This morning the Chicago Cubs' ace pitcher, Carlos Zambrano, announced that he leave the city and sign with another team after this season if Chicago did not sign him to a big contract before opening day. According to ESPN.com, Zambrano repeatedly said "This is a business" and proclaimed that "When you're a great pitcher and have talent, you deserve the money no matter who gives it to you." Obviously Zambrano felt no loyalty to the organization that signed him out of Venezuela at age 16 and brought him up in their system ever since, but he's far from the first athlete to chase the last dollar no matter where it lands. As a Cleveland fan I've seen hometown heroes Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, and Jim Thome all leave town for the extra cash. Major League Baseball has such an economic inequity between teams that small-market teams are almost certain to lose their stars to the big-market clubs when they hit free agency; Losing CC Sabathia to the Yankees after 2008 is already a foregone conclusion for me. The NFL's hard salary cap forces teams to cut their franchise icons as their cap number gets too heavy, and turnover is as high there as in every sport. Basketball's collective bargaining agreement allows teams to sign players that they drafted and have played with them for over three years to more maximum money than any other competitor, and stars typically stay with their original teams, but their system is not perfect either; although Cleveland star LeBron James will be paid more by the Cavs than any other team, his sponsor Nike will pay him millions to play in a big-market like New York or Los Angeles. This turnover makes fans reluctant to attach themselves to their hometown heroes for fear that they will turn their backs on them when free agency arrives. The "hometown discount" that many stars gave their original teams years ago no longer exists in today's era. Too many players play for the name on the back of their jerseys, not the name on the front. But it never used to be this way.
In C.L.R James' piece "What do men live by?" he notes that in ancient Greece athletes had a fervent loyalty to the city they hailed from. He writes, "the Greeks believed that an athlete who had represented his community at a national competition, and won, had thereby conferred a notable distinction on his city. His victory was a testament to the quality of the citizens...for the rest of his life he ate at the public expense." Fans today wholly agree with this thinking; they feel a sense of civic pride and achievement when their team is victorious on the field. But in those times the athlete was part of the community. He won not merely for himself but for his friends, family, and neighbors. The athlete gave his all for that community, and the community gave back to him by worshiping him. A city would decorate a victorious competitor by erecting statues of him, penning poems of his glory, and showering him with respect and prominent positions. The athlete would be crazy to leave a city where he was blessed with such adoration.
Today the relationship between the city and the athlete has deteriorated like a bad marriage, and each side points fingers at the other. Athletes point out that when they perform poorly their fans don't hesitate to jeer them. Fans on their part characterize all athletes as selfish. What has resulted is an atmosphere without loyalty, where players will bolt out of town without hesitation and fans will turn their backs on the players. There are no easy solutions to the problem, but something has to be done to restore some loyalty back to sports. Without a connection between the fans and players, there really is no point in playing.
No comments:
Post a Comment