eyeonsportsmedia
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 191
In reading about Douglas Berman calling ESPN "anti-Army" for staging a competing High School All-Star Bowl Game, the following thoughts came to mind as I wrote my commentary:
"So before Mr. Berman goes on berating ESPN for bringing competition to his previously monopolistic hold on a high school all-star game, he needs to be more forthcoming about his company and their relationship with the Army. This arrangement had to be consummated under some form of contract. If there is a contract, was it awarded competitively as required in the federal government? Or was there some justification for the award of a sole-source contract for this event? What is the value of the contract and when does it expire? Once these questions are answered in a public forum, Mr. Berman's complaints might fall on more understanding ears."
So there must be some intrepid sportswriter out there that wants to take these questions on?
"So before Mr. Berman goes on berating ESPN for bringing competition to his previously monopolistic hold on a high school all-star game, he needs to be more forthcoming about his company and their relationship with the Army. This arrangement had to be consummated under some form of contract. If there is a contract, was it awarded competitively as required in the federal government? Or was there some justification for the award of a sole-source contract for this event? What is the value of the contract and when does it expire? Once these questions are answered in a public forum, Mr. Berman's complaints might fall on more understanding ears."
So there must be some intrepid sportswriter out there that wants to take these questions on?