The Dictatorship
Why most Americans are rooting against the Kansas City Chiefs
Super Bowl LIX is upon us, and outside of Kansas City and Philadelphia, sports fans’ attitude toward this year’s matchup seems to be a collective groan. Ticket prices, though still exorbitant, are thousands of dollars cheaper than last yearand fans everywhere seem to be rooting for the asteroid. On its face, this makes sense: Eagles fans have a rather earned reputationeven if the team has a running back who is an explosive talent and genuinely one of the most likable athletes in professional sports. As for the Chiefs, they’ve fully entered their villain erawith fans loving to hate the NFL’s latest formidable dynasty.
Just five years ago, the Chiefs were largely celebrated for their win in Super Bowl LIV, the title that launched their dynasty. But a recent Economist/YouGov poll shows that more Americans are rooting against Kansas City than for them. It’s understandable that Americans are growing weary of seeing Kansas City in the Super Bowl; this will be the Chiefs’ fifth appearance in the last six years, they’ve won three of the last five, and they’re going for their third Super Bowl win in a row on Sunday, a feat that’s never been achieved. Every great team that reaches the level of perennial success the Chiefs have enjoyed eventually suffers this backlash, no matter the decade. Just ask the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Lakers, Golden State Warriors and most recently in the NFL, the New England Patriots.
When a small-market team like the Chiefs keeps winning, fans of other teams can’t blame the system.
Columnists everywhere have explored the various reasons for this phenomenon, where dynasties become more disliked the longer their run. There are certainly psychological and cultural factors at play: As sports fans, we like to root for the underdog, and when it’s not our team that’s constantly winning, we see that dominance as undeserved. The saturation of coverage certainly hasn’t helped either. And yes, politics might play a slight role here, though I tend to think that’s overstated. Liberal-leaning fans have taken issue with Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes’ wife Brittany’s seeming support of Donald Trump on social media. Conservative-leaning fans aren’t fond of Taylor Swift, who endorsed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the past two presidential elections and is dating Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce.
But I think another factor is at play here, one peculiar to football. As sports fans, we’ve all bought into this belief that the NFL is a bastion of paritya shining example of fairness for other leagues to follow. But that belies reality. According to the Harvard Sports Analysis Collectiveof the four major North American men’s leagues, the NHL is actually the league that boasts the most parity. The NFL is third, just below MLB. And as The Athletic’s Jayson Stark noted Thursday, teams with Mahomes, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning at quarterback have appeared in 12 of the last 14 Super Bowls.
In baseball, when teams like the Los Angeles Dodgers win multiple championships, it’s easy to point to the perceived unfairness in MLB, which has no salary cap. Big-market and wealthier teams can afford the best players, so fans of small-market teams can simply blame the system. The NFL has a hard salary cap, so richer teams can’t wildly outspend others. When a small-market team like the Chiefs keeps winning, fans of other teams can’t blame the system.
A sportswriter friend who hails from Kansas City has an interesting theory: Part of the hate is really more frustration, annoyance and resentment, particularly from fans of other small-market teams, who see the Chiefs’ dynasty and think, “That could be us.”
We’ve been conditioned to think of football as the fairest sport — the sport of true meritocracy, not legacy and wealth-based success — so when one team constantly wins, it catches us off guard. How can a dynasty exist in a league with features meant to level the playing field, like revenue sharing and a hard salary cap?
It’s easy to hate the Chiefs and to want to see them toppled, but their dynastic run deserves as much admiration as annoyance.
That might be why fans have turned on the Chiefs so sharply. It also explains why, whereas the Yankees and the Lakers get accused of buying championships, the criticism this week is that the referees are in the bag for the Chiefs. That accusation has been so widespread that both the NFL referees union and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell felt compelled to respond.
But the Chiefs have built their dynasty squarely within the rules, thanks in large part to front-office savvy. Yes, Mahomes has one of the more team-friendly contracts in the league, restructuring his deal before the 2023 season to receive less guaranteed money and allow the Chiefs more salary cap flexibility. But the organization has also simply been better than most in continuing to build around him.
