It’s clear that the (apparent/pending?) official “cancellation” of the long-dead NHL season has had the same effect as the old line about ‘hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, because it feels so good to stop’.
The average person doesn’t generally care about labor disputes at the best of times — unless the dispute impacts them personally.
But even fewer people are impacted — or much care — it seems, when wealthy athletes take on even-wealthier owners.
This said, our commentary of last fall (October-November) touched on many of the possible reasons why, at the time, the players seemed to be losing the public relations battle. The reasons were — and are — many.
The irony is, of course, that professional hockey players by and large are the most “liked” of all professional athletes. They are closest to the fans, most accessible to the media, and so on.
This dispute has killed most, if not all, of that goodwill. But in truth, the erosion started many years ago.
Do fans support the owners? Of course not. No one cheers for billionaires or asks for their autograph, Donald Trump aside. Forget the logic of either side’s position in terms of “cost certainty” versus a free-market system. Does anyone “care” about NHL owners, other than their ability to put teams on the ice so that those who are interested can watch?
Let’s be clear: The owners have made their share of mistakes, from an optics perspective. Telling the players in a meeting a recently that they (the players) are essentially “just” employees while spouting in public about wanting a “partnership” didn’t fool anyone, especially the players.
But that said, here are some things to consider as the season is over, but the dispute rages on.
- Why are NHL superstars — including a number who earn millions of dollars a year and have for many years — taking away the jobs of players who make a few thousand dollars a year playing in the United Hockey League, the “lowest” level of professional hockey in North America? What does the average hockey fan think about that, one wonders?
- How many times have fans heard a player ‘spokesman’ say, “Hey, the owners caused this problem”? The ‘problem’ they refer to created many more jobs for players, at salaries that are astronomical by the standards of the average person.
- For those media player-apologists who say, “well fans are just envious. Those fans who say they’d play in the NHL for less aren’t good enough to play in the NHL. Of course they’d play for less.” And these apologists add, when asked why doctors make so little compared with pro athletes, for example, “Well, no one pays to watch doctors operate”. Interesting. So the fact that people are willing to pay to watch an entertainer means the entertainer should make millions upon millions? (Even if they don’t show up for work, like Alonzo Mourning?) Odd logic. What about the “value” of someone who can save a life, versus the “entertainer”?
- One prominent player spoke out a while ago with an unveiled warning for any “replacement” player that would play next season in the “new” NHL. Hmmm. The fact that hundreds of NHL’ers have flocked to Europe and have taken jobs away from individuals who certainly needed them much more to “feed their families” is acceptable, but a “replacement” player struggling to make ends meet who would love to play in the NHL for one day should feel as though he is doing something unethical? And should fear for his physical safety? And this while NHL’ers play in Europe, the AHL, CHL and UHL, not to mention senior hockey in Canada?
- The classiest player in the history of pro hockey, Jean Beliveau, a thoughtful man respected throughout the hockey world, says the league needs a cap to survive, that he doesn’t support the players in this dispute. A prominent member of the player’s bargaining team refuted Beliveau’s claims. Who would you believe?
- What have other ex-players had to say? Well, Phil Esposito says for the first time he does not support the players. Nor does Darryl Sittler, the ex-Maple Lea Hall-of-Famer. Patrick Roy said some time back that the league needs a cap to ensure the viability of franchises throughout the league. The Players Association no longer has a hold on those individuals.
- One of the NHL players who is now playing in the United Hockey League was quoted as saying the NHL doesn’t care about small market teams. In the same breath, the same individual reportedly told reporters, according to various accounts, that the league should get rid of a number of teams. Interesting concept. Except, from an NHLPA perspective, that approach would take out say, 100 jobs from the association. Yet the star players are supposedly fighting for — and speak for — the “little guy” who may never play in the league again?
- Here is a question that should be mulled over. Do we expect owners to save the game, to save the season because they love hockey? In reality, these are individual business leaders, or large corporations. Whether they like or love the game is not the point. They are involved in hockey as an investment, or as a sideline, perhaps, maybe even as a bit of a “toy”. But they expect to make a profit, not lose money constantly. The players are the ones who have a “passion” for the game, and many believe it is up to them to “save” the game.
- Those who own NHL franchises, each and every owner, made their fortunes in businesses totally unrelated to professional hockey. They could walk away from hockey today and still make millions in their original chosen fields. How many players will be able to maintain their hockey income in other walks of life? So the fans may wonder, who really needs whom more?
- If we ever do reach a point where “replacement” players are signed to play in the NHL, will fans pay to watch? Likely, yes. Fans have spoken loudly throughout this protracted dispute. They are tired of mega-million dollar athletes in an industry that can’t afford it. If the owners sign players with drive, with some flair, with a passion to play because they really love playing and not for the money, people absolutely will show up.
- Have players offered to share in the losses the owners may experience in the future? Would that not make them true “partners”?
One thing is abundantly clear. The players prefer to make far, far less in other leagues right now, and even perhaps under a “new” NHL at some point in the future, than they would under a salary cap they feel would be imposed upon them against their will. It is an admirable stance — if one believes it is one based on some kind of ethical principle. As a matter of practical decision-making, it is harder for the average person to understand.
Some observers still seem baffled by the fact that there is no uproar in Canada because there is no hockey.
Well, perhaps the majority of fans held their noses these past 10 years, while salaries rose ridiculously and average-ability pro players took home millions. Fans held their noses because they like watching hockey, long ago having established loyalties to certain teams or players.
But slowly, they held in their anger, their frustration, not because they envy the players, but simply because the players’ expectations and sense of entitlement has grown absurdly out of the realm of what is acceptable to many “average” people.
For their part, the owners have finally, like an overly permissive parent, finally put their foot down. The players don’t like it.
The fans are saying “too bad”.
Those same fans hold the final key to all this, and the players, more than the owners, will have to win back the fans, if they ever get the chance.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Saturday, January 1, 2005
It's So Hard to Leave Town on Top
It’s been interesting, to say the least, to see the Vince Carter saga unfold in recent months.
Just a few short seasons ago, Carter was the high-flying, Michael Jordan-in waiting fledgling “superstar” of the once-woeful NBA Toronto Raptors.
Carter was seen as a player with unlimited talent, an ever-present smile; a nice guy, almost too good to be true.
But time wore on. Holes in Carter’s game—and attitude—appeared to surface.
He didn’t play much defense, as Jordan himself noted at one point when asked about Carter. Carter started to accumulate a series of injuries which kept him hobbling—or on the sidelines—for lengthy periods of time. He seemed to spend an unusual amount of time wincing and lying on the floor during games and not getting up.
