easterbrook. and prime minister david cameron answers questions about the members of the house of common sense and the eta to discuss carbon emissions regulations for power plants. >> this week on "q&a," journalist, columnist george easterbruk discusses "the king of sports, football's impact on america." >> greg easterbrook, why did you decide to name your latest book, the king of sports? >> the good and bad of football. it has both. the king of sports. the most important, most popular, most exciting game and the most important country in the world.

americans it used to be baseball. baseball is still an entertaining sport but football now is the king of sports. >> what gave you the idea to do this book? what connection does it have with politics and washington and government? >> i have a quirky paid hobby. i write for espn mainly. and for those who read a book about football and like what could i have. plenty of good books about coaches and teams and players. i realize the book that had not been written was assessing the role of football in the american society. the good young boys, teaching them how to be men. a lot of positives. the public enthusiasm, football causes. a lot of negatives. public subsidies, and so on. i wanted to weigh the two and try to find -- answer the question, is football fundamentally good or bad for

us? and secondarily, how should it be reformed which is when the book came about. it builds up to a chapter of reform agenda. >> also, it gives strong personal opinions. i want to read one. this is in the middle of it and explains where it comes from. today most politicians are hacks who lack convictions beyond anything beyond power and campaign donations for themselves. business executives seem greedy and anti-social, eager to destroy jobs and return for a larger bonus. intellectuals have become contemptuous out average people and society losing faith faster than faith institutions. what brought that on. >> congratulations for being able to pronounce that word. you near a small majority knowing that word. the chapter that i question whether football is a koult. you can see some evidence of

this, i present in the book. i'm talking about coaches there. justifiably, all men were like tony dungy, the world would be a better place. coaches would become substitute father figures for a lot of americans in society. we don't believe in politicians anymore. businessmen, clergy, intellectuals, you read the objectives. but coaches seem like people who practice tough love who seem like a good father would be. that's to do with their high standing in society. >> you start out talking about a coach you like a lot. who's that? >> frank beamer, virginia tech. i knew as i started to develop the book, i knew portions would be critical. could with done in an ethical dinner. so i spent the 2011 football season with the virginia tech football program. i was in the locker room. i travelled with them and so on. it does not recount the season.

is book does not do that. to explain how it is that frank beamer has had to have 20 consecutive winning systems and graduate 77% of his players. if all of the big college programs graduated 77% of their players, college football would not be know tore yous. >> we got interest in this book for the connection to the taxpayer. i want to show you some video from 2006. it's an economics professor, roger noel from stanford and get you to explain what he's talking about. >> in order for it to be an antitrust violation for the nfl to negotiate as a league for the broadcasting rights, one has to prove that televised football games are a successful relevant market. and in that case, then, without the antitrust exemption, not only the nfl but major league baseball and the nba, all would be in violation of the antitrust

laws if they sold their broadcasting rights as a league rights consortium. >> first of all, whab is the antitrust law? >> your viewers remember back in the guilded age in the antitrust act. it bans certain price conclusions, it bans businesses from thwarting unified fronts. they do it legally. major league baseball got an antitrust exemption in the supreme court in 1922. congress doesn't control that. could alter the underlying statute. directly from congress as legislation in 1966. at that time, two leagues, the old afl and the old nfl that the antitrust exemption allowed them to merge and allowed them to negotiate with one single

entity. one reason the nfl was so successful and popular is stem from the antitrust law. imagine what that would pay to be from the antitrust law. why? >> why does congress do that? >> i think a lover of football, i am one. i love the sport. i go to way too many football games. you can argue that the exemption was good for football as a sport. it will distribute it evenly. much better games they would be about the antitrust exemption. you can rationalize it on those grounds. but congress got nothing from the nfl in return just to give away the storm. congress should rework the antitrust exemption or if you want to use the free market economics approach, auction it off and see what the nfl is willing to pay for it. >> what's the motivation on the

part of the congress to make the special case over some sports teams? >> i think congress is called to football. football is the greatest effect. football is so popular, so much money involved, public subsidies for most of the stadia, tax exemptions, and so on. you would think someone would say, yes, i love football too, but let's make them pay their own way. they have cowed. campaign donations is high on the needless of all current members of congress. they also provide photo-ops. members of congress like to be seen supporting their hometown teams. want the nfl to exist and play great games like it does, but i want them to stop using public subsidies and show more concern

