In the early days of professional sports, athletes often had to get jobs in the offseason because an offseason was just a nice way of saying “layoff.”
Still today, many athletes embark on second, often less athletic careers after their playing days are through. Sometimes they do it because they enjoy it or enjoy the spotlight. Sometimes they do it to find meaning or to serve the greater good. Sometimes they do it out of necessity because they managed to save zilch of their million-dollar salaries. Sometimes they do it out of necessity because they just weren’t great athletes. Sure, they were good enough to make a living at it, but maybe they had short careers or weren’t superstars who earned superstar contracts.
Sports Illustrated’s annual “Where are they now?” piece often highlights ex-jocks who excel in both high profile roles — a-la Senators Steve Largent and Bill Bradley — as well as the more blue-collar types — see “Refrigerator” Perry’s days as a brick layer.
Often, ex-jocks land some pretty sweet gigs. But consider for a moment how they would navigate the waters of their second careers if their HR departments could “redeploy” them as was done in their playing days.
Imagine: What would it be like if corporations traded employees like ballplayers?
Picture the following message scrolling across ESPN’s “Bottom Line” tonight:
• “CBS NFL Sunday sends Dan Marino and Boomer Esiason to Fox Sports in exchange for Terry Bradshaw.”
Or, what about:
• “Fox Saturday Baseball trades Mark Grace to WGN, Chicago for an analyst to be named and cash considerations.”
Or, perhaps more likely:
• “ESPN acquires a six pack of Bud Light and 8 Oscar Meyer All Beef Franks from NBC’s Football Night in America in exchange for Keyshawn Johnson.”
OK, so this isn’t really a stretch when thinking about people still working in sports, but what if this wasn’t limited to household names working for national broadcasters? Consider these transactions which could be fodder for discussion on Fox News, MSNBC, or perhaps just C-SPAN:
• “The City of Sacramento, CA sends former Phoenix Suns guard and current mayor Kevin Johnson to the City of Reno, NV for 5 police cars and 50 slot machines to be installed inside city hall.”
• “The Democratic Party acquires former Republican Congressman and Philadelphia Phillies great Jim Bunning in exchange for 10 votes needed to pass President Obama’s tax plan.”
OK, well, perhaps not all of the transactions would actually be broadcast nationally. After all, there are thousands of former athletes out there. Still, you would have to think that some of these would at least be worthy of the Altoona Mirror, even if the Philadelphia Enquirer or Wall Street Journal wouldn’t cover the story.
• “Farmers Insurance reacquires former NFL QB Tommy Maddox from Allstate in exchange for a batch of sub-prime auto loans.”
Alright, so I guess some of these wouldn’t receive any attention at all. Maybe just the biggest “fans” (spouses, children – if the guy is lucky) would really care.
• “Long John Silver’s (LJS) calls up former Cincinnati Reds outfielder Gary Redus to manage its downtown Phoenix restaurant. LJS designates well-traveled former MLB reliever Ted Power for assignment to its Cedar Rapids, Iowa location.”
If these examples are absurd in a business context, why are they considered ordinary in the context of professional sports? How would you feel if you were a manager at LJS and got the call to pack up and leave town?
Sure, it’s possible any of us could be “released” or “waived” from our jobs tomorrow (more bluntly, fired). When the companies we work for are the subject of mergers and acquisitions, the “news and notes” I describe nearly capture what it feels like. Normally though, we do have a little more say than this in what we do with our professional lives.
On occasion, an athlete like Adrian Peterson makes an inflammatory remark by comparing his situation to “slavery.” These comments are inflammatory and inaccurate; slaves do not earn the minimum salaries of professional athletes, much less the mega-contracts negotiated by top talent.
However, the very concept that a human being can be bought, sold, and traded in such an explicit manner as manifest in professional sports exhibits a critical component of the institution we supposedly rid ourselves of 150 years ago.
It’s easy to see how an athlete can feel sensitive in this way, how they can feel provoked to use the term. However, they would be more accurate to educate themselves on the history of economics and business. What they are facing is a monopoly.
They may play for one company (one team) in a supposedly competitive athletic and business environment, but in many cases that is not true. All of these competitors are employees of a single business… A single business that sees trading players more like re-assigning them to a new department in order to maximize the revenue of the entire nationwide company, rather than a single territory. And in fact, rejecting the “personnel move” is not an option if they want to continue practicing their craft at the highest possible level.
We are all thankful that there is NFL football this fall. When the next labor dispute or two occurs, I predict that the rules governing player movement and enabling free-agency will continue to evolve in a way that gives players more freedom (no trade clauses, vesting options, less service time before free-agency). In response, teams will offer more one-year contracts.
Who knows what the impact will be to “competitive balance.” Regardless, cutting the final ties to anything that smells like slavery will be welcome. Plus, it will give us one less reason to think of professional athletes as anything less than overpaid crybabies.
Loading ...