He didn’t present as a leader, either. Fans began to wonder why he kibitzed so much with opposing players, and hugged opposing players so often before, and after, games even after games in which the Raptors got hammered.
Eventually, as media and public criticism grew, his friendly approach with the media turned sour.
His answers become less patient. He went public in his demand for a trade, and by the time he left Toronto, he was gone with a whimper, not a bang. Few seemed to notice, or much care.
In terms of how athletes present themselves, how they come across, how they are seen by the media and the public, it is reasonable to ask: what went so wrong for someone who could have “owned” the city of Toronto?
The short answer is, there is no easy answer. Oh, one certainly has a sense that many factors went into the Carter situation beyond his control: too many coaches in too short a time, teammates of limited ability, a fan base that perhaps expected too much.
But some players deal with those things well, and maintain their work ethic on the playing field and a positive demeanor off it.
In the Toronto sports market alone, similar breakdowns have not been uncommon. You could go back to the 70’s and 80’s, when one time Leaf Captain and heroes, Dave Keon and Darryl Sittler, both left town unceremoniously (though most observers simply blamed then team-owner Harold Ballard).
But let’s move to more current times.
Damon Stoudamire was “Mighty Mouse” to Toronto fans when the virtually unknown rookie appeared on the scene in the Raptors inaugural season in the mid 1990’s. Stoudamire was not the most engaging off-court player, but his determination and small stature made him a fan favorite.
Within three seasons, he was unhappy and finally, traded.
Roberto Alomar was perhaps the most loved of all Blue Jays players. He was the most talented second baseman the Jays had ever had, and perhaps the most talented in baseball period, for many years.
He was the heart and soul of the club, and helped get them over the playoff hump by hammering a Dennis Eckersley pitch in Oakland for a home run that turned around a critical playoff series for the Jays, the one that got them over the hurdle into their first World Series.
But after leading them to those two World series wins, and long before the sad “spitting” incident (he spat on an umpire over a disputed call and something the umpire said to him) while a member of the Orioles/Indians, his popularity in Toronto waned.
For example, he was seen as being more interested in preserving his .300 batting average than in playing the last game of the 1995 regular season. No Ted Williams there. (Williams played the last game of the 1941 season, putting his .400 batting average at risk.)
Something had been lost, and when he left as a free agent, he was seen as yet another unhappy player leaving town.
He had some good seasons with Baltimore and Cleveland, but his start never shone as brightly nor was he ever again as popular as he once was in Toronto.
Rare it is that an athlete can play out his career with the same team and leave on a high note, still popular with his teammates and the fans.
Even Joe Montana had to leave San Francisco, as did Jerry Rice. Salary cap issues were part of those departures, to be sure. But there was also a disconnect with the fans and/or the organization that seemed to emerge over time.
Alex Rodriguez was adored in Seattle, and will never be as loved again, as he seeks respect and an elusive championship (to go with a 250 million dollar contract).
The examples are too many of once-loved athletes leaving town with their reputations tarnished, albeit in most cases with a lot of cash in their pockets.
Thankfully, there are still examples of athletes who made it and lasted in a particular market. Wendell Clark with the Leafs could be seen in that light, though even he, too, was criticized by Ballard.
Steve Yzerman has lasted 20 years in Detroit, appreciated by fans and the organization alike.
But unlike the days of Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau, who left the game and their team as revered heroes, it doesn’t happen very often anymore.
With the NHL lockout still on as of late January, 2005, there remains a huge disconnect between fans and many pro athletes. Oh, fans still go to games, but the dynamic has certainly shifted as salaries have risen astronomically in the last ten years in all sports— and especially since the hockey and baseball work stoppages of the mid-1990’s.
The current lockout has shown without doubt that fans have grown increasingly weary of athletes who many fans see, fair or not, as greedy and unappreciative of what they have.
It was revealing to read a quote from a former NFL player, signed just 10 days before the Super Bowl to play for the Eagles against the Patriots.
The Eagles lost starting tight end Chad Lewis to a serious injury, and the club signed a fellow who has not played in two seasons to fill in for the one game.
The individual, Jeff Thomasson, now works for a company in New Jersey. He has evidently taken vacation-time to play with the Eagles.
His comment upon signing?
"I’m probably the luckiest guy in the world. (But) When I get back, I'll have to work a year straight without vacation," he was quoted as saying. "I'll probably make more during vacation (away from his regular job while playing one game for the Eagles) than my annual salary. Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world. I worked a lot of hours."
Interesting comment indeed. “Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world.”
Few of us standing on the sidelines of the professional sporting world would dare risk the physical demands— much less have the talent— to play in the NFL or NHL, for example. We know instinctively that it is very demanding work — work which requires training, years of dedication and a unique level of talent and toughness.
So there is a built-in respect for those athletes on our part. They do something we can’t do, and because they are “entertainers”, and people pay to see them work, they are paid handsomely for their work.
But perhaps what fans are looking is respect back from the players, the recognition that athletes are not the only ones that work hard for their money. The recognition, the acknowledgement that the “average” person works every day in “the real world” as Thomason put it.
And that it is those “average” people who very directly help pay for the astronomical salaries earned by athletes.
The negative feelings the fans have obviously pent up over the past many years might be diffused somewhat, if they felt players really respected the fans.
Fans may be more patient or forgiving with a Vince Carter, or any number of other athletes.
But it needs to be a two-way street.
It will be interesting to see how NHL players will react to the public when the lockout ends— if it ever ends.
It appears as though Jeff Thomason is one athlete who did not know what he had until it was gone — someone who needed to get out into the “real world” to see the light.
Will others?
Just a few short seasons ago, Carter was the high-flying, Michael Jordan-in waiting fledgling “superstar” of the once-woeful NBA Toronto Raptors.
Carter was seen as a player with unlimited talent, an ever-present smile; a nice guy, almost too good to be true.
But time wore on. Holes in Carter’s game—and attitude—appeared to surface.
He didn’t play much defense, as Jordan himself noted at one point when asked about Carter. Carter started to accumulate a series of injuries which kept him hobbling—or on the sidelines—for lengthy periods of time. He seemed to spend an unusual amount of time wincing and lying on the floor during games and not getting up.
He didn’t present as a leader, either. Fans began to wonder why he kibitzed so much with opposing players, and hugged opposing players so often before, and after, games even after games in which the Raptors got hammered.
Eventually, as media and public criticism grew, his friendly approach with the media turned sour.