with safety. the example you set for your high school boys. >> talk in your book about one of your childhood heroes, the former senator from new york. >> roger goodell, yes. the father of football. i lived in kenmore, new york, not far from jamestown where roger goodell grew up. i did that in high school when i was 17. he was renowned as a man of conscious. one of the first members of congress to come out. he's -- >> who's roger. >> roger goodell is the commissioner of the nfl. >> what did that mean? >> people think being commissioner of the nfl means he's in charge of the league. he's not. he's an employee of the owners. he's highly paid well paid

employee. >> $30 million a year? >> yes. >> that's how headquarters is tax exempt. it tays roger goodell $30 million a year. >> how did that happen? >> the 1966 piece of legislation that granted the antitrust waiver also a classic example of the lobbyist art. they snuck the professional football leagues to the description of a not for profit charitable enterprise. congress voted in that bill in 1966, they said the museums, philanthropies, art institutions, opera houses, and the professional football leagues are exempt from federal taxes. that the headquarters of the organization of the nfl at 45 park avenue in new york city. the individual clubs we assume pay corporate taxes. we don't disclose anything, we don't actually know that. >> how does he earn that money?

>> people have said that it's worth that because roger goodell shows it's successful. the league rolls in money, almost $10 billion a year in revenues expected this year. but it's not the free market. the stadiums are built largely or entirely at public expense. the central operation of the nfl is tax free. not a free market at all. why does he pay himself $30 million? he can get away with it, basically. that's the difference between he and miss father. is it fair to ask his son to be as good a man as his father? maybe it's fair, maybe it's not. if you ask that question, roger goodell is the kind of person his own phatever used to oppose? >> explain more about that. why would he oppose them? >> i think he would view his own son as an insider who uses his inside position to take advantage of his people. >> charlie goodell change

parties in the '70s from being a republican to a democrat? >> did he become a democrat? no, he ran as republican. the three-way race that ultimately won with the majority. >> go back to what you felt on those days. couldn't you make a case that the public turned against the vietnam war and charlie goodell decided to go against it? >> you could make that argument about anybody who turned against the war, ed and others in that period. he was a republican when he did it. both of those things struck me as important. >> let me go back to this paragraph i read earlier. today, most politicians are thi describe the kind of people you see on tv all day. and you have -- you see a politicians of both parties. we're right now hopefully by the time the interview airs, the

budget standoff will be resolved, maybe it won't be. right now we near the middle of the budget standoff. where's the great figure of conscious on both sides. democrat and republicans both seem to me to be more worried about pleasing constituents than raising money at the moment. >> what is that word? >> means oily. >> did you have to look it up? >> i did know that word. >> business associates seem greedy and anti-social. didn't roger goodell see it as a great opportunity to make a lot of money. it's fair and why not? >> everything he does is legal. no one is accusing him of any impropriety. but as michael kim famously said, the scandal is what's legal. he runs a nonprofit -- he does it legally. congress said he could, and pay

himself $30 million is oily to me. it's not used as a personal enrichment. they don't do that. >> this whole area you talk about this has to do with the coaches and the cult of coaches in the country. but coaches now, you talk about money. you talk about the kind of money that the coach at alabama does each year. >> he's paid $6 million a year. that's not bad money either. what that equates to is $66,000 per year per scholarship player under his supervision. that's pretty good money. >> how does that map? and does alabama make money for education? >> well, all of the big football factory programs, there are roughly 50 of them at this point, florida, alabama, ohio state, and so on, they all clear $30 million to $50 million a

year on football. that's just in the last ten years the number has gone up like that. because the television rates fees for college football are currently increasing in a faster pace than fees for professional football. college is where the big growth is in money terms. the last ten years, the amount of money college -- football programs clear has for the big ones has gone from $5 million, $6 million a year to $30 million to $50 million a year. they cleared $43 million even after paying nick saban $6 million and several of the coaches $1 million. >> what did they do with the extra money? >> they spent it on the athletic department. in alabama's case, $43 million. $4 million of it went to the schools endowment. the rest was kept by the athletic department. lsu which won the championship four years ago made a big announcement last summer that since they were clearing $50

million a year on football, from now on they would give 15% to what they cleared to the school's economic endowment. generous, huh? >> a lot of figures about college activities. how did you get those figures. where are they? >> that's when they began to collect that data five years ago. quirky and hard to find. but i can tell you the website if you like to go look at it. >> what is it? the u.s. education department? >> it's one of the changes of numbers. it's in the references of the book. if you give me a minute, i'll point it out to you. >> what's wrong with any of this. what's the law say they can do in college sports? >> they talk about college sports, i don't think anything at all is wrong with college sports rolling in money. i don't think it's fine with me. a lot of students and parents

