Imagine you work for a company in Phoenix, Arizona. You step into your boss's office to discuss your future with the company one afternoon. You've been a good employee, with no history of poor performance to speak of. As you sit down with your boss, he/she says to you that they are going to send you to one of their regional offices in Milwaukee, a sort of promotion, if you will. You inquire why they are doing this, and the reason given is that, quite simply put, you deserve more money and this division simply doesn't have the means to pay you that next year when you are due for a raise.
Sounds fair enough, right?
Now, imagine the following conversation with your boss:
(You) "Thank you for looking out for me financially, but I'd much rather you send me to the regional office in San Diego instead."
(Boss) "Well, there just aren't any openings in the regional office in San Diego at this time."
(You) "I really don't want to work in Milwaukee. I'd much rather be in San Diego."
(Boss) "I'm sorry, that just isn't possible right now. We can wait until next year to see if something opens, but we just simply won't be able to pay you any more than we are right now."
(You) "I'll tell you what. Work on getting me to San Diego. In the mean time, I don't think it's important for me to be here for the next couple of weeks, at least until you find something out. If you don't find anything out in the by the time our busy time starts, I'll come in and work, but I won't give it 100%, since I'm not really making the kind of money I should be. And actually, now that I think about it, I'd rather work in San Diego, regardless of the money. So, see what you can do and get back to me."
(Boss) "Well, why don't I put a call in and see what openings we have in the regional office in Kansas City. I know they would definitely be able to increase your pay accordingly. That would solve the issue, right?"
(You) "Ehh...not really. Like I said, I really don't want to be here anymore, and neither Milwaukee or Kansas City sound good either. The only place I'd like to work is San Diego. That being said, you've got to get me there by the end of March, otherwise, I'm going to quit and go find someplace else to work."
I think it would be safe to say that, in the real world, had that conversation taken place, it would've resulted in you, the employee, being terminated immediately.
More often than not, in the real world, we don't have the luxury of mandating where we work or how much we get paid. There are a certain few who are able to do that, but the majority of the world isn't given that chance.
So why is it that professional athletes are permitted to hold teams hostage in order to play where they want to play? And, actually, let's be honest about it. The word "play" is the operative word here. Their "play" is actually "work." It's their job.
When the NBA lockout was coming to an end, it appeared that some things may possibly change. There was some hope that players (employees) wouldn't be able to flock to certain destinations of their choosing, just because that's where they wanted to play (work), or who they wanted to play (work) with.
Given the events of this past week, it seems that nothing has changed. The irony of professional sports is that the games (baseball, basketball, football, etc.) became businesses. Sadly, those businesses have now become games. Free agency in sports changed the landscape forever, but it was a concept that was okay by many people. It gave the players an opportunity to finish out their contracts, thus earning the right to play (work) where they wanted to after that. Sad for some franchises who may lose that star player to more money in a bigger market, but great for the bigger markets.
Although all sports have the issue, there is no sport where the issue is as glaring as in the NBA. What is the issue? Rather than waiting for contracts to expire, teams are now forced to "play the game" and trade their stars a year or two before their contracts expire, in order to get some value for them.
When the NBA blocked the trade of Chris Paul from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers, sparks flew. Why was the trade blocked? Some said the 26 other owners not involved in the deal vetoed the deal, because it would've sent a "Top 5" talent in Paul to the already stocked Lakers team. Others implied that because the Hornets are actually owned by the NBA itself, that it appeared the league was forcing the move to make a league and fan favorite team better. Yet Commissioner David Stern said he blocked the deal because "the league would be better with Chris Paul on the Hornets."
Assuming the trade does not find a way to go through, and assuming the Hornets do not trade Paul during the season, how does this benefit New Orleans? Come the end of the season, if Paul hasn't been dealt, he will most certainly leave (probably to Los Angeles in free agency) leaving the Hornets with nothing. They will not be able to replace him in free agency because the league's stars don't want to play in New Orleans. If they did, Paul would stay.
Players should be treated like employees.
Employees are not and should not be able to make demands of their employers. You, as an employee, have the right to apply and interview for a job anywhere you would like. Once you are with that employer, you work. You can make the decision to leave and go someplace else if you choose to, but are not able to walk into your boss's office and tell him or her where you would like to work. If a transfer is feasible, then it can be accommodated. If it's not, you can quit or continue working. If you quit, the company will not pay you while you look for another job.
Players are not and should not be able to make demands of their teams. As a player, if you are fortunate enough to be drafted by a team, you are given employment without having to interview for it. You are playing a game in which you love, and given the opportunity to make a living doing it. When your contract is up, you can make the decision to leave and go someplace else if you choose to, but should not be able to walk into the team owner's office and tell him or her where you would like to work. If you no longer want to play for the team which drafted you, you have the option to quit. The only difference is, you signed a contract to play for a certain amount of time, and quitting would put you in breach of contract.
I have not heard it from any other professional league other than the NBA, but the idea of a "plantation mentality" of team owners "owning" players is absurd! Team owners own the team, not the players. As an owner, it is your responsibility to put a product out on the field/court that your fan base wants to see. If NBA players want to cry about being considered "slaves", then NBA fans should cry about being "hostages." Fans are the ones suffering, not the players.
Grow up!
No comments:
Post a Comment