His answers become less patient. He went public in his demand for a trade, and by the time he left Toronto, he was gone with a whimper, not a bang. Few seemed to notice, or much care.
In terms of how athletes present themselves, how they come across, how they are seen by the media and the public, it is reasonable to ask: what went so wrong for someone who could have “owned” the city of Toronto?
The short answer is, there is no easy answer. Oh, one certainly has a sense that many factors went into the Carter situation beyond his control: too many coaches in too short a time, teammates of limited ability, a fan base that perhaps expected too much.
But some players deal with those things well, and maintain their work ethic on the playing field and a positive demeanor off it.
In the Toronto sports market alone, similar breakdowns have not been uncommon. You could go back to the 70’s and 80’s, when one time Leaf Captain and heroes, Dave Keon and Darryl Sittler, both left town unceremoniously (though most observers simply blamed then team-owner Harold Ballard).
But let’s move to more current times.
Damon Stoudamire was “Mighty Mouse” to Toronto fans when the virtually unknown rookie appeared on the scene in the Raptors inaugural season in the mid 1990’s. Stoudamire was not the most engaging off-court player, but his determination and small stature made him a fan favorite.
Within three seasons, he was unhappy and finally, traded.
Roberto Alomar was perhaps the most loved of all Blue Jays players. He was the most talented second baseman the Jays had ever had, and perhaps the most talented in baseball period, for many years.
He was the heart and soul of the club, and helped get them over the playoff hump by hammering a Dennis Eckersley pitch in Oakland for a home run that turned around a critical playoff series for the Jays, the one that got them over the hurdle into their first World Series.
But after leading them to those two World series wins, and long before the sad “spitting” incident (he spat on an umpire over a disputed call and something the umpire said to him) while a member of the Orioles/Indians, his popularity in Toronto waned.
For example, he was seen as being more interested in preserving his .300 batting average than in playing the last game of the 1995 regular season. No Ted Williams there. (Williams played the last game of the 1941 season, putting his .400 batting average at risk.)
Something had been lost, and when he left as a free agent, he was seen as yet another unhappy player leaving town.
He had some good seasons with Baltimore and Cleveland, but his start never shone as brightly nor was he ever again as popular as he once was in Toronto.
Rare it is that an athlete can play out his career with the same team and leave on a high note, still popular with his teammates and the fans.
Even Joe Montana had to leave San Francisco, as did Jerry Rice. Salary cap issues were part of those departures, to be sure. But there was also a disconnect with the fans and/or the organization that seemed to emerge over time.
Alex Rodriguez was adored in Seattle, and will never be as loved again, as he seeks respect and an elusive championship (to go with a 250 million dollar contract).
The examples are too many of once-loved athletes leaving town with their reputations tarnished, albeit in most cases with a lot of cash in their pockets.
Thankfully, there are still examples of athletes who made it and lasted in a particular market. Wendell Clark with the Leafs could be seen in that light, though even he, too, was criticized by Ballard.
Steve Yzerman has lasted 20 years in Detroit, appreciated by fans and the organization alike.
But unlike the days of Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau, who left the game and their team as revered heroes, it doesn’t happen very often anymore.
With the NHL lockout still on as of late January, 2005, there remains a huge disconnect between fans and many pro athletes. Oh, fans still go to games, but the dynamic has certainly shifted as salaries have risen astronomically in the last ten years in all sports— and especially since the hockey and baseball work stoppages of the mid-1990’s.
The current lockout has shown without doubt that fans have grown increasingly weary of athletes who many fans see, fair or not, as greedy and unappreciative of what they have.
It was revealing to read a quote from a former NFL player, signed just 10 days before the Super Bowl to play for the Eagles against the Patriots.
The Eagles lost starting tight end Chad Lewis to a serious injury, and the club signed a fellow who has not played in two seasons to fill in for the one game.
The individual, Jeff Thomasson, now works for a company in New Jersey. He has evidently taken vacation-time to play with the Eagles.
His comment upon signing?
"I’m probably the luckiest guy in the world. (But) When I get back, I'll have to work a year straight without vacation," he was quoted as saying. "I'll probably make more during vacation (away from his regular job while playing one game for the Eagles) than my annual salary. Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world. I worked a lot of hours."
Interesting comment indeed. “Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world.”
Few of us standing on the sidelines of the professional sporting world would dare risk the physical demands— much less have the talent— to play in the NFL or NHL, for example. We know instinctively that it is very demanding work — work which requires training, years of dedication and a unique level of talent and toughness.
So there is a built-in respect for those athletes on our part. They do something we can’t do, and because they are “entertainers”, and people pay to see them work, they are paid handsomely for their work.
But perhaps what fans are looking is respect back from the players, the recognition that athletes are not the only ones that work hard for their money. The recognition, the acknowledgement that the “average” person works every day in “the real world” as Thomason put it.
And that it is those “average” people who very directly help pay for the astronomical salaries earned by athletes.
The negative feelings the fans have obviously pent up over the past many years might be diffused somewhat, if they felt players really respected the fans.
Fans may be more patient or forgiving with a Vince Carter, or any number of other athletes.
But it needs to be a two-way street.
It will be interesting to see how NHL players will react to the public when the lockout ends— if it ever ends.
It appears as though Jeff Thomason is one athlete who did not know what he had until it was gone — someone who needed to get out into the “real world” to see the light.
Will others?
Thursday, September 30, 2004
25 Reasons Why Players are Losing the P.R. Battle
Why are players losing the so-called public relations battle in the ongoing labor dispute with NHL owners?
And does it really matter to the players, anyway?
Is it because the players are not getting their messages across effectively? Or are their messages — what they are saying and through their actions in recent years — indeed coming through loud and clear?
A recent ‘poll’ (on slam.ca) while not likely scientifically accurate, suggests 47% of those who ‘voted’ supported the owners; 12% supported the players. 30% didn’t support either of them.
Maybe more disconcerting than that to both parties is the fact that while fans in the U.S. are largely unconcerned about the lack of hockey, that apathy has crossed the border into Canada.
Oh sure, hockey fans would like to see hockey, even in certain U.S. markets. Once baseball is done, and the Super Bowl is history, long-time fans will crave the game come January.
But right now there just isn’t a lot of gnashing of teeth over the lack of NHL hockey, even in Canada.
To the earlier point: why might it be that so few people are aligned with the players in this protracted dispute?
Owners don’t score pretty goals. They don’t sign autographs. They’re management. Nobody likes management.
Most media people will suggest that hockey players are by far the best athletes to deal with of the major sports in North America.