say they charge athletic fees to the students even though they're rolling in money even though a few mile trillions the college park campus here at the university of maryland, if you're an undergraduate student, you pay $398 a year for an athletic fee, it goes to the football program even though the football program rolls in money. that's a minor objection to the status of college football. the quality of the games are never a problem. consistently fabulous. man, every weekend, 50 fabulous college football games. but of the division i big college players, only 55% graduate. some people tell you that the problem that the players are not being paid. a lot of money in the system and the players are not paid. that's not the big problem. the big problem is they're not graduating because the college diploma is worth more to them in economic terms than any amount that could be paid in this -- >> what difference does it make? a young man, you can go to

college football and get a scholarship and go right to the pros and make -- how much did they -- what's the average football player making? >> $1.9 million sh the average in the nfl. >> is there a minimum they get paid? >> the minimum is $429,000. it's only paid for a year or two. >> if i knew i was going to be the number one draft choice in the nfl, and sign a huge contract with a bonus and a glamorous life, yeah, i don't need a diploma. i can get it later. the trouble is it happens to hardly anyone. the big college level, these are best teams, division i, one team in 35 receives an nfl paycheck. one player in 90 stays long enough to have anything that you and i will call a career. i call this and the king of sports the grand illusion of college football. but the handsome, muscular hardworking young men go to the

pros, drive the her shea deese, women will chase me and my life will be set. if they don't graduate from college, except for a handful, none of those things happen. >> how many of them wouldn't have gotten into college in the first place if they weren't athletes. >> two things you can do for you if you're a high school player, they're both good. one gets you a scholarship at the division i and division ii levels. it can get you a commission to a college you wouldn't otherwise be able to get into. this year, i give you the ivy league statistics. this year, the football coaches at columbia have 14 athletic admits they can use. the football coaches can essentially admit 14 boys who wouldn't have qualified for cornell or brown or other grade schools like that into the schools by the athletic commission. get a scholarship or the athletic commission. the smart kids use the

commission. instead of going to the football factory school, they go to yale. they get in and they graduate and put their lives on a solid footing. but if you use football or any high school sport to get yourself a college scholarship or athletic commission, you 'done the smart thing as long as you go on and graduate. >> if i had 800 points out of 2400 on the sat, could guy? >> not with 800. no, you're not -- the ivy league schools and the schools -- that's bowden, middlebury, use an economic index every year that requires you to get i think this year is 26th on the a.c.t. they expect you to be in the top third. >> talking about the university of maryland and ohio state, these are allstate schools. are there any different rules for state schools and how much money they can either collect or use for the athletic program or the number of scholarships they

can give? >> division i limits scholarships to 85 per year. they had 85 scholarships. they had 84. but 85 is the next number they can use. most of the big programs use their maximum. they don't use their maximums. maximum, 63 for division ii. division iii where am hurst and bowden, it doesn't allow scholarships but does allow athletic admission. >> when did the coach's salaries and colleagues skyrocket. >> it started 20 years ago. you remember in 1984 -- the big money skyrocketed eight years ago. they deregulated college football. before that -- the short version is before that the ncaa could control how many games were on per week and few games were on. when college football was deregulated in 194, the number of games shot way up.

this week in the washington, d.c. area, 46 college football games are going to be aired. so this led to a huge increase of college teams. no problem at all. but the money has gone to mainly building fantastic facilities. university of oregon now has -- now has a football facility that looks like a modern art museum. tax deductible. taxpayers pay a third of it. >> go back to the tax deductible thing. who gets to deduct the taxes paid for that? >> the donor. in the case of the university of oregon, fantastic football facility. phil, the guy who funded nike, that's close to true. he could deduct that -- i assume he did. i don't know, we haven't seen the taxes. but if he used a tax deduction on that, taxpayers paid a third of the cost of building that

building. almost all donations to academia are tax deductible, including to football. you say you look at ohio state. ohio state, we want them -- we want donations to the academic mission of ohio state or any college to be tax deductible and the rationale is it serves the larger purpose in society. if i give $70 million to ohio state's football program, the number of donations last year, that money is also tax deductible. football is fabulous. i love to watch. but it does not serve a larger purpose for society. >> coaches make $6 million or $3 million at a college and the president of the school makes half a million dollar s? >> not only the coaches but the assistant coaches. there's 30 or 40 assistant football coaches in the united states at the college level who make more than the president of the college or any faculty member of the college including the faculty members of the medical school.

