercise is that I'm "putting in" the maximum five every year.  That just makes it easier than trying to determine whether they'll do three, four or five in a given year.  It's also just more practical since there will be more than five deserving candidates each time.  And the longer you keep pushing them back, the bigger the logjam becomes.  With that in mind, let's get this thing going...

2027: Terrell Suggs, Jason Witten, Frank Gore, Ben Roethlisberger, Marshal Yanda-Next year could be a good one for a pair of Baltimore Ravens who made the final cut this year but weren't selected.  Suggs I think is a virtual lock for next year's class.  Of the first-time eligible candidates, Roethlisberger may be the only one to get in.  Not that Rob Gronkowski and Adrian Peterson don't have strong cases.  There just happens to be another tight end and another running back who had to wait a year and deserve to get in first.

2028: Tom Brady, J.J. Watt, Rob Gronkowski, Torry Holt, Andrew Whitworth-Two spots in the Class of 2028 are already taken.  That will be true regardless of who makes it in 2027.  There's no chance Tom Brady and J.J. Watt don't both make it in on the first ballot.  It could actually be a very Patriot Summer in Canton if they do indeed make Gronk wait a year, especially if it takes until 2028 for Belichick and/or Kraft to get in, too.

2029: Adrian Peterson, Richard Sherman, Willie Anderson, Reggie Wayne, Eli Manning-Some of the backlog can finally start being cleared out once the obvious big names are in.  So, 2029 could be when they do some of that housekeeping.  This is assuming Aaron Donald does, in fact, come out of retirement and return to the Rams this season, which seems like a virtual certainty at this point.  Should Donald stay retired, his Hall of Fame clock doesn't reset and he becomes eligible in 2029, when he takes a spot from one of these guys.

2030: Steve Smith Sr., Jahri Evans, Rodney Harrison, Robert Mathis, Jason Kelce-Jason Kelce becomes eligible in 2029, so I have him waiting a year.  It wouldn't completely surprise me if he gets in on the first ballot, though.  And Kelce will start another wave of first- and second-year-eligible candidates getting in.  Who'll follow him on that first-ballot track, of course, will depend on when players like his brother and Von Miller decide to hang it up.  But, since Jason Kelce's already retired and has shown absolutely no interest in unretiring, he's a safe bet to make it in 2029 or 2030.

2031: Jason Peters, Earl Thomas, Fred Taylor, Antonio Brown, Philip Rivers-This one comes with a big asterisk since it would require Philip Rivers not randomly coming out of retirement for a second time.  Assuming this one sticks, he once again becomes Hall of Fame eligible in 2031.  So, barring another Rivers return, he'll headline this class.  Had he not played those three games for the Colts last season, his induction would've come much earlier.  He wouldn't have gotten in this year, but it does seem possible he would've gotten in before Brady.

While I'm only going thru 2031, there are two names who loom large in 2032.  That's when anyone who retires after this season will become eligible.  Aaron Rodgers has already announced this is his final season.  It seems likely that this season will be Travis Kelce's last, as well.  Those two should both be first-ballot locks in 2032.  I wouldn't count out Calais Campbell being a first-ballot choice in that class, either.  Although, I won't believe a Calais Campbell retirement until I actually see it (and even then, I might wonder when he's coming back).

Should Aaron Donald come back this season, win another Super Bowl, then immediately retire again, he'd also be eligible for that 2032 class.  So, regardless, there will be some heavy hitters that year just among first-timers.  And that doesn't include players like Eric Weddle, Ndamukong Suh, Bobby Wagner, and others who'll become Hall of Fame eligible between now and then and may or may not be in yet by 2032.

Other Hall of Fame-caliber players who are nearing retirement include Von Miller, Khalil Mack, Matthew Stafford, T.J. Watt and Joey Bosa.  Then the likes of Joe Flacco and DeAndre Hopkins enter the mix.  I'm not saying they'll all get in.  But they'll all be in the conversation once they become eligible.  And that's saying nothing of the candidates who are already eligible and will continue to be until they exhaust their 15 years and get pushed to the Senior Committee ballot.

There are plenty of deserving names who'll be on those Senior Committee ballots, as well.  And the Senior Committee has produced a grand total of two Hall of Famers in the two years since the voting process changed (Sterling Sharpe in 2025, Roger Craig in 2026).  Combine that fact with the names who are eligible on the Modern Era ballot, as well as the coaches and contributors, and you'll have some loaded Pro Football Hall of Fame classes in the coming years.  No matter how large those classes are.

Self-Preservation or Self-Destruction?

Over the past few years, the Preakness has felt like it was getting the short straw among the three Triple Crown races.  And, let's be honest, it sort of has.  The Kentucky Derby will always be the race.  And you can only clinch the Triple Crown at the Belmont.  Although, winning the Triple Crown is impossible if you skip the Preakness, which has been happening more and more in recent years.  Which the Preakness organizers have certainly noticed.

