|
|
Sports in America have played a vital role in the shaping of American culture from one generation to the next. Whether it be the steadfast (former) national pastime of baseball keeping Americans on the edges of their seats watching “The Babe” swat another homer, the hard hitting action of the grid iron enticing millions of fans to its venues, or the hip-hop revolution of the high-flying stars of basketball influencing a generation of athletes to soar to their goals, professional sports in America have shaped and re-shaped the culture with every passing generation. Along with that, the pervasive ability of professional sports to evolve and adapt has lead to the steadfast influence that they have on the forefront of American culture, creating idols and heroes out of mortal athletes that people of any generation can embrace and derive strength from. However, the harsh reality of the past 40 to 50 years is that these professional sports have become less pastimes and games, but more business oriented enterprises whose primary focus is on making money. So in actuality, the athletes that the culture idolizes and adores are getting very wealthy off of that idolization and the owners and businesses that are paying the players salaries are getting even richer off of the players and off of the consumer. I use the word consumer because that is now what the term “spectator” refers to. Nevertheless, this paper deals not with the harsh reality of the spectators demise and the rise to power of the consumer, but more with the general health of the big three major professional sports; the NBA, the NFL and the MLB. In this paper I plan on evaluating the current state of player/management relations, the current economic state, the current public relations state as it relates to television and in general, and the general order of health of each of the three major sports and to conclude, provide my own opinions based on personal research. The player/management relationship is one of if not the most important relationships in professional sports, since sports players unions can propose and execute strikes in play if demands are not met. This had not been a problem for many years, but recently has lead to many lockouts and strike situations in professional sports resulting in shortened and or unfinished seasons. I will begin the examination of player/management relationships with the NBA whose salaries, according to the National Basketball Players Association web site, boast “…the highest salaries of any labor organization in the world” (www.nbpa.com). The web-site states that the average NBA player makes roughly four million dollars a year and the union has worked to get players collective bargaining agreements, retirement plans, benefits and health insurance. As it appears, the union is doing its job and player/management relations are going well, however, there are two sides to any story. Stated from the May 2001 Journal of Sports Economics, by J. Richard Hill and Peter A. Groothuis, “Until the 1998-1999 season, the NBA had never cancelled a game due to a labor dispute. The relationship between the NBPA and the owners seemed to be working well” (133). One of the main disputes from the owners that lead to that lockout was that unlike other sports, the NBA could not limit the amount of money spent by clubs on free agents. Clubs were allowed to disregard the salary cap, which was considered a soft cap, in order to keep superstar players that would otherwise seek more money elsewhere in the free agent market. However, the owners instead, “…overbid on other free agents to lure them away from their current teams, staying just under the cap, before negotiating with their own superstars” (Hill-Groothuis 133). So in essence, a team could not only keep their superstar free agent, but they could acquire other teams free agents and go over way over the salary cap legally. So when the union subsequently refused to rid the soft cap for a hard one (for obvious monetary reasons) the owners imposed the lockout. On the other hand, the NBPA was discouraged surrounding the disparity between the highest paid and the lowest paid players, claiming that the gap was way too wide and sought measures to lessen the gap and benefit those at the lower end. Steps were taken to improve this gap and evidence of the progress is reported in the Hill-Groothius article that shows improvements were actually made. In 1997-98, the minimum salary was 272,500 and the maximum salary was 33, 140,000. In the 1999-2000 season, the minimum rose to 301,875 and the maximum fell to 17, 142,858 (141). This is a direct result of the Executive Director of the NBPA, Billy Hunter’s work in the 1999 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and as stated in the NBPA web-site, “…NBA players are assured of maintaining their status as the best compensated athletes in team sports over the life of the six-year deal” (www.nbpa.com). Next, the focus will shift to Major League Baseball, whose player/management relationships prove to be much more complex. In general, the relationship between the players and the management in professional baseball is not good as the two groups appear to be divided on what is in the best interest of baseball. As of August 2002, the MLBPA unions’, as stated by George F.
|