i think the answer is roger goodell pays $30 million. if they can, colleges paid huge amounts to their coaches because they can. the money is rolling in. the athletic departments want to spend it on themselves, not on the larger academic missions. we just mentioned ohio state. currently ohio state, the athletic department staff is twice as large as the english department staff is. roughly 1% of ohio state students are parts of the -- have any role in the athletic department. and almost all students take an english course. so they're spending the money on themselves. the athletic directors pay themselves well, the coaches well. >> the ohio state, the alumni from ohio state love the fact that they have such a hot football tame or basketball team for that matter. doesn't that draw students? >> my chapter on college -- one of the reasons is it makes people excited to go to college,

especially to public universities. big public university expansion began just after world war ii. football excitement began roughly at the same time. before world war ii, the ivy league, the university of chicago, those were the football powers. after world war ii and the gi bill and the big expansion of public universities began, the power in college football shifted to big public schools. people should be excited about going to university. one reason the united states has more college graduates per capita than any other nation is we have exciting college campuses because we have big deal football and basketball and volleyball and other sports. but young people, especially young men, want to go to college in the united states because it's exciting to be in college. >> this moment we go off to college from the national football league. we want to show you some 1999 video of the late senator arlen specter on the floor of the senate. >> i sought recognition today to introduce the stadium financing

and franchise relocation act of 1999. this legislation would require that the national football league and major league baseball act to provide financing for 50% of new stadium construction costs and that the national football league be given a limit of antitrust exemption to regulate franchise dues. this legislation is necessary because baseball and football have for too long had a public be damned attitude and at the present time, major league sports is out of control on franchise moves for football teams and demands upon cities and states for exorbitant

construction costs which is a form of legalized extortion. >> he comes from philadelphia. big sports town. what would be his motivation. and what kind of success did he have of this. >> senator specter who you know passed away two years ago. he was the closest thing to a populist champion critical of the professional sports subsidies. you heard him say he wanted the nfl to pay 50% of the cost of its stadiums. the figure is currently that the public has paid 70% of the cost of building and operating nfl stadium. >> give us an example of the stadium that was built with taxpayer money. >> in indianapolis where the super bowl was a year and a half ago, fantastic game. giants versus patriots. the game that ended on the crazy play where the new york giants player tried to stop himself from making a touchdown. it was a wonderful game. and the taxpayers of indiana paid the entire costs of that

stadium. the ownership family of the colts didn't pay anything for that stadium. the ownership family is close to $1 billion in net worth. the public built the stadium for them and it's kept all of the revenue. >> give us another example? >> one of the richest people in the world, the microsoft executive, owns the seahawks. fabulous team. the seahawks are playing well. the stadium they play, a beautiful field, opens up under the scene of the emerald city. a gorgeous place to watch the game. paul allen, net worth north of $15 billion. and yet the public paid for the stadium and paul allen keeps almost all of the revenues. he pays about $1 million a year. that's the kind of thing that made arlen specter mad? makings me mad too. >> who built the dallas stadium?

>> i've been there for the super bowl and the nba all-star game. very futuristic. there's clubs a it all levels, go-go dancers. jerry jones paid most of the cost. but on the other hand, his facility operates tax free. he doesn't pay any property taxes. >> why not? >> he got a special deal from the texas state legislature. if you were any kind of business, if c-span built a building there, you would have to pay property taxes. jerry jones doesn't pay any. based on my book i researched, other comparable businesses in the same county, he should be paying $6 million to $8 million a year in property taxes. he doesn't pay anything. >> senator john mccain is talking about another aspect of taxpayer money. >> spent $5,6 87,002 to repair

the anaheim stadium score board. the good people of anaheim enjoyed this and certainly enjoy watching this new score board, but i don't believe such a repair is a federal responsibility. anaheim stadium charges admission, i would assume it strives to make a profit, but i heard no one offering to pay back the federal government for the investment in the score board. >> this is a democracy, a republic where the voter has something to say about who's in office. isn't this what the taxpayer want s? >> if they want to be for the sports. is there a choice? give another example. senator mccain mentioned federal construction funds to repair a stadium. it's called the mercedes benz superdome in new orleans. once played two years ago, etc. built entirely at public expense after hurricane katrina badly