In 2022, Kansas City traded star wide receiver Tyreek Hill to Miami for five draft picks as Hill sought a massive contract extension. The Chiefs used two of those picks on cornerback Trent McDuffie and safety Chamarri Conner, both now part of one of the league’s top defenses. They’ve signed low-cost veterans like Kareem Hunt, JuJu Smith-Schuster and Mecole Hardman to round out their roster. The majority of their starters are homegrown — only two of their defensive starters weren’t drafted in-house — which speaks to just how well general manager Brett Veach and his team scout and develop talent. They’re winning because of great management — and what could be more meritocratic than that?
It’s easy to hate the Chiefs and to want to see them toppled, but their dynastic run deserves as much admiration as annoyance. I’ll personally be holding my nose to root for the Eagles — as a Giants fan, I’d like to see Saquon Barkley get a well-deserved title. But remember that every dynasty eventually becomes the villain simply because we don’t like to admit when greatness is due. We hate ’em ’cause we ain’t ’em.
Kavitha A. Davidson is an Emmy-winning sports journalist from New York. She was most recently a correspondent on HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.” She was previously a reporter and columnist at ESPN, The Athletic, and Bloomberg.
The Dictatorship
Polymarket cuts ties with George Santos as regulators probe trades
NEW YORK (AP) — The online prediction platform Polymarket is ending its paid relationship with George Santos as federal regulators investigate whether the former congressman illegally bet against his own attendance at President Donald Trump’s State of the Union.
Santos placed the bets on another prediction marketplace, Kalshi, after publicly announcing his intention to be at the Feb. 24 speech, according to a person familiar with the investigation. He later blamed a delayed flight for missing the event.
The suspicious trades were detected by Kalshi and referred to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulator that has opened a probe into Santos for possible insider trading, according to a second person familiar with the investigation.
Both spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Santos was released from federal prison last October after Trump granted him clemency in a fraud case.
By the time of the State of the Union address, four months later, he was already working in an influencer capacity for Polymarket, using his substantial online platform to promote the controversial brand.
In response to an inquiry from the AP, a Polymarket spokesperson said the company was in the process of terminating the contract as a result of this week’s revelations.
Santos did not respond to phone calls and text messages from the AP. He wrote on social media Wednesday that the allegation was “preposterous,” adding that his legal team was in touch with the Justice Department.
On his podcast, “Doing Time with George Santos,” the former congressman has suggested that prediction markets are “easily manipulable,” and rife with abuse.
“There’s definitely some space for speculation. There will be investigations. There will be scrutiny,” he said in March. “I just want to make sure that people understand: It is not straightforward. It is not a crime to do prediction market. I don’t think people should be taking this seriously.”
The financial regulator overseeing prediction markets, meanwhile, has pledged to take the issue of insider trading “extremely seriously.”
“There is a myth in the mainstream media and social media that insider trading law doesn’t apply in the prediction markets. That is wrong,” David Miller, the director of enforcement at CFTC, said during a recent talk at New York Law School. “Insider trading in the prediction markets — where there is misappropriated information — is precisely the kind of serious violation that we are going after vigorously.”
That pledge comes as the Trump administration has thrown its support behind the prediction market operators and is actively suing states that have tried to regulate them. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has invested in Polymarket through his venture capital firm and is a strategic advisor for Kalshi. And the CFTC has faced allegations of maintaining a friendly posture toward the industry it is meant to regulate.
Still, some bets have not escaped federal scrutiny.
Last week, prosecutors charged a Google engineer who allegedly used the company’s 2025 “Year in Search” data, before it was published, to enter Polymarket wagers about the most searched people of last year.
A spokesperson for Polymarket said the company had worked closely with the CFTC, along with federal prosecutors, ahead of the insider trading charges.
Experts said Santos’s own alleged actions didn’t appear to meet the same threshold for insider trading, since they would not have been based on stolen information. But the bets — coupled with his public statements — may run afoul of other financial laws.
