would be huge, it doesn't take into account liability issues, and the insurance costs would be enormous (because do you really think the US Olympic team wants to be on the hook for all of an MLB starter's contract if he gets hurt playing for the group?) The WBC puts out an excellent product for baseball, and provides comparable excitement. Besides, the obnoxious sneering about any sport not popular in North America aside, baseball has a huge and monied internationally accessible forum in place, where as for events like tampoline, the Olympics is their opportunity for major international exposure every four years. The re-inclusion of softball I could support, especially on the grounds that you have a high calibre of well supported talent in both men's and woman's leagues internationally. But baseball? Let the WBC be the showcase. +5 Not to mention that that theory is illogical. The IOC is dominated by European power players. These are not the same neo-liberals on the Nobel committee. Basically, they're Bilderberg attendees who would sell their mother for three Euros. Those folks are not exactly the anti-Bush types. This is a very good point, but I want to mention: in IR theory, "liberal" as in "neo-liberal" doesn't mean the same as it does in American domestic politics. Rather, neo-liberalism refers to an ideology that prescribes economic liberalization in favor of a free market, and typically takes the form of privatization, deregulation, and the cutting of social services -- that is to say, not