The Kentucky Derby is always held on the first Saturday in May.  The traditional date for the Preakness is two weeks later, with the Belmont Stakes to follow three weeks after that.  However, with the way thoroughbred horses are being trained in this era, three races in five weeks is no longer as feasible.  As a result, many horses run the Kentucky Derby, then skip the Preakness before returning for the Belmont.  That includes some Derby winners, including 2026 champion Golden Tempo, ending any chances for a Triple Crown and rendering the Preakness almost an afterthought.

Organizers of all three races have been aware of this problem for quite a while.  And there was an easy and obvious solution to it.  Moving both the Preakness and Belmont Stakes back a week.  That would create a three-week gap between the Kentucky Derby and Preakness while also preserving the three-week gap between the Preakness and Belmont.  It would push the Belmont back to the third Saturday in June (Father's Day Weekend) and extend the Triple Crown to six weeks overall instead of five.

Complicating that plan is the fact that the Belmont Stakes likes its date.  And, since the Belmont is the longest of the three races, it makes sense that trainers would want the extra time to prepare for it.  Which, admittedly, does put the Preakness in a bind.  And it certainly leaves the race with a weaker field than the Kentucky Derby.  So, that inferiority complex is justified.  Especially after the recent announcement by Churchill Downs and the New York Racing Association (which puts on the Belmont Stakes).

Earlier this week, Churchill Downs and the NYRA announced plans for a six-race, season-long Thoroughbred Championship Series, beginning in 2027.  The series will start with the Kentucky Derby and end with a championship race back at Churchill Downs in September.  It will also include a third race at Churchill Downs, two events at Saratoga and the Belmont Stakes.  Notably absent from the $5 million series is the Preakness.

At this point, it's important to make a significant note.  Back in April, Churchill Downs Inc. (the organization that runs the Kentucky Derby, as well as all other races at Churchill Downs) reached an $85 million deal to purchase the intellectual property rights to the Preakness and Black-Eyed Susan Stakes.  However, the State of Maryland had the opportunity to block the sale, and they exercised that right.  So, instead of being acquired by Churchill Downs, the Preakness will continue to be owned and operated by the state.

It's easy to see why the State of Maryland made that decision.  Not only is there a rich horse racing history in the state, the Preakness is a source of civic pride.  At the same time, it might've been a little short sighted.  Because it solidified the lone wolf status of the Preakness.  More significantly, by keeping the Preakness separate, it prevented the Triple Crown from becoming one unified series.  By looking out for themselves, they weren't looking out for the best interest of the series.  Which could end up being counterproductive.

Churchill Downs, Inc. and the NYRA didn't just come up with the Thoroughbred Championship Series overnight.  It's clearly been in the works for a while.  Had Churchill Downs, Inc. taken over control of the Preakness as planned, it's easy to see the Preakness being included in the series.  It's hard to envision where it wouldn't have been.  More importantly, that would've unified the three races.  Which would've gone a long way towards making those schedule changes, as well as anything else that would strengthen the Triple Crown as a whole.  Instead, Maryland and the Preakness are on their own.

Because Maryland and the Preakness are on their own, they took it upon themselves to find a solution to their Kentucky Derby scheduling problem.  The solution they came up with was to move not just the date of the Preakness.  They changed the day!  Instead of the third Saturday in May, two weeks after the Kentucky Derby, they moved it to the fourth Sunday, three weeks and a day later.  By giving trainers an extra week to rest their horses, they'll theoretically be more likely to enter them in the Preakness.

However, there's one glaring problem with this new schedule.  The date of the Belmont isn't changing, so it doesn't do anything to help the three races in five weeks issue.  It makes the gap between the Kentucky Derby and Preakness longer, but it also makes the gap between the Preakness and Belmont Stakes shorter.  So, the horses will actually have less time to go from the shortest Triple Crown race (the Preakness) to the longest (the Belmont).  Throw in the fact that the Preakness isn't part of the Thoroughbred Championship Series, and it's just as likely, if not more so, that trainers will still have their horses skip the Preakness. 

Then there's the sheer awkwardness of the new date the Maryland Jockey Club has selected.  There's nothing else on the third Saturday in May.  That's always been Preakness Day.  The fourth Sunday in May, however, can be Memorial Day Weekend depending on the year.  And there's already a ton of stuff going on the Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend without the Preakness.  Will people still want to watch and/or attend the race on a busy holiday weekend?

From a TV perspective, it may not make too much of a difference.  The Indy 500 and Preakness are on different networks, and, barring rain, the Indy 500 will be over long before the Preakness starts.  However, the attendance question would still remain.  The Maryland Jockey Club sees the Sunday Preakness as a positive since it means the Black-Eyed Susan will move to Saturday and they can make a weekend of it.  Which is fine when it's not Memorial Day Weekend.  But you have to wonder if it'll help or hurt attendance when they fall on Memorial Day Weekend.

In a way, the Maryland Jockey Club's decision to reschedule the Preakness makes total sense.  They care about the Triple Crown, but that's not their primary concern.  Their primary concern is their own race.  And they think this was in their best interest.  Was it really, though?  Because I can easily see this move backfiring and making the Preakness even more irrelevant than they think it is right now.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this is exactly the thing that will preserve the long-term survival of the Preakness and the long-term viability of the Triple Crown.  Right now, though, it feels like the opposite will happen.  The Preakness would've been better served had its organizers worked with the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes instead of against them.  Instead, the Preakness appears to be headed on even more of an island.  And the move, while well-intentioned, will end up doing much more damage than good.

MLB After the Deadline

In the end, it was the Dodgers who ended up getting Tarik Skubal.  "Of course they did" was the inevitable response of the cynics who think Major League Baseball is somehow rigged for the Dodgers to acquire every big-name player and win every World Series from now until the end of time.  They also claim it's further evidence that MLB "needs" a salary cap (which it doesn't) and that a lockout is definitely happening in December (which would've been the case regardless).  Both of which are ridiculous.

Here's the thing about the Skubal trade.  IT WAS A TRADE!  Not a free agent signing.  The Dodgers' finances had nothing to do with it!  All it cost them was prospects.  Every team had the same opportunity to get him, and some had a better package of prospects to offer the Tigers than Los Angeles did.  Nobody else was willing to pull the trigger.  That's not the Dodgers' fault.

As for the argument that this is further proof the Dodgers are "ruining" baseball, spare me!  As I said, not only did every team have the same opportunity to get Skubal, this has nothing to do with their financial might.  It's simply a well-run organization being smart.  There's nothing wrong with that!  In fact, it proves just how well-run the Dodgers are.  Everybody makes a big deal about their high-priced, big-name free agent signings, but it was their organizational depth and talent at the Minor League level that allowed them to make this deal.  Not their checkbook.

With all that being said, it's obvious that landing Skubal made the Dodgers better.  They were already the World Series favorites.  They made themselves even bigger favorites by getting the best pitcher available and making their potential postseason rotation even more formidable.  That's what teams who are serious about winning do.  So why begrudge them for it?  It screams "You hate us 'cause you ain't us."

The Dodgers are an obvious winner of the trade deadline.  Not only did they add an ace, Skubal didn't join the Brewers.  That's just as important.  Because just imagine the prospect of having to potentially face Skubal & Misiorowski three times in a five-game series or four times in a seven-game series.  Milwaukee had a chance to do it and even more reason to get Skubal than the Dodgers did.  So, the Brewers are a definite trade deadline loser.  Both because they saw Skubal go to Los Angeles and because, with the exception of getting Dustin May (who's no Tarik Skubal), they really did nothing at all.

I'd even venture to say that the Brewers might not even be the favorites in the NL Central anymore.  Because the Chicago Cubs were busy, and they addressed their biggest need by bringing in three starting pitchers.  Kevin Gausman was great in Toronto and was the veteran starter they were looking for.  They also added two lower-level starters in Clay Holmes and Braxton Garrett, as well as a bullpen arm (while also jettisoning Jameson Taillon).  They may be too far behind Milwaukee to steal the division, but they're set up nicely for the playoffs.

So are the Cubs' potential Wild Card Series opponent--the Phillies.  They needed a bat and they got one in Luis Arraez.  However, they didn't do anything else, so I'm not sure that's enough.  Arraez is also another left-handed bat for a team that already has so many.  It also complicates their defense since their entire infield with the exception of Trea Turner will have to move around to make room for Arraez, and Bryce Harper will go back to the outfield, where he hasn't played since 2022.  I'll give the Phillies a "Push" for their trade deadline.

Another team that gets a "Push" is Boston.  The Red Sox actually made one of the earliest moves when they got Curtis Mead from Washington to play second...only for him to break his wrist in hist first game with Boston.  Then they pivoted and picked up one of the biggest names on the board in Orioles catcher Adley Rutschman.  It was interesting to see Baltimore trade the former No. 1 overall pick within the division, but it's the type of big splash the Red Sox used to make.  Is it enough to catch the Rays and Yankees and/or beat them in the playoffs, though?

Believe it or not, I actually think the Orioles had a pretty good deadline.  Sure, it was a rapid fall from a 101-win team to selling off at deadline, but they ended up with a pretty good haul for Rutschman, whose injury history made him expendable.  As did the fact that he and Samuel Basallo are both catchers.  Yes, the Orioles were one of the busiest teams at the deadline, mostly giving away players.  But they got a lot in return.

Elsewhere in the AL East, the Yankees addressed their bullpen with addition by subtraction, sending Camilo Doval to Pittsburgh and Jake Bird to Washington.  Somebody's also moving to the bullpen when Carlos Rodon and Clarke Schmidt return, so they'll get some bullpen help from within.  In return for Bird, they got Luis Garcia, who helps in the power department, but is a bit of an awkward fit in that he's another lefty bat and another first baseman.  They were also able to add the needed right-handed outfield bat in Heliot Ramos.  However, they didn't add a catcher and seem to be waiting for Judge, Stanton and/or Bellinger to come back.  The Garcia trade tells me that they aren't confident all three will, though.

Tampa Bay, the third team in that AL East triumvirate, doubled down on pitching.  What else is new?!  The Rays pivoted to Freddy Peralta after they lost out on Skubal.  That's a great 1-2-3 with All*Stars Drew Rasmussen and Nick Martinez, and they're expecting to get Shane McClanahan back at some point, too.  They've obviously got the pitching.  The question is whether they'll have enough offense, especially since Arraez would've been a perfect fit for them, but ended up in Philadelphia instead.