“What he’s accused of sounds a lot more like market manipulation than insider trading,” said Todd Phillips, the director at Klaros Group and a former Georgia State University professor who has written extensively about prediction market regulation.
The federal regulator could also bring a civil action against Santos, potentially resulting in a steep fine and a ban from trading, he noted. But the rapid rise of online betting platforms has meant there are few similar cases to draw from.
“We didn’t have examples of people trading on contracts involving themselves. That is new, and it allows people to change their behavior in order to profit,” Phillips said. “Until pretty recently, the question of George Santos being at the State of the Union was not something that had ever been traded before.”
___
Associated Press reporter Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this report
The Dictatorship
USTR proposing new tariffs of at least 10% for most trading partners
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is in a hurry to rebuild the tariff wall the Supreme Court tore down less than four months ago.
The administration this week has proposed slapping double-digit tariffs on products from dozens of major U.S. trading partners after an investigation into imports of goods allegedly made with forced labor. And more tariffs are likely coming.
Under the proposal released in Washington late Tuesday, 16 economies — including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Taiwan and the United Kingdom — would face 10% levies for allegedly failing to enforce bans on forced labor. Another 44 trading partners — including China, Japan, India, South Korea and Switzerland — would be hit with 12.5% import taxes.
The tariffs are part of Trump’s push to replace revenue lost when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sweeping global tariffs he’d imposed last year. This latest barrage is likely to unsettle key trading partners that have been hit with waves of tariffs since Trump returned to the White House early last year.
“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.’’
Greer’s office said failure to prevent such imports is “unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.”
Trump’s tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who usually try to pass along those higher costs to customers.
The administration, mindful that Americans are growing increasingly unsettled by high prices with midterm elections just months away, said that it would limit the impact by exempting from the latest proposed tariffs a long list of products, including aircraft parts, food products (from coffee to beef) and rare earth minerals crucial in the production of smartphones and cars. Also spared would be products from Canada and Mexico covered by a North American trade pact.
The new tariffs would not take effect immediately. They are subject to public comment and review. Public hearings on the proposed duties are due to begin on July 7.
The plan drew immediate pushback. A Chinese government spokesperson denied the forced labor allegation and called for resolving economic issues through dialogue, saying a trade war doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.
“There is no such thing as forced labor in China, and we oppose using it as an excuse to engage in political manipulation,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said in Beijing.
The U.S. has long said imports of goods that include material from China’s far-western Xinjiang are at risk of using forced labor. Beijing denies allegations of forced labor in the Muslim majority region.
But critics saw the proposed tariffs as a pretext to reinstate tariffs on dozens of countries across the globe that hadn’t passed legal muster.
“Accusing EU of not doing enough against forced labour is absurd,″ Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, posted on social media. “The EU has adopted the world’s most stringent rules against products made with forced labour. This looks very much like trying to make the facts fit a legal justification for tariffs that has already been decided.″
The new maneuver shows how determined the Trump administration is about keeping a wall of tariffs around the American economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.
In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose double-digit tariffs on almost every country on Earth last year. The justices struck down the tariffs and set the stage for companies who paid them to seek refunds.
After the loss in court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10% tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialized trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.
Trump’s tariffs have provided tens of billions of dollars in revenue for a federal government that persistently spends more than it collects in taxes. He had been counting on the IEEPA tariffs to make up for some of the revenue lost to his massive 2025 tax cuts.
But tariff collections have begun to fall since the legal defeats. They peaked at more than $31 billion last October but were down to $22 billion in both March and April of this year, according to the Treasury Department.
Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have vowed to replace the lost revenue. And they’ve turned to a legal authority that has withstood legal challenges in the past: Section 301 of Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term.
