ESSAY ONE
The fight for power between players and owners has been an ongoing issue
since the dawn of major professional sports in America. This unique and intricate
relationship has seen many changes since the early 1900s when powerful owners
had the ability to monopolize their powerless and ineffectual players. Nearly a
century later, the people of America and abroad are witnessing players like Lebron
James single-handedly revolutionize their sport. From the creation of the Player’s
Association to the implementation of free agency, players have made leaps and
bounds in terms of progressing into a more powerful position in relation to their
owners. But, this does not mean that the players are in fact, “in charge.”1 The
Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Salary Cap are among things that limit
both the power of the players, as well as the owners. The current state of this
complex marriage between players and owners is a nuanced one. There is a give and
take from both sides in that the players and owners each have to give up certain
powers to create a sustainable and consistent equilibrium of power in the sport.
There has undoubtedly been a progression of power into the hands of the players
since the early years of professional sports, but in the current state of the game,
neither the owners nor the players can objectively say that they are more
authoritative than the other.
1
Essay Prompt 1
Indeed, there once was a time “in which powerful owners preyed upon weak
and divided players.”2 All professional athletes, even the most elite of their
generations, had little to no control of what team they played for and for how long
they would remain with that team. Once the players signed their professional
contracts, they were essentially handing over their rights as an athlete to the owner
of their team. Owners in the early twentieth century controlled the rights of their
players as soon as they put their pens to paper. Evidence of this lopsided power of
the owners over their players is shown in the reserve system of Major League
Baseball. The way that this reserve system worked was that each team’s ownership
had a reserve list that contained the players on their respective teams to whom they
had exclusive rights. The key component of the reserve system was that once a
player’s contract expired, the team had the option to retain that player for the next
season under the same terms of the previous contract. This allowed the owners to
roll over their player’s expired contract for as many years as they saw beneficial for
their team. In theory, under the reserve clause one player could play the majority of
his career for a team that he had no interest in playing for.3 The reserve system is
among many powers that were exclusively in the hands of the owners in the early
years of major professional sports. Athletes, despite their great dedication to their
craft, were not given nearly enough freedom and power in respect to their owners.
Fortunately, American sports started to progress to a more even distribution of
power.
2
3
Essay Prompt 1
Session 2 Part 1, page 119
Players have come a long way in their pursuit for more power. However, the
process of a more equitable relationship was not an easy one by any means. Players
had to fight for their rights and more often that not it took Supreme Court cases to
render the attention of the players and help the sports society realize that changes
needed to be made. One of the most important Supreme Court cases regarding the
power of the owners versus that of the players is Flood versus Kuhn. Curt Flood was
an outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals and Bowie Kuhn was the Commissioner of
Major League Baseball. Flood was suing Major League Baseball under what he
believed was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Flood refused to be traded to
the Philadelphia Phillies as he sought an injunctive relief from the reserve clause
that kept his rights as a player in the hands of the Cardinals organization
indefinitely. Flood might have lost this case, but the decision caused a lot of uproar
and controversy among legal experts, players, and the sports society as a whole.4
Flood versus Kuhn is regarded as one of the most prominent reasons as to why the
reserve clause was abolished in the MLB and was a huge step forward in the process
of establishing free agency for players. The long history of hardship for the players
of professional sports was a plight of endurance and persistence, but it is clear that
it was worth the struggle as will be evidenced later on.
The players have made many triumphs in recent past that have given them
more ability to make change in their sport. The implementation of free agency in
professional sports was a paramount success for the players. Free Agency allows
players to not only play in a place where they actually desire to play and succeed,
4
Session 2 Part 1, page 127 – 141
but it allows them to be financially compensated for their hard work and dedication
more so than in the past. Competing teams contend for the services of free agent
players. This makes it possible for players to make more money in that teams are
more willing to pay more for a player if other teams are vying for his services as
well. Players obviously outnumber owners in the league, so it is much more difficult
to allow the opinions of all players to heard. In the past, players were divided and
ineffective in providing a good case as to why they should gain more power. It was
hard for players to create a big enough influence for the league’s management to
take notice. The implementation of the Player’s Association was monumental in
solving this problem. Players are now represented by an entrusted group of fellow
players who are able to make change in the sport. The Player’s Association has the
ability to solve issues with the management of the league in a much more structured
and efficient manner. The contemporary state of the NBA has seen many recent
examples of players taking advantage of their expanded powers. Players like Kevin
Love and LaMarcus Aldridge were some of the biggest names in recent free agency.
Love and Aldridge, although having had many successes on the court with their
previous teams (Timberwolves and Trailblazers) they had no interest in continuing
to play for these teams. They outwardly made it clear to their teams that they were
going to leave, which forced the management of those teams to either trade them or
let them hit the free agency market. In this situation, Love and Aldridge used their
power in free agency to manipulate their owners. This is among many other ways in
which players have exercised their broadened powers.