damaged. it posted football games again, that was a national feel-good story. rightly, i would say so. they put in the token amount. the public is invested in today's dollars, $1 billion in the construction of it was mercedes benz superdome. and the man who owns the new orleans saints keeps all of the revenue generated there. why would people rebel? one reason is many people in the public don't understand it is taking place. the second reason is there's nothing they can do about it they feel. it's all based on insider deals. it is largely based on insider deals. there was a vote on whether to use public money to renovate the place where the dolphins play. they voted strongly against doing that. he's going back -- you know, the sociology of the sport. 50 years ago when the antitrust

waiver was first granted, at that time, there was a paltry amount of money in all professional sports compared to today even in current dollars which is not what it was today. nfl owners of that period could not have afforded on their own to build a beautiful stadium. so in a stadium that looked like a public library, the public would contribute to it and then get to use by coming in. that was 50 years ago. they roll in money but they established the assumption that publics should pay for their stadiums instead of people coming in to pay to watch the game, the game is blacked out if the stadium is not sold out. but the idea of public funding in the stadium didn't have a logical reason when it started, it outlived its usefulness. >> any sport, any national professional sport not have an antitrust exemption?

>> i don't know about basketball and socker. i know football and baseball and they both do. >> has there been any effort in the last few years to take that away from him with all of the money going back and forth. >> senator specter was the last person who struggled with removing the antitrust exemption. that didn't happen. >> when did you get interested in this. you can tell in your book you're angry about this? >> i think you should be angry. rich people shouldn't be subsidized by the public. i don't like taxes, you don't like taxes. but if rich people don't pay their fair share, average people have to pay more. i want that to change. i'm more concerned with the health damage that football does to young people and the corrupting effect on college education because they affect a far larger number of americans in various hanky-panky that goes on with the nfl does. in my own case, i started writing for espn the year 2000,

2001, somewhere in there. i wanted to look at the health research. i was shocked with what i saw. three children, two of them boys, wanted to play football themselves. i did not allow them to play football until they were in middle school because the research -- any parents who are wondering -- whether they should let their boy or in some cases a few girls play youth football, the answer is no that your children should not play youth tackle football, not until the age of 13 or so, middle school, the pediatric researchers are ironclad on that point. with my own boys, i read the research, i got involved in helping my boys and coaching them in middle school and high school. none of them played until middle school. did not stop one from being recruited to play in the ncaa and be a starter. you can have a great college football career without playing when you're 10 years old. i've been viewing football the way most of the networks view it as a form of entertainment.

it's a great form of entertainment. but it has health and social consequences that have to be dealt with. that was the general sills of this book. >> who do you think is going to read this book? >> i would like to think that people who like football but have second thoughts. i was at a social events. elena kagan, a wonderful person, she asked me about the book. she said, you know, i love to watch football games, it's like a guilty pleasure. it's like watching boxing, watching people injure themselves. should i turn the tv off and not enjoy a football game. if anybody has asked themselves that question, should read this book because it ends with a reform ageneral at a. >> a person i know told me the other day that he was taking his son to a dallas game and the tickets were $1200 apiece. >> that would be a good ticket. >> why would somebody spend that

kind of money on a 2 1/2-hour football game? >> there you've asked a free market question. why did people spend a lot of money for designer clothes? is a bmw really better than a honda. if you've got the money and you want to spend it, i don't object to people spending a lot of money on football games. what i object is the taxpayers spending a lot of money on football games. >> what about the antitrust provisions. does that allow the dallas cowboys to be the only game in town. >> the antitrust exemption has to do with the way the nfl negotiates with the broadcast networks. >> only? >> namely. >> it allows them to conduct a common draft. but namely it has to do with the broadcast negotiations, otherwise, individual teams with negotiate individual networks. that's the antitrust. >> what did you say, the nfl team. is there any way there could be competition -- enough competition that those prices would come down for those seats?

and is antitrust helped them in any way there? >> oliver wendell holmes when he did the baseball antitrust decision in 1922, famously said interstate commerce does not apply here because the entire game is played with one stadium and the stadium sits in the borders of the united states. so oliver wendell holmes would see an entirely different landscape. the cost of watching -- you might want to go to the kansas city chiefs game. the cost is going to apply to you and only you. somebody else is not going to build it up next door and say you can watch the kansas city chiefs play here and i'll only charge you half as much. if we didn't have the antitrust exemption or another huge favor that's been done to the nfl and all professional sports is that images created in publicly funded facilities can be co copyrig