It’s a reputation hockey players have earned, by and large. In Canadian markets, it’s hard to imagine anyone more popular than a member of the Oilers, or Leafs, in their respective communities. Many hockey players are also well known for their charitable involvements.
And after all this is a lockout, not a strike. The players say they want to play.
Well, in terms of public perception, there are possible reasons why fans aren’t rushing to support the players, and may never, regardless of how long this lasts.
1. As talented as many of the NHL’ers are, and as physically demanding as their job is, it is difficult for the “average” person earning, say, $40,000 a year, to relate to players whose average salary is almost 2 million a season.
2. Players insist a salary cap is unacceptable, in part because it goes against free market principles. There has never been a salary cap in hockey. So they don’t want to “give up” something they’ve “earned” through collective bargaining. Yet if they were operating under a different set of rules to begin with (i.e. a limit of some description on overall salaries) they would gladly, one assumes, appreciate the opportunity to earn an average annual wage of 1.3 million, which is what the owners claim to be offering.
3. As one of their messages, NHLPA leadership continues to put forward the idea that National Football League players, for example, are unhappy with the NFL salary cap, which has been in place for many years. Yet prominent NFL player reps are saying exactly the opposite — that a cap has been good for football, and for the players. The NFL is the best-run and most popular sport in the United States.
4. Players say they are fighting for the younger players, just as players in earlier generations fought for them. Yet, how many current players fought alongside Carl Brewer, Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate and others to try to ensure that players of yesteryear — the very players who really made the sport what it is today — received their due while they were being unjustly treated by the league and its owners?
5. If this dispute does not ultimately resolve the economic woes plaguing many franchises, and results in, say, four of those franchises ceasing to operate in future, that would result in a net loss of about 100 NHL — and therefore NHLPA — jobs. Does this outcome help all the players in the Association?
6. Fans may wonder: how much does a player need to have “financial security” for their family? Must their income ensure security for their families for generations to come?
7. Many players are quoted as saying they have already offered “concessions” to the owners. But when the bar was set so high in favor of the players for years, is the appropriate word really concessions? Isn’t it a matter being time the players got in touch with reality?
8. NHL players are a brotherhood, and players stress that they are sticking together. Yet more than 200 players have signed contracts to play in Europe — most of whom have every intention of racing back to North America the moment a new deal is signed. In the same breath, some long-time NHL players have actually signed contracts to play in the American Hockey League, or other minor leagues. In a free world, that’s entirely within the rights of any individual, of course. But how is that creating a sense of solidarity? What message does this send to the public?
9. Those NHL players now playing in Europe — many of whom have been earning millions of dollars a season — are taking jobs away from players who really need those jobs. Do those NHL players care about putting fellow professional players out of work, and the impact that has on those families? Or are the only “fellow players” that matter in the NHLPA?
10. The public has read, for years, comments from the players association that suggest the players, like the owners, have built up a huge “war chest” as they prepared for this scenario. If such a “lockout” fund is available, the public wonders: why do the players need to earn money by playing in other leagues?
11. Interestingly, some players are not signing with other leagues. Many are staying in shape by renting ice and working out together. They are evidently making a clear choice not to play in a different league. Again, everyone is free to follow their own conscience. But if you belong to an “association”, generally members stick together in order to, among other reasons, send out a consistent public message, regardless of whether it’s a lock out or a strike situation.
12. Players who have signed with the so-called Original Six Hockey League are saying they’re doing it for charity, for the fans, so kids can see them play. They stress that kids will be allowed into the dressing room after games, etc. Sounds tremendous. Will players encourage and allow this same free and easy access to kids once they are back in their NHL dressing rooms and there is no public relations battle to be won?
13. NHL officials are not being paid at all during the dispute. Many are taking jobs of various descriptions. The average wage of NHL official is about $100,000 a year. Yet they have — to a man— decided they will not take refereeing jobs in other leagues, to ensure they don’t take jobs away from fellow referees. This is clearly not a stand all players have taken.
14. If there is any sympathy felt, it is for those really affected by the lockout: individuals in the industry who have lost full-time jobs, and part-time rink employees, for example, and all those who are missing out on important income to help them make ends meet at home, or help get them through school.
15. A high-profile NHL player, during the 2003-’04 season, was accurately quoted as saying the players would “sit out for the rest of our lives”, rather than accept the conditions the owners were trying to put forward. This particular player makes several million dollars a season. When the player realized how his comments came across, he tried a more conciliatory tone the next day. But his true feelings had been expressed for all to hear.
16. Similarly, some years back, a veteran NHL player (still actively involved with the Players Association) was asked about the fact that many fathers could no longer afford to bring their kids to an NHL game. The response was, basically, “Maybe those dads should not be taking their kids to a game.”
One more recent example: A prominent NHL’er recently reacted to an appearance by NHL
17. Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news. Reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.” Players work hard, indeed. People in many walks of life (teachers, police officers, those who do manual labor — soldiers on the front lines, to be sure — and many others) “work hard” . Many take serious physical risks, yet have limits on what they can earn.
18. When figures are cited about player salaries, that doesn’t take into account the royalties players receive on items such as trading card sales, and monies raised through licensing agreements for the sale of NHLPA endorsed merchandise. That bumps the players’ real income up by a substantial amount.
19. The public may wonder how many “freebies” and various ‘perks’ of fame players receive. Do players ever travel other than first-class? Does a hockey player stand in line for anything?
20. Some players play into June in a given season. It can be a long, tough season. For those players who don’t make the playoffs, however, their season starts in training camp in mid-September and ends in mid-April. Five months off in the summer. The “average” person works 49 weeks a year, with three weeks off.
21. Many fans are fed up with hearing athletes whine. Whine that they want to play for a winner, rather than accepting the challenge of staying where they are and helping make their current team a winner; are insulted by contract offers that don’t pay them enough millions; players that demand trades; hide behind the words of their agents; ask to renegotiate contracts; hold out for even more money when they are still unproven and in the early years of their career.
22. Many fans are increasingly tired of the influence of agents. Fans realize that the agents really do speak for the players they represent. The players allow their agent to do the public dirty work.
23. People also likely cringe every time a player is quoted as saying, “I sure hope this gets resolved before much longer”, as though individual players are standing on the outside of this situation and have zero influence. Of course players have influence on the Association leadership. They aren’t helpless by-standers in this situation. And if they are helpless by-standers, people wonder, what kind of an Association is it?
24. Fans have noticed that every time a player steps out of line and says anything the union leadership doesn’t want to hear, the player suddenly retracts or clarifies his earlier (honest) feelings.
