Playing for Profit: Who are we to complain about player loyalty?
When fans or players complain about the ruthless nature of personnel decisions in professional sports, they’re usually met with the response: It’s just business.
When athletes or coaches are rewarded with a swift kick out the door after devoting months, years and sometimes decades to one organization they’re told to take it on the chin, because that’s just how mainstream professional sports work.
Imagine spending years devoting yourself to one job, at one company, in one city — potentially even raising a family there. For the sake of this example, let’s say the city is Los Angeles, Calif. Now, imagine opening Twitter one day and finding out you’re being relocated to Detroit, Mich., which is just over 2,000 miles away. Oh and by the way, you need to report by the end of the week.
Doesn’t sound fun, does it?
This happened to Brooklyn Nets forward Blake Griffin. In the summer of 2017, Griffin was one of the most valuable players available in the NBA free agent market. The Los Angeles Clippers, Griffin’s team at the time, were determined to woo their star forward with an elaborate pitch convincing him to re-sign with the team.
When Griffin arrived at Staples Center for his meeting with the Clippers, owner Steve Ballmer and company brought out all the stops. The hallways were lined with photos of Griffin as a child. The Clippers, who have never retired a players’ jersey number, put on a mock jersey retirement ceremony for Griffin and his son. Clippers’ employees in attendance wore t-shirts featuring Griffin’s face alongside a collage of figures such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama.
Eventually, whether the pitch had anything to do with it or not, Griffin signed an extension to stay with the Clippers for four more years. A little over half a year later, the Clippers decided to trade Griffin to the Detroit Pistons, and the forward found out through Twitter. Griffin had given the Clippers eight years of his life and his word. In return, the Clippers gave one of the franchises’ most iconic figures an unceremonial exit out the proverbial back door.
Griffin’s situation, albeit extreme, is not unique either. It’s happened to countless athletes before him. Time and time again, athletes are lied to about their future, shipped away like property and offered little support in the process. Situations like these are why I find it hard to criticize players who leave teams in free agency, request trades or demand their release. In most situations, the behavior is absolutely justifiable.
Since the traditional professional sports model involves frequent roster turnover, fans tend to have a stronger bond with the team they support rather than specific players. Thus, when a team parts ways with a beloved or highly-paid player, fans tend to side with the organization, as a way of rationalizing the team’s decision and remaining loyal to the team. When players try to employ the “it’s just business” strategy, doing what’s best for them regardless of sentiment, they’re casted as “disloyal” or labeled with NBA Twitter’s favorite insult, “snake.”
The unfair balance of power between franchises and players creates a dilemma where players are forced to either remain with their current teams or leave and risk being cast as someone who’s “selfish” or “only in it for the money.”
In recent years, we’ve seen a shift from players remaining loyal to their teams. Athletes are more candid than ever about doing what’s best for them regardless of allegiance or public perception. It’s hard to blame players for biting back after being burned by the myth of “loyalty” in professional sports for so long.
But how far are we willing to let the pendulum swing before we see another correction?
Player empowerment has recently shifted into an entirely new stratosphere with players, particularly in the NBA, able to essentially dictate where they want to play and who they want to play with regardless of the time remaining on their contract.
Just this past season, it felt like everyone involved in the league let out a collective sigh when Milwaukee Bucks star forward Giannis Antetokounmpo signed a multi-year contract extension with the team. Why? Because he didn’t leave. Yes, we’ve gotten to the point where we celebrate when players don’t skip town.
I’m not sure where to draw the line, nor am I suggesting to have any solutions that would curtail the recent player migration to big markets. However, I can empathize with the Houston Rockets fans who spent the last eight years rooting for James Harden. They spent their hard-earned money on merchandise and tickets, only for him to essentially quit on the team, publicly ask out and leave the organization to clean up the mess.
Or the New Orleans Pelicans fan who spent seven years rooting for Anthony Davis to launch the city into long-awaited basketball relevance, only for him to decide he’d rather play for the Lakers.
Perhaps players can be incentivized to stay with their original teams if the “super-max” is raised even higher. The consistent movement of star players can be slowed with a fine or draft pick reduction for teams who trade players on high-level contracts less than two seasons into their deal. Penalizing teams and players who try to initiate trades after making five-, six- and sometimes seven-year commitments could force organizations and athletes to think twice about moving on from star players.
Both sides of this argument have a point: players have a little too much leverage, while franchises are unfairly able to treat human beings as commodities or assets. Although we don’t seem particularly close to a resolution to this issue, there has to be a better way to resolve these situations, for all parties involved.
David Ramirez is a junior writing about the intersection of sports and business. He is also a sports editor at the Daily Trojan. His column “Playing for Profit” runs every other Tuesday.