San Diego is an interesting team.  The Padres have no chance of catching the Dodgers.  Their offense (which should be good) is struggling.  The have one of the best closers in the game, Mason Miller, who they were shopping around, along with fellow relief ace Adrian Morejon.  Instead, they kept both relievers, didn't get any bats, and added two starters (Robbie Ray and Casey Mize).  Apparently, they plan on winning every game 3-2.

I'm also curious to see what happens on the South Side of Chicago (yes, having just come back from there has made me more invested in the two Chicago teams).  The White Sox are ahead of schedule, so who can blame them for going for it in a winnable AL Central.  I actually like the Luis Castillo trade.  He hasn't been good this year, but a veteran starter is never a bad thing to add.  Likewise, their catchers have given them nothing all season, so they took a flier on Joey Bart (who was traded for the second time this year).

Then there's the AL West, which is just as big a crapshoot as the Central.  Houston wanted a left-handed-hitting outfielder and got one in Daulton Varsho (who I think is overrated, but is good defensively in center).  The Mariners traded Castillo and were shopping Randy Arozarena, only to add another outfielder in Taylor Ward and bullpen help in Seranthony Dominguez.  The AL West race could end up being very interesting (and, remember, the AL West winner just needs to finish with more wins than the White Sox or Guardians to get the 2-seed).

Will every trade deadline deal work out?  Of course not!  That's part of the fun.  Teams make these trades thinking they've found the missing piece, only to find out that it isn't.  Or maybe the best move will end up being the one you didn't make.  Sometimes the "improvements" aren't worth the price, especially when it may literally be just a two-month rental.

Still, some teams did get better with their trade deadline moves.  And those absolutely could end up making a difference come October.  Yes, the rich got richer with the Dodgers getting Skubal.  The overwhelming favorites are now even more overwhelming.  But nothing's guaranteed in the postseason.  Not even the "inevitable" Dodgers championship.  Even if it might feel like that right now after they were the biggest winners of the 2026 trade deadline.

They Pushed Back, and It Worked

FIFA is an incredibly corrupt organization.  This shouldn't be news to anybody.  Its President, Gianni Infantino, is an incredibly corrupt man.  This shouldn't be news to anybody, either.  But, in case there was any doubt as to the degree of his corruption, Infantino made sure everyone knew how bad it was with his stunt earlier this week.  A stunt that didn't exactly get the type of reaction he was expecting.

Literally less than two weeks after the end of the World Cup, Infantino announced the creation of a $20 billion subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise, which would "unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has."  Essentially, FFE would've taken control of all aspects of FIFA tournaments, including the World Cup.  In Infantino's plan, FIFA would've sold a 20 percent stake in FFE to private investors (which would have minority, non-controlling interests), with a company that was launched by the brother of Donald Trump's son-in-law lined up to be one of those partners.  That tells you all you need to know about Infantino's motivation.

Infantino's cozy relationship with Trump has been a big source of controversy over the past, so the inclusion of a Trump-associated firm in this plan was a glaring red flag.  Trump runs in very rich, very influential circles.  Everybody just saw how much money the World Cup made and they wanted to cash in while the iron was still hot.  They hoped to exploit that popularity and make money for FIFA's 211 national federations, but also for themselves.  Because, make no mistake, these investors weren't getting into it if they didn't see the opportunity to line their own pockets.

To be clear, that isn't the reason why federations were against the plan (at least not entirely), but it certainly wasn't a good look.  And it was enough to raise questions about why Infantino thought this was so necessary that it had to be implemented immediately with no consultation from anybody.  Nor did they like how Infantino was essentially trying to bully everyone into submission by giving them a deadline to sign on, with the "or else" implied.

Members were told that a decision "must" be made by Sept. 19.  They were being given essentially six weeks to vote on such a seismic proposal that they were hearing about for the first time that day.  And Infantino said they just needed a majority vote for it to pass, even though FIFA's bylaws state that a 75 percent vote is required in order to change one.  But, since the 75 percent support was never gonna happen, that standard was conveniently lowered to a simple majority (which it still might not have gotten).

He also used the numbers in his attempt to get national federations on his side.  The financial infusion would bring in an additional $10 billion, which would mean about $40 million per association.  Without it, that amount would "only" be $2.7 billion.  So, FIFA obviously "needed" the extra cash to help out its members.  Why wouldn't they want those extra funds?

The backlash was immediate.  National federations weren't shy in their criticism of Infantino or his plan.  And the continental associations weren't particularly enthused about it, either.  Even the British Prime Minister chimed in with his disdain.  The lack of transparency was the biggest issue.  But, just as significantly, they were against the entire idea on principle.  There was plenty of legitimate concern about how much influence these companies with private equity shares would have and exactly what they would do with it.  Because, once they got in, nobody would expect them to stay uninvolved.  Would they act in FIFA's best interest, though?  Or their own?