copyrighted. that's how they get $6 billion a year from the television networks. the reason it's so high is the images that makes them public facilities are copyrighted. if they were not, anybody could go in to kansas chiefs stadium and set up a camera and all of the prices for professional football would decline extremely rapidly. >> connected to the cable television world. the network you write for espn gets $5.5 per customer. this network gets six cents. their number keeps going up every year. some point, they go up 20% of the year. you write for them. they pay the extraordinary rights to these teams and then the players make extraordinary amounts of money. is espn protect in this business? >> is it protected? i don't know. but it is a beneficiary of everything that we just talked

about. espn -- i think that number works out to 125 times more per month than c-span has paid? >> at least. >> espn can't be that much more important to society now. you can ask this question too, well, you can say if people voluntarily made those voices, i love sports and i also love c-span, i would voluntarily pay both of those fees. but many people would not voluntarily pay $5.5 a month for espn. if they could choose, they would say, no, i'm going to pay my six cents for c-span, you know what? i'll pay eight cents. i'm not going to pay that money for espn. if you look at the landscape of how football is televised, espn is a broadcast partner of the nfl. cbs, fox, nbc. they're all broadcast partners. abc is not, but abc and espn have common ownership. so all of the big broadcast networks are broadcast partners of the nfl. by the strangest and most amazing coincidence, none of

them report very much on the things that we're discussing today. >> why not? >> it's bad for business. >> can you write about it? >> yes, i've written including on espn.com about the economic flaws in the system in the structure of professional sports and sports is full of discussion of things with the economic structure and the things that are wrong with espn and cbs, nbc, etc., all of the networks that broadcast football share common thoughts and i write and talk about them all the time. the intellectual, the thing that goes out to primetime on monday night football or sunday night football on nbc, you don't hear a lot about concussions and public subsidies on those shows, do you? >> sally jenkins writes for "the washington post." that column talking about this very same issue. >> the bond issue that taxpayers passed to finance the stadiums

means they're going to have money not spent on something else. bigger deficits, deficits are killing states. why should new jersey be strapped with $110 million debt on a stadium that no longer exists when they are laying off cops and firefighters and public schools don't have supplies for kids? these are questions we should be asking more frequently when we talk about spending public money for this great cultural celebration we call football. >> that was in 2011. what's the story behind new jersey taxpayers paying $110 million a year for a stadium that doesn't exist. >> it was torn down build the current met life stadium. yes. they're funded with tax-free bonds. cowboys stadium in arlington, texas a moment ago. on paper, jerry jones raised not all but most of the built up stadium but they used it using

tax-free bonds. the bonds say the bonds we investors pay no taxes on. average people have to pay more. in the case of new jersey, stadium authorities most know -- most nfl stadiums have the mechanism of the creation is the creation of the thing called the stadium authority or sports exhibition authority that's in the county council or the state legislature. those are the organizations that raised money. in the case of new jersey, the old stadium torn down to build met life three years ago, a very nice stadium by the way, that was used by a generation of corrupt new jersey politicians. year in, year out, the amount of indebtedness increased rather than declined. $110 million, the current figure was 1911-2011 figure.

they still owe money on the stadium that no longer exists and they owe the stadium that exists now far into the future as well. >> where is the stadium in the united states not paid for in any way by taxpayers. >> the team researcher on this subject. she says take into account both construction costs and operating subsidies, power, water, etc., construction of parking lots, freeway ramps, public transit, etc., that the only two stadiums in the country where the owners paid more than three quarters are met life, the one in new jersey, shared by the jets and the giants, and the field in foxboro where the new england patriots played. the only two the owners were fair with the construction facility. >> do you know why they're fair? >> in the case of the patriots, robert kraft, i think he's one of the best in the league.

a guy he's a real sharp businessman and he loves the dollar sign. but he also has a public spirit. he gave $100 million to columbia a few years ago. he felt it wouldn't be right. and in the case of two owners, two families who owned the jets and the giants, they had heard very loudly from the legislat e legislatures of new jersey and new york. so in the case of those three sets of ownerships, they might argue we're better off owning most or all of our stadium that gives us more control, etc. in the case of public spiritedness. >> how would you describe your politics in this stage in your life? >> interested democrat -- >> i don't think you've ever seen this. last year in 2012. i want you to explain this to

the public. >> he wrote the forward because if there is one other name, one other judicial name associated with the two principal theories of this book, textualism and originalism, it's frank easterbrook. he is if i had to pick somebody to replace me on the supreme court, it would be frankie. i tend to see things the same, because we're both applying the same principles of textualism and originalism. >> frank easterbrook, second circuit judge, illinois, your brother. >> how does that happen in the family that you couldn't -- i assumed that you're very different in your think ing? >> not so much. politically, might be a little different. i'm very proud of my older brother.