25. Additional reasons why players are losing the optics battle jump out almost every time someone speaks on behalf of the union. For example, a high-ranking NHLPA official was just quoted as saying he couldn’t imagine the owners putting a worse proposal on the table than is there right now. Worse than an average salary of 1.3 million a year? Again, the public hears this and just sighs, stunned.
Fans don’t want to hear one more agent or player say, “Well, we didn’t make the owners give us the money. It’s not our fault”. This comment implies of course that owners are “dumb” for spending so much on players to begin with. Many won’t disagree. But hearing the comment repeated endlessly and stated as though the players are simply unwitting millionaire pawns leaves the public numb.
The players stress no one forced the owners to drive up salaries. True. But even if owners decided individually to use their ‘common sense” and set up their own informal wage ceiling, would teams be accused of collusion?
There is little question that pages could also be written about the all the baggage ownership brings to the table in this dispute — not to mention the often unseemly history of NHL ownership over the last many decades. It’s unlikely that many fans have any real sympathy for owners, or much care about the owners at all.
It is clear that there is no game without players. But most people also realize that without owners, there is no sport at all. You’d be left with just a bunch of talented athletes who may get together, barnstorm through the countryside and pass the hat out during a series of exhibition games against local competition from town to town.
Sympathetic figures or not, without those who have made huge profits in their various businesses, there would be no owners in professional sports. Hockey needs the successful entrepreneurs to survive and there aren’t that many of them around — at least not that many that can run a professional sports franchise efficiently and successfully.
And these owners expect to make significant money on their investment, including with their sports franchises.
There is one question that no one will answer, but is an interesting question nonetheless: If the current players refused to play under the conditions ownership wants, and if the NHL as we know it dissolved tomorrow and a new league started anew, would there be players to fill teams?
If players felt truly “free” to decide, on their own, without pressure from any particular corner, and did not feel they were crossing some sort of real or imagined picket line, it’s hard to imagine the answer would be anything but “yes”.
In other words, if the game started over again, could it work?
The answer is indeed yes. Players who may not be as gifted as current NHL’ers would play, and they would play for much, much less money just for the honor of playing in what might still be called the National Hockey League.
After all, isn’t that what the AHL and ECHL are right now, and for that matter, the European professional leagues? Good leagues made up of good players who, for the most part, are not quite NHL-players just yet?
They earn a good, steady, if unspectacular income. People pay to watch them play in various markets across Canada and the United States and Europe. Yet not one of the players complains publicly over little things, because there are dozens of other players just “below” them hoping and waiting for their chance.
Would people still pay to see the game if every current NHL’er quit the game?
Absolutely.
Real hockey fans love U.S. college hockey, Major Junior hockey, semi-pro hockey. If it’s well played, played hard by people who give their all, people will come and watch.
Imagine returning to a time when a parent could bring two or three kids to an NHL game and buy really good seats — park, eat something, and go home with change in their pocket after spending less than a hundred dollars.
Imagine returning to a time when, like in the Canadian Football League, the players realized they were fortunate to play a sport they love, be paid for it, and, like most everyone else in society, had the same financial insecurities most people face, once their career in sport are over.
As the economy has changed and evolved and ebbed and flowed over the last 15 or so years, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, struggled to find new employment, started over again.
Many people have had to “re-invent” themselves, to borrow the often-used phrase.
Maybe the players will finally realize that while many fans enjoy and appreciate their talents, they are no more special than anyone else simply because they are professional athletes.
Maybe it is time to start all over again. A new league. New players — eager, appreciative players who can repair the disconnect that is killing the relationship between athletes and fans, players who won’t balk at playing for, say, a few hundred thousand dollars a year, which is still more than the best medical specialists earn — people who can actually save lives through their education, training and “hard work”.
Professional hockey would still be, as many ruefully say, a “business”. But it would be a different kind of business.
One fans might understand.
And does it really matter to the players, anyway?
Is it because the players are not getting their messages across effectively? Or are their messages — what they are saying and through their actions in recent years — indeed coming through loud and clear?
A recent ‘poll’ (on slam.ca) while not likely scientifically accurate, suggests 47% of those who ‘voted’ supported the owners; 12% supported the players. 30% didn’t support either of them.
Maybe more disconcerting than that to both parties is the fact that while fans in the U.S. are largely unconcerned about the lack of hockey, that apathy has crossed the border into Canada.
Oh sure, hockey fans would like to see hockey, even in certain U.S. markets. Once baseball is done, and the Super Bowl is history, long-time fans will crave the game come January.
But right now there just isn’t a lot of gnashing of teeth over the lack of NHL hockey, even in Canada.
To the earlier point: why might it be that so few people are aligned with the players in this protracted dispute?
Owners don’t score pretty goals. They don’t sign autographs. They’re management. Nobody likes management.
Most media people will suggest that hockey players are by far the best athletes to deal with of the major sports in North America.
It’s a reputation hockey players have earned, by and large. In Canadian markets, it’s hard to imagine anyone more popular than a member of the Oilers, or Leafs, in their respective communities. Many hockey players are also well known for their charitable involvements.
And after all this is a lockout, not a strike. The players say they want to play.
Well, in terms of public perception, there are possible reasons why fans aren’t rushing to support the players, and may never, regardless of how long this lasts.
1. As talented as many of the NHL’ers are, and as physically demanding as their job is, it is difficult for the “average” person earning, say, $40,000 a year, to relate to players whose average salary is almost 2 million a season.
2. Players insist a salary cap is unacceptable, in part because it goes against free market principles. There has never been a salary cap in hockey. So they don’t want to “give up” something they’ve “earned” through collective bargaining. Yet if they were operating under a different set of rules to begin with (i.e. a limit of some description on overall salaries) they would gladly, one assumes, appreciate the opportunity to earn an average annual wage of 1.3 million, which is what the owners claim to be offering.
3. As one of their messages, NHLPA leadership continues to put forward the idea that National Football League players, for example, are unhappy with the NFL salary cap, which has been in place for many years. Yet prominent NFL player reps are saying exactly the opposite — that a cap has been good for football, and for the players. The NFL is the best-run and most popular sport in the United States.
4. Players say they are fighting for the younger players, just as players in earlier generations fought for them. Yet, how many current players fought alongside Carl Brewer, Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate and others to try to ensure that players of yesteryear — the very players who really made the sport what it is today — received their due while they were being unjustly treated by the league and its owners?