What might some of those interests be?  For starters, expanding the World Cup to 64 teams (which it looks like Infantino is pushing ahead with anyway).  And why stop there?  It's not a reach to think there would be a push to hold the World Cup every two years instead of every four (pushing it up directly against the Euro and the Olympics).  Then, having the Club World Cup in the other two years.  Broadcasting was one element that would've gone under FFC's control, so would they get a say in who's awarded the TV rights?  Worse yet, would they make a push to move the World Cup off linear TV entirely and create a direct-to-consumer, pay-per-view platform that would require a subscription fee for anyone who wanted to watch any game?

UEFA had perhaps the best response of all, declaring that "None of us are the owners of football.  It's not FIFA's to sell."  And it was UEFA that led the crusade against Infantino's plan.  They threatened that UEFA could potentially boycott FIFA events if the plan wasn't reconsidered.  In an emergency meeting of UEFA's 55 member associations, pretty much everybody was on the same page.  After that meeting, UEFA made the announcement that they were following through on their boycott threat, starting with the Women's Under-20 World Cup in Poland, which starts on Sept. 5.

Just think about how impactful a UEFA World Cup boycott would be.  It's the largest confederation with the most teams and the greatest number of participants in the tournament.  But that's just the half of it.  Six of the eight World Cup quarterfinalists and three of the four semifinalists were UEFA members.  And Spain obviously won the World Cup.  Just as it did at the 2023 Women's World Cup.  No UEFA teams would make for a significantly depleted tournament.  Especially with an expanded field (that would need to be filled with somebody).

Practically speaking, a UEFA boycott would render the World Cup essentially meaningless.  It would also create some pretty significant logistical issues.  Spain and Portugal are the primary hosts of the 2030 World Cup.  If they're not playing, there's no chance they're still hosting.  Yes, Morocco is also a co-host, and there are individual games in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (another controversial Infantino decision that was made for reasons that weren't exactly transparent).  But, without Spain or Portugal, you'd be asking the other four co-hosts to take on a much bigger burden than the one they signed up for.

Shortly after UEFA's announcement, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation followed suit.  They didn't go so far as to join the boycott, but they made it clear that they're in agreement with UEFA's stance.  As it turns out, so are some members of Infantino's own administration.  One resigned in protest and another released a statement condemning Infantino for his lack of openness regarding the project, which he made clear he thought should not proceed.

In the wake of all the negative feedback, Infantino did an about face and announced that the project will no longer move forward.  But, of course, in true Infantino form, he took no accountability for his role in the entire thing!  The statement from FIFA said: "Having listened carefully to all the views that the project created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place."  Translation: "Nobody but Gianni thinks this is a good idea, and he realized he can't bully his way into getting what he wants on this one, so he's gonna try to save face by acting like he suddenly cares about their opinion." 

Except the unforced error may end up bringing some consequences for Infantino.  Despite questions about his leadership and his blatant corruption, he stood to run unopposed for a final four-year term as FIFA President later this year.  Now that's not so guaranteed.  It's still likely that he'll be reelected.  But he may face some competition, even if it's just a token candidacy to force an actual vote, because of this unnecessary misstep.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should.  It wasn't too long ago that several of the top European clubs (led by Real Madrid and Barcelona) tried to create the UEFA Super League, a breakaway competition with permanent members designed to challenge the Champions League.  Negative backlash led to the English teams withdrawing, followed by the German teams, and the idea of the Super League fell apart in about the same amount of time as it took for FIFA.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from all this is how much power FIFA's members actually have.  Infantino tried to jam the FFE down their throats and expected everybody to just fall in line.  Except they didn't.  They fought back instead.  And it worked!  They forced him to stand down.  As much as it was a big loss for Infantino and his rich partners, it was a massive win for FIFA, its member nations and the game of soccer as a whole.

Territories On the International Stage

We're in the midst of the 2026 Commonwealth Games, which are taking place in Glasgow.  One of the unique things about the Commonwealth Games is how it's the only multi-sport competition where the four nations that make up Great Britain compete separately.  England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own national teams in several sports (soccer and rugby being the most prominent), but always combine as Team GB for the Olympics.  It isn't just the four Home Nations, either.  All of the British territories field separate teams at the Commonwealth Games.

For many of these athletes, the Commonwealth Games are their only opportunity to represent their native territory instead of Great Britain as a whole.  Not all of them, though.  The British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda all have their own Olympic committees and field their own Olympic team, as does the Cook Islands, which is an associated state of New Zealand.  Whether the others want to represent Great Britain or not, they don't have a choice.  Because the IOC no longer recognizes Olympic committees that aren't from independent states.

The IOC made that rule change in 1996, with territories that already competed separately grandfathered in.  That's why Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands continue to have their own Olympic teams, as do the aforementioned British territories, as well as Aruba and Hong Kong (a former British territory).  There are actually 13 more IOC members than UN members, including Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan (aka Chinese Taipei), internationally recognized countries that aren't UN members for mainly political reasons.

FIFA actually has more recognized members than the IOC does, but IOC membership has become very restrictive because of its sovereignty requirement.  The most recent new nations to join the Olympic family (not counting the Refugee Olympic Team or the various names for Russia at recent Games) were Kosovo and South Sudan in 2016.  As it stands, they'll be the last for a while.  But should they be?  Or should the IOC go back to the old rule and set a pathway for more territories with their own Olympic committees to compete separately?

