by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov.11, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

             Los Angeles Dodgers’ owners Frank and Jamie McCourt aired more dirty laundry in the beginning throws of their Hollywood divorce.  Trying to rehab herself in the court of public opinion after filing for divorce Oct. 27, 46-year-old attorney Jamie McCourt painted herself as a victim, badly out-gunned by her ruthless 56-year-old husband, Frank.  Frank fired Jamie as Dodgers’ CEO Oct. 22, raising eyebrows the same day the Dodgers were eliminated by the Philadelphia Phillies in the National League Championship Series.  Causing an unwanted distraction in the clubhouse, the Dodgers had little chance against the Phillies while their owners battled behind the scenes.  “I’ve been creamed,” said Jamie, referring to her husband’s recent moves.  “But I’ve decided I’m going to take the high road,” accusing her husband of “piling on,” exposing their four sons to the public acrimony.

             Frank McCourt accused Jamie of having an affair with her driver and “chief of protocol,” Dodger employee Jeff Fuller, in court papers filed Oct. 28, refusing to reinstate Jamie as CEO.  “Frank has no right to purport to terminate me. We are co-owners of the Dodgers,” said Jamie, accusing Frank of trying to “humiliate and ostracize” her.  Whether admissible or not, Frank revealed in a separate court filing that Jamie had a “personal and intimate” relationship with a Dodger employee, having spent two-and-a-half weeks in Israel and Europe during July.  Jamie complained about Jeff getting fired together with about 16 other employees under her supervision.  “I take it very personally,” said Jamie, complaining, as rumored, that Frank was retaliating for her alleged affair with Jeff Fuller.  When Jamie talks about Frank trying to ”humiliate and ostracize” her, she needs to see it from Frank’s perspective.

             Jamie’s response to the question of whether or not she had an affair with Fuller while still married was revealing.  “Absolutely not,” said Jamie.  “I have never been with another man until the marriage broke up.  Ever. Ever,” not answering the question of what she was doing with Fuller traveling last summer. “It was a trip planned for months and months.  The ultimate irony is that we should have gotten reimbursed for business expenses.  [Fuller] and someone else were employed as Dodgers security on the trip,” said Jamie, admitting, if the affair proves true, of fraternizing with a Dodger employee, a possible violation of state labor laws.  When she talks about being with another man after she ‘broke up,” that may have occurred months, if not years, ago, at least psychologically.  Jamie overreacted to the press when asked whether her affair began before July 6.

             High-profile celebrities, whether in entertainment or professional sports, live in a fishbowl, where the paparazzi hound them to sell check-stand tabloids.  “I’m not going to talk about my private life, that’s craziness,” said Jamie.  “This is all a sideshow,” leaving the question of her affair with Fuller ever more plausible.  Playing a slick game of PR can backfire by raising more questions than answers.  California’s no-fault, community property divorce law regards infidelity as irrelevant to property settlements, typically splitting assets down the middle.  Trying the case in the court of public opinion carries risks for even the most clever attorneys, where more disclosures usually backfire.  Telling the press she wants to share no part of her private life extends an open invitation to investigate her more deeply.  Her alleged affair with Fuller places most fans, men and women, solidly behind Frank.

             Jamie’s divorce papers are a PR disaster, exposing fans to her outrageous demands.  Asking for reinstatement as CEO with full access to her perks, including travel by private jet, accommodations in 5-star resorts and use of the Dodgers owners’ suite reveals unbridled entitlement.  Add to that her demand for $321,000 a month spousal support if reinstated as CEO or $488,00, if not, exposes the public to the ugly side spoiled jetsetter extravagance for which the public has no sympathy.  While Jamie claims she’s co-owner of the Dodgers, a marital agreement signed in 2004 gave Frank legal ownership of the team at her request.  Because the Dodgers were losing $75 million at the time, Jamie wanted to shield her assets from future losses.  Whatever the arrangement, her sudden firing raises serious questions of whether the team’s current management structure can continue.

             No professional baseball franchise, accountable to Major League Baseball and the public, can be torn asunder because of a marital or family feud.   Professional sports franchises must be shielded from family discord, regardless of the team ownership. No matter who’s at fault, the McCourt’s should immediately place the team into a conservatorship while they resolve their nasty divorce.  Obligations to MLB, the players’ union, and, yes the fans, require a level of professionalism not possible under the present circumstances.  “Reports of these statements have been detrimental to the Dodgers, my other business ventures, and me personally,” Frank McCourt wrote.  Jamie’s court filings have “thrown a unjustified cloud over the ownership of the Dodgers.”  What Frank and Jamie don’t get as “owners” is they don’t have a license to infect a MLB franchise with their personal problems.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.