5. If this dispute does not ultimately resolve the economic woes plaguing many franchises, and results in, say, four of those franchises ceasing to operate in future, that would result in a net loss of about 100 NHL — and therefore NHLPA — jobs. Does this outcome help all the players in the Association?
6. Fans may wonder: how much does a player need to have “financial security” for their family? Must their income ensure security for their families for generations to come?
7. Many players are quoted as saying they have already offered “concessions” to the owners. But when the bar was set so high in favor of the players for years, is the appropriate word really concessions? Isn’t it a matter being time the players got in touch with reality?
8. NHL players are a brotherhood, and players stress that they are sticking together. Yet more than 200 players have signed contracts to play in Europe — most of whom have every intention of racing back to North America the moment a new deal is signed. In the same breath, some long-time NHL players have actually signed contracts to play in the American Hockey League, or other minor leagues. In a free world, that’s entirely within the rights of any individual, of course. But how is that creating a sense of solidarity? What message does this send to the public?
9. Those NHL players now playing in Europe — many of whom have been earning millions of dollars a season — are taking jobs away from players who really need those jobs. Do those NHL players care about putting fellow professional players out of work, and the impact that has on those families? Or are the only “fellow players” that matter in the NHLPA?
10. The public has read, for years, comments from the players association that suggest the players, like the owners, have built up a huge “war chest” as they prepared for this scenario. If such a “lockout” fund is available, the public wonders: why do the players need to earn money by playing in other leagues?
11. Interestingly, some players are not signing with other leagues. Many are staying in shape by renting ice and working out together. They are evidently making a clear choice not to play in a different league. Again, everyone is free to follow their own conscience. But if you belong to an “association”, generally members stick together in order to, among other reasons, send out a consistent public message, regardless of whether it’s a lock out or a strike situation.
12. Players who have signed with the so-called Original Six Hockey League are saying they’re doing it for charity, for the fans, so kids can see them play. They stress that kids will be allowed into the dressing room after games, etc. Sounds tremendous. Will players encourage and allow this same free and easy access to kids once they are back in their NHL dressing rooms and there is no public relations battle to be won?
13. NHL officials are not being paid at all during the dispute. Many are taking jobs of various descriptions. The average wage of NHL official is about $100,000 a year. Yet they have — to a man— decided they will not take refereeing jobs in other leagues, to ensure they don’t take jobs away from fellow referees. This is clearly not a stand all players have taken.
14. If there is any sympathy felt, it is for those really affected by the lockout: individuals in the industry who have lost full-time jobs, and part-time rink employees, for example, and all those who are missing out on important income to help them make ends meet at home, or help get them through school.
15. A high-profile NHL player, during the 2003-’04 season, was accurately quoted as saying the players would “sit out for the rest of our lives”, rather than accept the conditions the owners were trying to put forward. This particular player makes several million dollars a season. When the player realized how his comments came across, he tried a more conciliatory tone the next day. But his true feelings had been expressed for all to hear.
16. Similarly, some years back, a veteran NHL player (still actively involved with the Players Association) was asked about the fact that many fathers could no longer afford to bring their kids to an NHL game. The response was, basically, “Maybe those dads should not be taking their kids to a game.”
One more recent example: A prominent NHL’er recently reacted to an appearance by NHL
17. Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news. Reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.” Players work hard, indeed. People in many walks of life (teachers, police officers, those who do manual labor — soldiers on the front lines, to be sure — and many others) “work hard” . Many take serious physical risks, yet have limits on what they can earn.
18. When figures are cited about player salaries, that doesn’t take into account the royalties players receive on items such as trading card sales, and monies raised through licensing agreements for the sale of NHLPA endorsed merchandise. That bumps the players’ real income up by a substantial amount.
19. The public may wonder how many “freebies” and various ‘perks’ of fame players receive. Do players ever travel other than first-class? Does a hockey player stand in line for anything?
20. Some players play into June in a given season. It can be a long, tough season. For those players who don’t make the playoffs, however, their season starts in training camp in mid-September and ends in mid-April. Five months off in the summer. The “average” person works 49 weeks a year, with three weeks off.
21. Many fans are fed up with hearing athletes whine. Whine that they want to play for a winner, rather than accepting the challenge of staying where they are and helping make their current team a winner; are insulted by contract offers that don’t pay them enough millions; players that demand trades; hide behind the words of their agents; ask to renegotiate contracts; hold out for even more money when they are still unproven and in the early years of their career.
22. Many fans are increasingly tired of the influence of agents. Fans realize that the agents really do speak for the players they represent. The players allow their agent to do the public dirty work.
23. People also likely cringe every time a player is quoted as saying, “I sure hope this gets resolved before much longer”, as though individual players are standing on the outside of this situation and have zero influence. Of course players have influence on the Association leadership. They aren’t helpless by-standers in this situation. And if they are helpless by-standers, people wonder, what kind of an Association is it?
24. Fans have noticed that every time a player steps out of line and says anything the union leadership doesn’t want to hear, the player suddenly retracts or clarifies his earlier (honest) feelings.
25. Additional reasons why players are losing the optics battle jump out almost every time someone speaks on behalf of the union. For example, a high-ranking NHLPA official was just quoted as saying he couldn’t imagine the owners putting a worse proposal on the table than is there right now. Worse than an average salary of 1.3 million a year? Again, the public hears this and just sighs, stunned.
Fans don’t want to hear one more agent or player say, “Well, we didn’t make the owners give us the money. It’s not our fault”. This comment implies of course that owners are “dumb” for spending so much on players to begin with. Many won’t disagree. But hearing the comment repeated endlessly and stated as though the players are simply unwitting millionaire pawns leaves the public numb.
The players stress no one forced the owners to drive up salaries. True. But even if owners decided individually to use their ‘common sense” and set up their own informal wage ceiling, would teams be accused of collusion?
There is little question that pages could also be written about the all the baggage ownership brings to the table in this dispute — not to mention the often unseemly history of NHL ownership over the last many decades. It’s unlikely that many fans have any real sympathy for owners, or much care about the owners at all.
It is clear that there is no game without players. But most people also realize that without owners, there is no sport at all. You’d be left with just a bunch of talented athletes who may get together, barnstorm through the countryside and pass the hat out during a series of exhibition games against local competition from town to town.
Sympathetic figures or not, without those who have made huge profits in their various businesses, there would be no owners in professional sports. Hockey needs the successful entrepreneurs to survive and there aren’t that many of them around — at least not that many that can run a professional sports franchise efficiently and successfully.
And these owners expect to make significant money on their investment, including with their sports franchises.