This became a topic of discussion at IOC headquarters fairly recently.  The Faroe Islands (which has a UEFA-recognized soccer team) and Greenland are both semi-autonomous territories of Denmark.  It was actually the Danish Parliament that submitted the request to the IOC for those two to be given Olympic recognition.  The request was denied, however, since neither the Faroe Islands or Greenland qualifies as a "country" under the 1996 definition.  Their athletes are still free to participate in the LA Games, but they'd have to represent Denmark.

One of the reasons the discussion came about is because the men's handball team from the Faroe Islands will make its debut at the 2027 World Championships.  That tournament serves as an Olympic qualifier.  The Faroese women made their World Championships debut in 2025, and qualifying for 2027 is still ongoing.  So, there's a chance they could be in both World Championships next year.  However, they won't be taking part in either 2028 Olympic tournament no matter what.

There's also a question about Olympic participation for the Haudenosaunee lacrosse team.  The Haudenosaunee represents the Iroquois Confederacy in international lacrosse and is actually ranked third in the world on the men's side.  However, the Iroquois Confederacy, like all other Native American groups, lacks its own NOC.  With lacrosse back in the Olympics at the LA Games, though, there's obvious interest in seeing the Haudenosaunee there.  They have the support of both the U.S. and Canada, but, as of now, no word from the IOC.  A decision needs to come soon, though, since qualifying starts soon.

Based on the IOC's ruling regarding the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the chances of the Haudenosaunee playing in the 2028 Olympic lacrosse tournaments don't seem very good.  Although, there's also a precedent for making an exception allowing them to play.  Lacrosse was first played at the World Games in 2022, and the Haudenosaunee qualified based on their bronze-medal finish at the 2018 World Championships.  However, they were later ruled ineligible because the Iroquois don't have a National Olympic Committee.  That disqualification was eventually overturned and they took part in both the men's and women's events.

That case is specific to lacrosse, which is what makes it a little more complicated.  The Haudenosaunee really has no other reason to form an NOC, and lacrosse isn't even guaranteed to stay on the Olympic program beyond LA (although, Australia has a strong national team, so there's a chance we'll see it again in 2032).  So, I can see where the IOC wouldn't make the exception and allow the Haudenosaunee to participate in the lacrosse tournaments.  Especially since it would be sending a mixed message to all of those territories that do have their own NOCs and are desperate for IOC recognition of their own.

Should the IOC soften its stance on territories competing in the Olympics on their own, they wouldn't need to go crazy.  Some of these territories may not even necessarily want to or have the capacity to field their own separate Olympic team.  And they absolutely need to have their own NOC first.  That should be the first requirement.  But some of these places do already have that.  So, why not give them the opportunity to represent their territory at the Olympics?

One territory I'm thinking of specifically is Curacao.  Curacao, of course, is having quite a year with the soccer team playing in the World Cup for the first time and Andruw Jones being inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Curacao was once a part of the Netherlands Antilles, which had its own Olympic team until its dissolution in 2010.  Since then, athletes from Curacao have only had the option of representing the Netherlands.  (The Dutch team at the World Baseball Classic was made up mainly of players from Curacao.)

Then there's Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of China.  Macau is unique in that its athletes compete under their own flag at the Paralympics, but not the Olympics.  Macau has had its own Olympic Committee since 1987, and China supports Macau having its own team, just as Hong Kong does.  However, since Macau isn't an independent state, their case is complicated.  It becomes even more complicated by the fact that Macau law prevents their athletes from competing for China.  So, they have no chance at all of going to the Olympics right now!

While I doubt it would ever happen, the idea of a separate Scottish Olympic team has been tossed about in the past.  And the topic has again been broached with them currently hosting the Commonwealth Games.  Since the British Olympic Association represents all four of the Home Nations and the country is recognized as "Great Britain," Scotland would need to separate itself for that process to even begin.  And you can bet there would be plenty of resistance from England and Wales about that.  So, that one seems unlikely (even though the Great Britain curling team is exclusively represented by Scottish players).

It's understandable that the IOC grandfathered in those territories that were already competing separately at the Olympics when they created the "sovereign nation" requirement in 1996.  And, even though it sounds like it, I'm not advocating they remove that requirement.  All I'm suggesting is that they make it a little more flexible.  Especially in situations like the Faroe Islands, which already has its own Olympic Committee and had the support of Denmark.  In cases like that (or Macau's), I'd like to see some room for an exception to be made.

Like Father, Like Son

As a part of the Baseball Hall of Fame's induction weekend, Joe Buck received the Ford C. Frick Award for excellence in broadcasting.  It's an award his father, the legendary Jack Buck, was presented in 1987.  Jack Buck is also a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's broadcasting wing.  As is Joe Buck.  They're the only father & son pair that have both been selected to both Hall of Fames.  (And Joe, of course, is far from done. He'll call the Super Bowl this season.)

It was a deserved honor for Joe Buck.  I know he wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but you don't call 24 World Series (22 of them consecutively) by accident.  In football, he's widely acknowledged as one of the best in the business, generally ranking either first or second behind only Mike Tirico in "best play-by-play man" polls.  It's a shame that he never got his proper due for baseball until he moved to ESPN and starting doing football exclusively.  Because he was one of the best in the business at calling baseball, too.