proud of my younger brother who's a teacher at tcu in ft. worth. frank is more libertarianism than conservative. libertarianism has a lot of appeal to it, to anybody who thinks about it. i would be to the left of him on some issues. but i admire about frank is he's logical and he not only knows the legal profession and legal precedent, but he uses it to attach logic to the answers to questions. having read thoreau and emerson when i was a child, he was a nominee of president reagan. he's from that era. a good friend of robert bosching. just gave a speech to robert bork a couple of months ago.

he's way left of me. you can imagine what our conversations were like. >> what were the parents like, their politics? >> mother who died when i was young, very intelligent, high iq, very left wing had -- she had been born in a different era, she would have been a member of congress or college president or something my father, a self-made man. and i would say middle of the road politics. >> where did you grow up? >> buffalo, new york. >> where did you go to zplenlg. >> colorado college, beautiful colorado springs. >> how did that happen? >> i put myself through college. not true anymore. but at that time, colorado college was a private school that charged significantly less than the schools in northeastward. >> where did you get interested in writing? that's most of the career. >> most of my adulthood as a

writer. i'm still at the age of 60 trying to make myself just a book writer. that would be my goal and the other things as well. childhood ambition is always -- >> here we are, by the way, in 1992 on this network? >> oh, boy. >> the piece is on global warming. to sum rise it as quickly as possible, i would say the science of global warming is very shaky. it may happen some day but there's no serious reason to believe it's happening already. we have a natural greenhouse effect that warms the planet. no one disputes that. the short version of the article, signs are shaky. artificial green house may happen some day. most of the research continues to suggest it will be less fearsome than earlier predictled. but even given the things what you would do to stave off the effect, energy efficiency, is emphasize whether it's going up, down, our sideways. the case for energy inefficient

si is sound. >> it no longer exists. you changed some since then. >> the slender guy no longer exists either. >> what do you think about global warm ing? >> followed that subject closely in 1995. i published a book about the environmental issues on the earth. it's pretty well -- you hold up on that through the passage of time. in the year 2005, the joint issued a statement that most of the western world saying that the national academy had become convinced that artificially triggered global warming was occurring. 1992, the quote you had from me at that time, they would have issued the same degree of skepticism. but i don't claim to know more about science than the national academy of sciences. when they switched sides, i switched sides. i did a series of op-ed

newspapers saying they switched sides. i'm convinced it was occurring but would agree with the 1992 version of myself saying it doesn't seem to be the calamity that's been predicted. don't think it will be. it's just a real problem we have to deal with. >> let's go back to football. and here is your early hero's son, roger goodell, testifying in 2009. >> we want to make sure our game is safe. we're doing everything we can for our players now. that is why we have engaged in making changes to our game. we have done some of the things discussed here on a variety of levels starting with the fact that we have made significant rule changes to our game. size rule changes this year alone have been made to improve the safety and welfare of our players. they have had a positive impact in the short term that they've

been replaced and we will continue as we have done every year to evaluate rule changes to make our game safer. many of those changes this year were specific to head injuries. >> how important is this issue? >> head injuries? the number one question in all of athletics right now. i'll give nfl the credit, they're certainly saying the right things now. which is progress compared to where they were ten years ago. they're saying the right things. they're trying to set a better example. the big concern for the neurological damage in football, no one wants an nfl player to get hurt. there are only 2,000. there are 3 million youth players, tackle football players with helmets on. that's where almost all concussions occur. all of the neurological damage in football is done to children. youth players and high school players are legally children. 40,000 to 60,000 concussions per

year at the high school level, figure in youth sports is hard though determine. but it's in the tens of thousands. and a lotf the neurological research is showing that it's not spectacular knockout hits like make it cause neurological damage. it's the slow accumulation of minor hits and what's happen in the last 10, 20 years, the number of kids in youth football are going up. the number of states going year round, high school football has gone up. and that means it slow accumulation of minor hits to people's heads has gone way up. the society where education is so important, it can't be good that more and more boys are spending more and more time bashing each other in the head. >> what about drugs? you write about opiods. you write about toridal. how does that fit into the sports world? >> i think painkiller use is a much higher level in the nfl