There is one question that no one will answer, but is an interesting question nonetheless: If the current players refused to play under the conditions ownership wants, and if the NHL as we know it dissolved tomorrow and a new league started anew, would there be players to fill teams?
If players felt truly “free” to decide, on their own, without pressure from any particular corner, and did not feel they were crossing some sort of real or imagined picket line, it’s hard to imagine the answer would be anything but “yes”.
In other words, if the game started over again, could it work?
The answer is indeed yes. Players who may not be as gifted as current NHL’ers would play, and they would play for much, much less money just for the honor of playing in what might still be called the National Hockey League.
After all, isn’t that what the AHL and ECHL are right now, and for that matter, the European professional leagues? Good leagues made up of good players who, for the most part, are not quite NHL-players just yet?
They earn a good, steady, if unspectacular income. People pay to watch them play in various markets across Canada and the United States and Europe. Yet not one of the players complains publicly over little things, because there are dozens of other players just “below” them hoping and waiting for their chance.
Would people still pay to see the game if every current NHL’er quit the game?
Absolutely.
Real hockey fans love U.S. college hockey, Major Junior hockey, semi-pro hockey. If it’s well played, played hard by people who give their all, people will come and watch.
Imagine returning to a time when a parent could bring two or three kids to an NHL game and buy really good seats — park, eat something, and go home with change in their pocket after spending less than a hundred dollars.
Imagine returning to a time when, like in the Canadian Football League, the players realized they were fortunate to play a sport they love, be paid for it, and, like most everyone else in society, had the same financial insecurities most people face, once their career in sport are over.
As the economy has changed and evolved and ebbed and flowed over the last 15 or so years, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, struggled to find new employment, started over again.
Many people have had to “re-invent” themselves, to borrow the often-used phrase.
Maybe the players will finally realize that while many fans enjoy and appreciate their talents, they are no more special than anyone else simply because they are professional athletes.
Maybe it is time to start all over again. A new league. New players — eager, appreciative players who can repair the disconnect that is killing the relationship between athletes and fans, players who won’t balk at playing for, say, a few hundred thousand dollars a year, which is still more than the best medical specialists earn — people who can actually save lives through their education, training and “hard work”.
Professional hockey would still be, as many ruefully say, a “business”. But it would be a different kind of business.
One fans might understand.
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
So Little Perspective
Much has been and will be written about the opposing “sides” in the ongoing NHL labor dispute — a dispute which could last well beyond the 2004-05 season.
There is no lack of points of view concerning who is to blame (if blame can be attributed in such a circumstance).
What does seem clear is that both parties go to great lengths to defend their positions in public, in an effort to create awareness and understanding — and perhaps even a twinge of support, if not sympathy — for their position.
Inevitably, comments will be made which leave an observer shaking their head.
One example: A prominent NHL’er with a Canadian-based team recently reacted to an appearance by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news.
Newspaper reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.”
This is not simply to chastise this particular player, who has a reputation as a tough, hard-working player.
Clearly, few who have any sense of what it truly takes to become a professional (or high-level) athlete — especially a professional hockey player — doubt the talent, hard work and dedication required. Most would acknowledge, and could not themselves tolerate, the severe physical toll hockey takes on individual players.
But it is difficult to comprehend the argument that that physical toll means the average NHL salary should be almost $2 million dollars a season per player, when the “average” person works 50 weeks a year to earn maybe $40,000 a year. Brilliant surgeons, who can save lives, for example, do not make anywhere near the kind of money top NHL players make.
Oilers General Manager Kevin Lowe made a simple but revealing remark when team stalwart Ryan Smith was in a contract stalemate some time back. Lowe basically said the team had done all it could to keep Smith happy over the years, and alluded out loud to the fact that Smyth — still a very young man — had earned something like 17 million dollars in 6 or so seasons with the club to that point.
Smyth is a fine player, full of heart, indeed. But 17 million dollars already?
Those who follow pro sports realize that there are “superstar” players in sports who have earned more than 15 or 20 million dollars a season. Many people do not like the idea, but recognize that the “best of the best” in the entertainment industry are paid beyond what makes sense.
But Lowe’s simple comment, about a someone many see as a solid yet unspectacular player, likely struck a nerve with many fans. 17 million dollars in a few short years. That is way, way more than most hard-working people would earn in several lifetimes.
Public appearances by athletes for financial and public relations purposes aside, there is a real disconnect nowadays between many athletes and the people who support them.
More to the point, perhaps: if an NHL player truly believes he is “worth” millions of dollars a year for playing a game, what is the young man or woman “worth” who fights to defend their country in times of war? Whether one agrees with the notion of sending young people off to fight to preserve freedoms, it has been and is a political and life reality.
These young men and women risk more than a physical toll. They risk their very lives. And if they return home at all, they risk returning home with lifelong physical ailments.
And they aren’t doing what they do to simply entertain other people.
While that is an extreme example, it is nonetheless a comparison worth noting. But there are many other people who work hard at what they do who don’t receive the kind of income, compensation, perks, “freebies” and adulation that pro athletes receive.
If the players want to “win” the public relations battle, they would be well-advised to communicate through the media with the public a little differently.
The average person can no longer afford tickets to watch NHL teams. Do the players care?
When you hear quotes like the one above about Bettman, the old quote rings true about “protesting too much”.
The players can protest all they want. Few are buying that they should continue to receive the kind of income they have achieved simply because of the competitive realities owners face to field competitive teams.
I recall a comment a prominent NHLPA member once made (he’s still an active player). When asked about the fact that many dads could no longer afford to take their kids to an NHL game, the player said, in essence, “well, maybe that dad shouldn’t be taking his kids to the game if he can’t afford it.”
That comment was made years ago.
Have the players learned any lessons since?
There is no lack of points of view concerning who is to blame (if blame can be attributed in such a circumstance).
What does seem clear is that both parties go to great lengths to defend their positions in public, in an effort to create awareness and understanding — and perhaps even a twinge of support, if not sympathy — for their position.
Inevitably, comments will be made which leave an observer shaking their head.
One example: A prominent NHL’er with a Canadian-based team recently reacted to an appearance by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news.
Newspaper reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.”
This is not simply to chastise this particular player, who has a reputation as a tough, hard-working player.
Clearly, few who have any sense of what it truly takes to become a professional (or high-level) athlete — especially a professional hockey player — doubt the talent, hard work and dedication required. Most would acknowledge, and could not themselves tolerate, the severe physical toll hockey takes on individual players.
But it is difficult to comprehend the argument that that physical toll means the average NHL salary should be almost $2 million dollars a season per player, when the “average” person works 50 weeks a year to earn maybe $40,000 a year. Brilliant surgeons, who can save lives, for example, do not make anywhere near the kind of money top NHL players make.
Oilers General Manager Kevin Lowe made a simple but revealing remark when team stalwart Ryan Smith was in a contract stalemate some time back. Lowe basically said the team had done all it could to keep Smith happy over the years, and alluded out loud to the fact that Smyth — still a very young man — had earned something like 17 million dollars in 6 or so seasons with the club to that point.
Smyth is a fine player, full of heart, indeed. But 17 million dollars already?
Those who follow pro sports realize that there are “superstar” players in sports who have earned more than 15 or 20 million dollars a season. Many people do not like the idea, but recognize that the “best of the best” in the entertainment industry are paid beyond what makes sense.
But Lowe’s simple comment, about a someone many see as a solid yet unspectacular player, likely struck a nerve with many fans. 17 million dollars in a few short years. That is way, way more than most hard-working people would earn in several lifetimes.
Public appearances by athletes for financial and public relations purposes aside, there is a real disconnect nowadays between many athletes and the people who support them.
More to the point, perhaps: if an NHL player truly believes he is “worth” millions of dollars a year for playing a game, what is the young man or woman “worth” who fights to defend their country in times of war? Whether one agrees with the notion of sending young people off to fight to preserve freedoms, it has been and is a political and life reality.
These young men and women risk more than a physical toll. They risk their very lives. And if they return home at all, they risk returning home with lifelong physical ailments.
And they aren’t doing what they do to simply entertain other people.
While that is an extreme example, it is nonetheless a comparison worth noting. But there are many other people who work hard at what they do who don’t receive the kind of income, compensation, perks, “freebies” and adulation that pro athletes receive.
If the players want to “win” the public relations battle, they would be well-advised to communicate through the media with the public a little differently.
The average person can no longer afford tickets to watch NHL teams. Do the players care?
When you hear quotes like the one above about Bettman, the old quote rings true about “protesting too much”.
The players can protest all they want. Few are buying that they should continue to receive the kind of income they have achieved simply because of the competitive realities owners face to field competitive teams.
I recall a comment a prominent NHLPA member once made (he’s still an active player). When asked about the fact that many dads could no longer afford to take their kids to an NHL game, the player said, in essence, “well, maybe that dad shouldn’t be taking his kids to the game if he can’t afford it.”
That comment was made years ago.
Have the players learned any lessons since?
Sunday, August 1, 2004
A Real Apology
We’ve all said things that we wished we had not said.
For most of us, however, we make those comments relatively privately.
For someone in the public eye, words can come back at you very quickly.
Kevin Garnett of the NBA Minnesota Timberwolves had that experience very recently. After Game 6 of the Western Conference semi-final against the Sacramento Kings, Garnett – no doubt feeling the rising intensity and physical nature of the series – told reporters: “This is it. This is for all the marbles. I’m sitting in the house loading up the pump; I’m loading up the Uzis and the M-16s. I’m ready for war.”
Given the very real war-like conditions that many sadly experience daily – including, of course, many Americans in Iraq in recent months – Garnett’s comments offended many.
But after huddling with team officials, Garnett made a full and evidently genuine apology for his comments the very next day, saying, “I’m a young man and I understand when I’m appropriate and this is totally inappropriate. I was totally thinking about basketball, not reality.”
We all recall that in the days and weeks following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many media commentators made a point of saying how inappropriate it is to speak of athletes as ‘warriors’, and of sporting events in terms of “going to war”. Though such references had been made routinely for years, especially in the physically demanding world of professional football, they seemed out of place and out of touch in a world touched by such a horrific event, and the very real “war” that was sure to follow.
But before too long, comedians began taking liberties, using the tragic events of 9-11 as fodder for jokes. Eventually the sports pages were filled again with references to athletes as warriors.
It’s not that people forgot about 9-11. Perhaps old habits are easy to pick up again.
Against this backdrop, it’s not stunning that an athlete, particularly a young one such as Garnett, would plunge headlong into a diatribe about weapons and war in the ‘heat of battle’.
Athletes are often criticized, justifiably so at times, for an apparent lack of perspective. Many high-profile performers live a ‘fishbowl’ existence, and it can be demanding and difficult. When they fail in the eyes of the public, how they react and respond usually determines whether their “image” is tarnished beyond repair.
In this instance, that Garnett quickly recognized – and then publicly acknowledged his momentary lapse in judgment – is laudable, and sets a good example for others to follow.
For most of us, however, we make those comments relatively privately.
For someone in the public eye, words can come back at you very quickly.
Kevin Garnett of the NBA Minnesota Timberwolves had that experience very recently. After Game 6 of the Western Conference semi-final against the Sacramento Kings, Garnett – no doubt feeling the rising intensity and physical nature of the series – told reporters: “This is it. This is for all the marbles. I’m sitting in the house loading up the pump; I’m loading up the Uzis and the M-16s. I’m ready for war.”
Given the very real war-like conditions that many sadly experience daily – including, of course, many Americans in Iraq in recent months – Garnett’s comments offended many.
But after huddling with team officials, Garnett made a full and evidently genuine apology for his comments the very next day, saying, “I’m a young man and I understand when I’m appropriate and this is totally inappropriate. I was totally thinking about basketball, not reality.”
We all recall that in the days and weeks following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many media commentators made a point of saying how inappropriate it is to speak of athletes as ‘warriors’, and of sporting events in terms of “going to war”. Though such references had been made routinely for years, especially in the physically demanding world of professional football, they seemed out of place and out of touch in a world touched by such a horrific event, and the very real “war” that was sure to follow.
But before too long, comedians began taking liberties, using the tragic events of 9-11 as fodder for jokes. Eventually the sports pages were filled again with references to athletes as warriors.
It’s not that people forgot about 9-11. Perhaps old habits are easy to pick up again.
Against this backdrop, it’s not stunning that an athlete, particularly a young one such as Garnett, would plunge headlong into a diatribe about weapons and war in the ‘heat of battle’.
Athletes are often criticized, justifiably so at times, for an apparent lack of perspective. Many high-profile performers live a ‘fishbowl’ existence, and it can be demanding and difficult. When they fail in the eyes of the public, how they react and respond usually determines whether their “image” is tarnished beyond repair.
In this instance, that Garnett quickly recognized – and then publicly acknowledged his momentary lapse in judgment – is laudable, and sets a good example for others to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)