My biggest issue with Joe Buck has nothing to do with him as a broadcaster.  It has to do with the reaction people had to him, especially early in his career.  There were way too many accusations of nepotism, which is as unfair as it is insulting.  It also couldn't be further from the truth.  Because being Jack Buck's son might've gotten him in the door.  But that's all it did.  Everything else was because of his talent.

There's no denying that being Jack Buck's son gave him an inherent advantage.  He's the first one to admit that.  But that "advantage" can be interpreted in multiple ways.  Because Joe also got to learn the trade by watching his father, invaluable experience that he's carried over into his own career.  He learned how to do the job from Jack, just like any other son who follows in his father's footsteps learns their profession.  Jack and Joe Buck's family business just happens to be a little different and a little more public than everybody else's.

What annoys me the most about it, though, is how Joe Buck is seemingly the only son of a famous broadcaster singled out for nepotism.  Where are the same complaints about Kenny Albert?  Or Noah Eagle?  No one questions either of their talent or credentials, and no one should've questioned Joe Buck's either.  Because just like Joe Buck, Kenny Albert and Noah Eagle have forged their own careers that have nothing to do with their fathers.

Kenny Albert is perhaps the most versatile play-by-play man there is.  He's the lead national voice for the NHL On TNT, as well as the Rangers' local announcer on MSG.  He's also filled in for Knicks games on MSG.  And, let's not forget, NBC's lead Olympic hockey commentator (while also having covered various other sports at the Olympics).  He also has a weekly assignment for the NFL On FOX and has also covered baseball for FOX.  None of that has anything to do with his being Marv Albert's son.

Noah Eagle, meanwhile, is a rising star in the profession.  He's the No. 2 NBA play-by-play man for NBC, as well as their lead announcer for the WNBA and the Big Ten Saturday night game.  He'll also be heading to Australia to call the Rams-49ers season opener for Netflix and has called the French Open for TNT.  Noah Eagle isn't even 30 yet.  This is just the start of what figures to be a long career for Ian Eagle's son.

Much like Joe Buck, Kenny Albert and Noah Eagle got in the door because of their family connections.  But all three not only put in the work, they had the talent to forge their own path.  Which is why to even suggest that they are where they are is only because of nepotism isn't just incorrect, it's flat ignorant.  Yet no one seems to have any issue with Kenny Albert or Noah Eagle.  Just Joe Buck.  Why?

If Joe Buck didn't have the talent, he wouldn't have lasted, let alone have the long, illustrious career that he did.  He's not Jac Collinsworth.  That's a clear case of the talent level not matching up to the high-profile assignments he was being given, which made the calls of nepotism seem more justified.  NBC eventually realized that, too, and scaled back Jac Collinsworth's presence at major events.  He still works for the network.  We just don't see (or hear) him nearly as much.

That's the difference.  And why the complaints of nepotism, specifically regarding Joe Buck, are so infuriating.  He wasn't hired as FOX's lead announcer at 27 because he was Jack Buck's son.  And he certainly didn't keep the lead play-by-play job on the sport's primary national broadcast for 24 years because he was Jack Buck's son.  If he wasn't the right man for the job, do you really think FOX wouldn't have replaced him?  Instead, they made him their primary football play-by-play man, as well, ad he was calling both World Series AND Super Bowls for the network.

I think part of the negative sentiment towards Joe Buck has more to do with fans of particular teams just not liking him more than anything else.  And because he did all the postseason games, you didn't have a choice of listening to him.  It will always be funny, too, how fans of both teams would always accuse him of rooting against their team and for the other team.  I guess that means he was doing something right then!

Calling a national broadcast is very different than being a local announcer.  One of the reasons Jack Buck was so beloved was because he spent so many years doing Cardinals games.  Joe couldn't show that same sort of enthusiasm on a national broadcast.  He even admitted that his call of the final out when the Cardinals won the 2011 World Series "sucked" (his words) because he didn't put enough enthusiasm into it.  It takes someone who takes his craft seriously to make such an admission (Doc Emrick said something similar about his call of Patrick Kane's Stanley Cup-clinching goal against the Flyers in 2010).

Over the weekend, MLB Network aired a special where Buck was interviewed by another broadcasting legend, Bob Costas.  They touched on many of these topics during the hour.  It's very revealing, and it gives you a much different appreciation of him and his career.  He knew that being Jack Buck's son helped give him a foot in the door.  He doesn't take that for granted.  But it also put a significant amount of pressure on him.  And he put in the work.  Work that paid off with a Hall of Fame-worthy career of his own.

For baseball fans, Joe Buck's voice provided the soundtrack of so many memorable moments over the past 25 years.  You can't think of the Red Sox, White Sox or Cubs finally winning their long-awaited championships without him.  Love him or hate him, there's no denying his place among the legendary baseball broadcasters.  A list that includes his beloved father.  Who Joe Buck now joins in Cooperstown.  And deservedly so.

Where Would He Play?