than people realized. i think people realized the level of painkiller uses are underestimated. i think steroids is not a big issue here. >> toridol is a strong injected version of the over-the-counter painkiller, aleve. you know it's oh kaf to take one once in a while, that's fine. pro football players, lots in the league, will not say how many get injected with it before games when they're feeling fine. not to treat an existing injury, but just so they won't feel pain during the games. this allows them to play fearlessly and makes for the knockout hits that the sports center likes so much. but it sets a bad example for kids that play throw your body, lead with your head. because look, see, it doesn't hurt. they're leading with their heads. they're not hurt, they're fine. that's because they were injected with painkillers before

the game. i tried hard to get the nfl to release data to me. they would not. i talked to the physician and the head of their committee that controls this. he was kagy on the levels. you don't need to know the statistic of what player got how many shots but you do need to know how much of this stuff teams are using and the nfl will not release that information. same with prescription painkillers as recently as ten years ago. the drug played in the united states was illegal street drugs. not prescription painkillers. usually released to more people caused more overdose deaths than streetcars do. every locker room in the nfl has a small pharmacy. they're popping open. and like oxycontin and so on. that case, they're popping them because they hurt. but they're popping them. the nfl won't release that data either. >> why not? >> it would be so bad for

business. it would be humiliated if people knew the level of painkillers. >> anybody care? why do people go watch what some people say is violence on a football field. >> it is violent. football is an aggressive sport. always will be. don't have a problem with that. several people made the argument that football is professional boxing in helmets. the crowd is there because they want to see guys' heads go flying back ward like that. they want to see people lying motionless on the ground. they don't care if they beat themselves up. they're adults. they know what they're getting into. no one can put a gun to their head. there's an element of that. i'm not going to deny it or discuss it. the king of sports, the element of the crowd of people who want to see -- i don't think it's a majority. nine out of ten football plans see hard-hitting game. >> if you create this grand

illusion, you can see the version in the incredibly violent contact. you say hey, it's fine. have a few laughs. no one will hurt. high school players see that. they imitate the behavior. they get an nfl paycheck. that's where the real damage has done. >> why has football been so popular to the united states and not nearly as popular around the world? >> we're the only country that loves gridiron-style football. canada likes it, ice hockey is the national sport there. we're the only country that could pull it off. football is an athletic drepgs of what the united states is. our good and our bad. we can do things that are complicated that nobody else can do. we can put a man on the moon. we can play the games that involve 50 players on each side, each wearing a lot of expensive equipment. we're big, noisy, crazy, we're

loud. we're sexy. all of the things that americans are, that's what football is. baseball is a beautiful sport with a nice pastoral elegance to it. it doesn't make you feel like only a crazy american can do this. football gives you that feeling. one thing nice about it. within limits, it's great that football so crazy. that's why only america can pull it off. >> how has the green bay packers stand out among the 32 teams because it's owned by the public. how have they done it and why are the rest of the teams been bought by billionaires? >> the green bay packers are the only professional sports franchise in football is owned by the public. they have public shares. they have to disclose data. everything we know about the other 31 teams based on extrapolating from the green bay packers. last year the packers had

approximately $45 million. the team is highly subsidized to pay almost nothing for their stadium. the voters for wisconsin had to vote -- it's so popular if there should be a yes-no referendum, should we subsidize them -- sure, it would pass. >> quote, nfl owners are pigs. >> aren't they? >> the ownership families -- louise debaotolo, they're building them a stadium in santa clara. that network has more than $100 billion. they could have paid for the stadium themselves. but if there's money in the trough, why not get some up. >> it speaks to what the country is. the sports, the football, the nfl. the super bowl every year. >> i think if voters understood this better and if they had a chance to vote, they would

normally vote against subsidies for sports. green packers, citizens of wisconsin might vote. in miami, florida, the citizens voted against the subsidies for the nfl. they would normally vote against it. but you know poll questions have so much to do about the question is frayed. if the question was do you want your local nfl franchise to go to business, everybody would say no. if the question was the average nfl franchise has $45 million a year in profit, should they pay for their own stadium, everybody would say yes. >> you say you ear an intellectual. intellectuals have become contentious of average people while no part of society is standing faster than faith institutions. what about the intellectuals? are you? >> i tried to keep myself in touch by attending and coaching

football games. but i would base that statement on modern fiction which we don't have time to get into today. >> so we're done. greg easter brook. the book is called the king of sports, football's impact on america. thanks so much.

with them and with the scottish government. >> order. questions for the prime mi >> question time with david cameron. much of last week's debate was on the national health service and cut to the accident and emergency services. the prime minister spoke about the intelligence services and oversight. >> order. questions for the prime minister. here. here. number one, sir. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with remembrance day coming, i am sure the whole house will join me in remembering those who have given their lives in the