Players have made substantial strides in gaining more influence in
professional sports, but even in the present day of the league, they are restricted
from taking complete control. The owners are limited from having too much power
as well, and there is a reason why this is so. The relationship between players and
owners is nuanced in that there are limitations on both sides in order to create a
more equitable and peaceful environment.
Lebron James means everything to the Cleveland Cavaliers. He makes
roughly twenty million dollars per year in his contract with Cleveland, but it could
definitely be argued that Lebron deserves fifty or sixty million per year because of
all that he does for his team on and off the court. This extremely high salary,
although it may be what Lebron is worth to his team, could never be attained due
the implementation of the salary cap. The salary cap limits owners in the NBA to a
certain amount of money that they are able to spend on the salaries of their players.
This limits ownership in that the wealthier owners of the big market organizations
are not able to have an unfair advantage in being able to pay players a substantially
higher amount of money than say a lesser market team. The salary cap also limits
the players in that it becomes much tougher for them to see increases in their
salaries. If they want to be on teams with other talented players that warrant the
same amount of money, they must give up some money in order to achieve that goal.
The salary cap is just one example of how both sides must take losses in order to
gain in the long run. The Collective Bargaining Agreement, as another important
example, has the sole purpose of creating a league that meets the interests of both
the players and the owners. Present day professional sports tries to meet the
interests of both sides, but it is inevitable that sides must incur some losses.
Lebron James is the most prominent example of how far the players have
come in their fight for power with the owners. He was able to create his own path:
he picked his team, recruited his own teammates, and even took less money to give
his team a better chance to win the title. This was something that very few players
are not only willing to do, but able to do. James’ iconic image in the sport has
brought along with it a lot of power. To state that the players as a whole are now in
charge and have more power than the owners is something that has yet to be
reached. But, they are undoubtedly taking steps in the right direction.
ESSAY TWO
"Do the crime, pay the time (or fine)" is a well-known phrase that means that one has to
face the consequences of their actions. But what exactly is "the fine" for improper
conduct in the NFL? When Commissioner Dracon reigns, a mistake costs an owner a
meager $75,000, but an unscrupulous $2,000,000 for a player. The difference of
$1,925,000 stands between Paul Allen and Eric Reid, the former the owner, and the latter
a player of the Seattle Seahawks. Both Allen and Reid were punished for making
offensive remarks, but what could possibly rationalise the fact that a player is charged 26
times more than an owner for a similar offense? Commissioner Dracon's actions
regarding the controversial conduct of players needs to be brought to light and heavily
examined. Dracon argues that "the two situations [concerning players and owners] just
aren't the same" and he is right, but not in the sense that owners should get a slap on the
wrist for misconduct, but that they should be held accountable for their actions and
actually have harsher punishments than players due to the eminent position they assume
within the NFL.
Firstly, the context under which punishment is given must be understood before making
presumptions about the ethicality of Commissioner Dracon's decisions. Dracon has been
selected by club owners to represent the best interests of the NFL and to issue
punishment when it is necessary. Dracon cites his best interest power as justification for
punishment. In a broad sense, the purpose of the best interest clause is to defend the
integrity and profitability of the NFL. In the Lynch case Dracon stated that he needed to
"protect [the] personal lives of players" and in the Reid case he argued that the rap was
"obscene and offensive to women, African-Americans and every decent American of
upstanding morality". The integrity of the players in these cases puts the NFL's public
image at risk, which consequently affects the profitability of the League - it is
understandable that Dracon punished these players using his best interest power.
However, Dracon's judgment is not consistent when Paul Allen offends women and
minorities, as he flippantly states in a personal email "we just don’t need charges that our
ownership is uncaring about domestic violence. Plus, the whole racism and homophobia
thing." Conversely, DeMaurice Smith, the head of the NFL player’s association, takes a
stauncher attitude regarding Allen's actions and states "because Mr. Allen is an employer
of women and minorities and the face of an entire franchise, his offensive misdeeds are
much worse [than the players' actions]". In terms of tarnishing the integrity and
profitability of the NFL (the protected priorities of the best interest clause), Allen's
actions caused much more damage as he was exposed as the lead story on SportsCenter
and SportsIllustrated, exacerbating the NFL's existing problems with racism, homophobia
and domestic violence.
If punishments are justified through the best interest clause then anyone that violates the
best interest should be punished, and their position in the NFL should also be taken into
account. Both owner and player misconduct can deteriorate the integrity and profitability
of the league as it may lead to losing fans and sponsorships, but for players the impact is
brief and the NFL still operates as usual. Owners are supposed to be figureheads of the
sport due to the eminent and exclusive position they assume - they have the responsibility
of setting an example to their players, their misconduct reflects badly on other owners,
and a lack of integrity reflects badly on the League for having low standards for
employees that have such a central role in their organisation.