“What’s somewhat brilliant about this way of approaching 301 is that politically it’s very hard to argue that you shouldn’t go after forced labor and force countries to enforce forced labor laws on the books,’’ said trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his government will soon introduce legislation on forced labor in supply chains. “Canada has a very strong legislative regime against forced labor in supply chains,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa. “We don’t want any element of forced labor coming in goods and services, and we want to use our influence to eliminate this practice of forced labor and child labor.”
In its nearly 100-page report on forced labor, the USTR said that even if a country enforces a ban on forced labor domestically, importing goods made with forced labor violates the rules of fair trade.
Majerus expects to the new tariffs to be ready by the time the temporary ones expire next month. “The USTR is under enormous pressure to make sure there’s no gap (in tariff revenue), probably from the White House,’’ he said. ”I’m confident, based on the schedule they’re on now, that they will have these done and ready to implement.’’ He noted that the investigation on forced labor is “working at about two times the normal speed’’ of typical 301 cases.
The administration is also pursuing a Section 301 case into whether 16 U.S. trading partners (accounting for 70% of U.S. imports) — including China, the EU and Japan — are overproducing goods, driving down prices and putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage.
And on Monday the administration proposed 25% Section 301 tariffs on Brazilcharging that the world’s 10th-biggest economy with “unreasonable’’ trade practices including lax anti-corruption enforcement and unfair tariffs of its own.
Tuesday’s report defined forced labor as “work or service exacted from a person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.”
It cited an estimate by the UN’s International Labor Organization that as of 2021, 27.6 million people were engaged in forced labor.
Rice imported from Myanmar, tobacco from Malawi, beef from Brazil, and cotton and polysilicon from China were among the many products it said are prone to involving forced labor.
___
Elaine Kurtenbach reported from Bangkok.
Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this story.
The Dictatorship
AP source says George Santos reported to prosecutors over suspicious Kalshi trades
NEW YORK (AP) — A prediction market reported former U.S. Rep. George Santos to federal prosecutors after he boasted he’d be going to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, then bet against his own attendance, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
Kalshithe online prediction marketplace, referred Santos to the Department of Justice after detecting suspicious trades made by him ahead of Trump’s Feb. 24 speech, the person said. The person spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Kalshi also reported the trades to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulatory body that has vowed to crack down on insider trading in prediction marketplaces.
The Justice Department and the CFTC didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to inquiries from the AP.
Santos also did not respond to text messages or phone calls.
The referral was first reported by NPR. Santos told NPR that he wasn’t aware of the investigation. He declined to say whether he had a Kalshi account.
“I’m not saying yes, I’m not saying no,” Santos told NPR.
The convicted ex-congressman had repeatedly discussed his intention to attend the State of the Union, which came just four months after he was granted clemency by Trump in a fraud case that led to his expulsion from the U.S. House.
On the eve of Trump’s speech, Kalshi put the odds of Santos attending at close to 75%.
Then, minutes into the speech, Santos posted on X that he had been waylaid at the airport. Immediately, several social media users accused him of running another scheme.
“Santos talking to his accountant and telling him to open his Kalshi account and bet all his money on No,” one user wrotealongside a meme of Al Pacino counting money in the movie Scarface.
In March, Santos addressed the complaints on his podcast.
“I guess people lost money,” he said. “Some people made unexpected money. That’s to show you how fragile these markets are.”
Santos, who won office as a Republican after inventing a bogus persona as a Wall Street dealmaker, was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft in 2024.
After serving just 84 days, he was ordered released by Trump, who called Santos a “rogue” but said he didn’t deserve a harsh sentence and should get credit for voting Republican.
Prediction markets, including Kalshi and its chief rival Polymarket, have drawn scrutiny as their businesses have expanded — with some lawmakers urging the platforms to do more to guard against insider trading.
Both companies have said they are reporting suspicious trades to federal regulators. Some investigations have led to criminal charges. In April a soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was charged with using classified information to win more than $400,000 predicting the date of his capture on Polymarket.
In April, the Senate approved a bipartisan resolution to prevent its own members from using prediction markets.
___
The story has been updated to correct in the first sentence that Santos is a former congressman, not a current one.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words