As we approach the MLB Trade Deadline, I've seen more than one suggestion that the Yankees should pursue Luis Arraez.  Their reasons are pretty much exclusive to the fact that Arraez is a contact hitter with a high average who doesn't strike out much and would thus be a "perfect" fit in the lineup.  What those people seem to ignore, however, is equally if not more important.  Arraez would also need to play somewhere on the field!  And that's why the Yankees not only don't "need" to get him, it's something they really shouldn't even consider.

Luis Arraez is an excellent hitter.  I'm not disputing that fact.  How much his presence would make a difference in the lineup is debatable, but that's not even the point.  Adding Arraez would "solve" a nonexistent "problem" while not addressing other ones.  Worse than that, it would create more problems than it would supposedly "fix."  So, sorry, but, no, whatever value he may add to the lineup would be negated by all of the other maneuvering that would need to be done just to make it work.  Especially since it would be completely unnecessary.

Arraez is not a good defender.  He never has been.  That's why, for a lot of his career, he's been used as a DH.  He's also played first base, but has been primarily a second baseman this season.  And his defense at second is markedly improved this season under Giants infield coach Ron Washington.  Arraez has stressed that should the Giants trade him, he'd prefer to remain a second baseman.

The Yankees, of course, already have Jazz Chisholm at second base.  If they were to bring in Arraez to play second, that would require moving Chisholm to third and pushing Ryan McMahon to the bench.  McMahon's main (only?) value is his defense.  So, accommodating Arraez at second would weaken the defense at both positions!

Likewise, Paul Goldschmidt's biggest attribute is his defense.  So, it's not like putting Arraez at first would improve the defense there, either.  And, sure, Arraez could DH for the time being, but that option is only available temporarily (and would require sitting either Goldschmidt or Ben Rice).  Once Judge and Stanton come back, they'd need to find somewhere on the field for Arraez to play.  Which you can't do without moving other guys around!  And which still doesn't address the team's biggest need.

There are already four players who can play second base on the Yankees' roster--Chisholm, Jose Caballero, Amed Rosario and Max Schuemann.  Arraez would make it five guys who play the same position (six if you include McMahon, who spent some time at second while he was on the Rockies).  You know how many total outfielders the Yankees have on their roster, including the injured Judge?  Four!  And half of them are injured!  Adding another infielder wouldn't change that.

Another outfielder is a far bigger need than whatever Luis Arraez might bring.  Especially when two of the four are out!  We saw the lack of outfield options in full effect while Trent Grisham was on the IL and both Caballero and Schuemann started games in center field.  We may see that again if Bellinger's hamstring injury requires an IL stint.  Either way, getting somebody who doesn't play the outfield wouldn't exactly help that situation.

A common criticism of the Yankees (and an accurate one) is how they're too left-handed.  The lack of a right-handed bat is even more pronounced with Judge and Stanton both out of the lineup.  Arraez would be another left-handed hitter!  So, again, what need would he actually address?  You'd still be in the market for a right-handed bat, an outfielder and a backup catcher.  Arraez isn't any of those things!

It's also worth noting that Judge and Stanton are both expected back at some point this season.  "When?" is the million-dollar question.  But the point remains.  Could that change and do you still want some insurance in case it does?  Sure!  Assuming they both do make it back, though, that's effectively two Trade Deadline acquisitions that don't cost you a thing.

This hasn't been the strongest season for the American League as a whole, either.  That's an important thing to remember, as well.  They just need to get to October, and they're well-positioned to get there.  Assuming they get their injured players back, they'll be a better team come October than they are today (and the team they are today isn't as bad as some people want to believe). 

And, to get to October, they really only need to play .500 ball over the final 60 games and that should be enough.  You obviously want to perform better than that, and winning the division should be the goal.  But, the point is, the current roster is capable of doing what needs to be done.  I'm not saying they won't or shouldn't make any moves at the Trade Deadline.  An unnecessary one that isn't necessarily an improvement at second base shouldn't be one of them, however.

Two other points about Arraez.  He's a free agent after this season, so you'd be giving up roster pieces or prospects for a two-month rental.  To replace another guy who's also a free agent after this season.  The whole point of dealing a pending free agent who you don't think you'll be able to or want to re-sign is to get something for him.  Not to lose players with multiple years of team control and still potentially see the Trade Deadline acquisition leave!

More significantly, the Giants are one of the few known Deadline sellers.  There will be plenty of teams in the market for Luis Arraez.  He's already been liked to Texas, and I'm sure others have inquired about him.  San Francisco will likely be able to name its price.  There are other teams that are a better fit and have a bigger need that will probably be willing to meet that price.  Would the prospect/player haul be worth it to the Yankees for two months of Arraez?  Frankly, I don't think so.

While those who are fully on the Luis Arraez train may not agree, I simply don't see how adding him would make the Yankees that much better.  Any difference would be negligible, if there is one at all!  Especially when he wouldn't help in the areas where the team is actually looking to improve.  Bullpen, outfield and a right-handed-hitting backup catcher are the things the Yankees need and should prioritize at the Deadline.  Luis Arraez checks none of those boxes.  So, no, they don't "need" him.  And they don't even need to think twice about it.