Secondly, the nature of the punishments must be examined. The problem with Dracon's
punishments is that they fluctuate amongst individual players and owners and there is, in
the words of DeMaurice Smith, an "unequal standard of justice". In the case of the
"Clowns" rap, Dracon found the tweets and songs of the players to be "offensive and
abhorrent", leading to Sherman's "$25,000 fine for the initial tweet, and $125,000 for the
rap song; Eric Reid $175,000 for his tweet; Michael Crabtree $275,000 for his tweet
containing a racial epithet; Marshawn Lynch $125,000 for the rap song". These initial
punishments are extremely arbitrary as there is no explicit rule against players creating
rap songs and tweets, which brings up the issue of lack of notice. Lack of notice was a
big factor as to why Tom Brady's appeal against the Commissioner in the Deflategate
scandal was successful. In the Deflategate scandal it was realised that the Operations
Manual given to players stated that they could only get fined around 5000 dollars for
misconduct and it did not explicitly state anything about deflated footballs. The same
logic can be applied to the "Clowns" controversy, as although the Commissioner has the
best interest power he cannot arbitrarily make up punishments if the player is not aware
of their actions being a form of punishable misconduct. If lack of notice provided a strong
basis for Brady's innocence then we should question the legitimacy of punishment in the
"Clowns" case.
Dracon stated that the "punishments are fair" because he "made clear to Mr. Reid the
punishment involved, and [he] stand[s] by that. Mr. Allen was given no personal and
specific warning". However, this is not true because Dracon told Mr. Allen that "The
League’s preference is that you not perform these songs." and that he should "Just be
more careful in the future." This is a personal warning as it was a direct email, and it was
specific as it told him to "not perform these songs", which he ignored. Mr. Allen was not
oblivious to the fact that his actions were problematic for the league. If Mr. Allen was
truly innocent and not given any "personal" or "specific" warning then why did Dracon
feel compelled to punish him with a $75,000 fine and a suspension for three weeks?
Dracon's rulings are inconsistent in that Mr. Allen had no punishment the first time and
Mr. Reid was fined $175,000 for his tweet. Furthermore, they both received warnings but
Mr. Reid was told that, "From this point forward, any player who engages in this sort of
behaviour will be subject to a $500,000 fine and a six-game suspension.” Besides the
fact that Dracon should not be able to decide arbitrary punishments, the punishment that
he did give Mr. Reid was not consistent with the warning he previously issued, as Mr.
Reid was actually fined $2,000,000 and was given a fifteen game suspension. After the
second "violation", Mr. Reid was given a warning of a lifetime ban the next time he
behaves in such a way that reflects badly on the League. The commissioner's actions are
not appropriate as he is inconsistent when he administers punishments, the punishments
for ignoring warnings are arbitrary, and the punishments given are not even consistent
with what was proposed in the previous warnings. If Dracon wants to use his best interest
powers there has to at least be a certain degree of consistency in order for players to
conform to an expected standard of conduct.
Alternatively, there is an argument that Mr. Allen's life is private and that he should not
be fined in the first place. However, Mr. Allen clearly acted in a public setting, and the
second time he made offensive remarks it was directed at the league, the fans, and in his
own words "liberal turds" in Seattle so it is a public matter. We can look to other sporting
associations to analyse this issue of public versus private. Donald Sterling, owner of the
LA Clippers, was issued a lifetime ban and a $2.5 million fine by NBA commissioner
Adam Silver for racist sentiments that were said in private, as they were contrary to the
"principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of [their] diverse,
multicultural and multiethnic league". Players of the NBA such as Kobe Bryant of the
Lakers was fined $100,000 for calling a referee "a faggot", and Roy Hibbert of the
Indiana Pacers was similarly fined $75,000 for saying "no homo". The NBA takes the
right approach to punishing players and owners, as although punishments will always
seem arbitrary, the punishments created are, at the very least, relative to the offence and
the position of the person within the organisation, which is more rational than the NFL's
approach that punishes players punitively and lets owners get by with a slap on the wrist.
The current issue is the reputation of the NFL, and if one tarnishes the public image, they
should be punished - owners and players are both capable of ruining image of the League,
but owners have a higher level of accountability as they have such a central and eminent
role that affects all levels of the League. Furthermore, if owners are not held sufficiently
accountable for their actions by the commissioner, players will demand greater
accountability themselves through boycotts (as seen in the case of Donald Sterling and
the LA Clippers) which will damage revenue for the league.
Commissioner Dracon's inconsistent and arbitrary punishments show that there is a huge
problem with the way that improper misconduct is dealt with in the NFL. A new
collective bargaining agreement in which players and owners can equally negotiate and
understand the consequences of their actions clearly in a way that solves the issue of
"lack of notice" is very much needed. The public image of the NFL needs to be protected
and it is clear that despite his best efforts, Commissioner Dracon has gone about this in a
heavy-handed way that has created hostility within the league and has subsequently
brought into question whether owners and players should be punished equally. If the
punishments are the same, it means that the NFL sees transgressions of owners and
players as being equivalent, which is not true. Owners should be held more accountable
for their actions due to their eminent position and high degree of influence that ripples
throughout all levels of the organisation and the public sphere.