Issue date: 9/17/07 Section: Editorial/Opinion

With the summer winding down, thousands of people ignored family and friends as they spent hours on computers doing research, compiling data and pouring over pages of statistics. After their hard work, they congregate into living rooms across the country and agonizing over tough decisions that would affect them for months.

Yes people, I'm referring to fantasy football. But this will not be the column that you expect. What if I told you that these people are not only living out the fantasy of NFL ownership, but are actually playing a role in a study of how politics should be run. I know what you're thinking: 'I think Mr. Kelley shouldn't have had that last Red Bull.' Just hear me out and decide for yourself.

Executive: In fantasy football this responsibility is held by the league commissioner. He acts as ruler of all the separate teams, while managing one of his own. Liken his role to that of the secretary general of the United Nations Both leaders are chosen by the members. Both have their level of power decided on by the members.

Legislative: All the teams get to serve as their own autonomous bodies. They are a self-contained country in their own right. In our comparison, they are like the U.N. Security Council. The rule of both the U.N. and fantasy leagues are agreed upon by both the executive and the member states. Any proposed change goes through a democratic process, generally working with a vote. In the Security Council, nine out of a possible 15 votes is needed to pass a proposition. Where fantasy football works better is that one of the five permanent members on the Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) can veto the bill and it's automatically defeated. Fantasy football uses a more democratic approach. Usually a simple majority will get the proposition passed, with each team owners' vote counting the same.

Judicial: In fantasy football, each team owner is a judge. Any trade between members of the league is subject to a vote by every member of the league. While the rules vary from league to league, generally a simple majority will defeat any unfair trades. This process keeps the league pure, without any 'under-the-table' dealings taking place. Keeping with our UN model, compare this process to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has often drawn criticism over their jurisdiction and application of rulings. In the fantasy league, each team must comply with the ruling. This isn't always the case for the ICJ. Ask our own government, who according to the Britannica Encyclopedia, refused to pay reparations to the Nicaraguan government for a little incident in 1980.

Countries: Each team is a self-contained country. Those hours of research (and completely ignoring family and friends) have hopefully paid off for the owner, landing them with a team of (hopefully good) players. These players are resources. They can be used by a team owner or they can be traded away for more desirable resources. We can compare Peyton Manning to lumber; a solid and consistent resource. Donovan McNabb can be gold; flashy and generally a good commodity, but with a regularly fluctuating price (injury problems in Donovan's case). LaDainian Tomlinson is oil; everyone wants it, but there's not much to go around. I think you get the idea.

So what makes fantasy football a better model than what's going on right now? Fantasy football is a pure form of government, where all states begin equal and the decisions along the way determine their fate. There's no threat of nuclear weapons (although there are sometimes threats made). It's all about strategy.

Just like real-world politics, you have to do whatever it takes to win. In fantasy, you are waging war against a new team each week, using carefully considered moves to defeat your opponent. The difference is that once you defeat the other team, you must retain them as allies. God forbid that I lose Chad Johnson to an injury later in the season. I might need the help of Sheamus' Shake-n-Bakers too keep my team afloat.

What if there was a fantasy league of all the major heads of state? Would President Bush give Germany a break because he knows that he might need to get a quarterback from Angela Merkel? What would Queen Elizabeth name her team (my vote is with the London Limey's)? Would the world be a more peaceful place? Call me crazy, but I think so.

Kelley is a senior broadcast journalism major and guest columnist for The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools