Sports is more intertwined with local economies than the national economy. The article talks about EURO 2008, an event that has an extremely large appeal to different masses of people. However, it is not concentrated enough to have a lasting effect on the national economy. Jobs are created, but only in the cities or countries in which the games are being played. Therefore, the effects that we see are on a microeconomic level.
The article uses revenue numbers and percentages in order to dispel the myths that the sports media created about the economic impact EURO 2008 would have. While soccer (futbol) continues to dominate the sports market globally, there is not enough economic impact to emphasize it the way the media does. Sports support more national moral values and have greater societal impact on a more wide spread audience. (Really hope i am drawing the correct conclusions here)
Politically, sports is very involved, like the article showed as well as the video we watched in class. Everyone can remember when Rudy Giuliani walked on the field of Yankee stadium after 9/11. There is a fair amount of transparency as far as a national politician's fan-hood and the community, such as the Green article suggests. Sports after all, does bring community together over a common interest. These politicians are nothing more than just a fan in a jersey and a hat at the end of the day.
With three of the major sports leagues having lock out within the last three years, there is no questioning that the current sports world is still a political battle. It is being fought between the players association and the owners. Revenue is still the biggest debate, and how to divide them "fairly". Politics will continue to be a ruler of any world, especially the sports world until its power is realized.