Professional athletes are employees, not slaves. So why do we call their employers owners?
As I watched the Sterling Affair unfold, in which an old, racist owner was finally booted from the NBA after years of being a terrible owner and a terrible person, something struck me as odd, as the thinkpieces on racism in America and sports piled up (despite, apparently, no one in sports besides Jemele Hill and Bomani Jones realizing that this guy was an incorrigible moron) and conservatives cried foul at the PC police robbing a man of his profession, being an owner in the NBA: why are we still calling them owners?
In nearly every other context besides sports, “ownership” when referring to a relationship between humans has a negative connotation. Despite the obvious example – slavery – employers in no way shape or form “own” their employees. One person doesn’t “own” their significant other, nor does one friend “own” another friend.
Ownership is something for toys, or cars, or maybe pets. Ownership is not for the people you pay to work for your business, which is exactly what a sports team is – a business. A business that doesn’t always make profits it’s number one goal, but a business regardless.
Here’s one of the more telling exchanges between Sterling and Stiviano on the Deadspin tape:
Stiviano: Do you know that you have a whole team that’s black, that plays for you?
Sterling: You just, do I know? I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? … Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners that created the league?
One argument is that “ownership” refers to the franchise, not the individual players, but we don’t call the founders or CEO’s of businesses “owners”, so why do the people who are the executive officers of sports franchises earn that distinction? In Sterling’s opinion, it’s because he made the game. He made a $12.5 million investment in the early 80’s, and it is worth 50x as much now, despite him doing everything he can to screw over his team, including refusing to pay for an assistant coach’s prostate cancer surgery, a drop in the proverbial bucket at $70,000. Sterling thought he owned his employees. And that’s morally repugnant.
Others will say that the players on sports teams have no reason to complain, as they’re getting paid handsomely for their labor, and to a certain extent that’s true – but all too often, we forget that our favorite players are actual people, not trained robots. Despite the fact that they’re being paid handsomely, the fact remains that they are employees of a brand we happen to be rabid about – and American sports leagues, especially one where 98% of owners are white and making millions or even billions of dollars off of a league that’s over three quarters African American, would do well to shift away from applying the same language that we use to describe America’s ugly past.
And still others will say that, like the decision to ban Sterling for life, that this is the PC police run amok. But maybe the PC police should run amok a little more. Maybe, just maybe, when we think about Donald Sterling, we should think about a guy who committed real, substantial acts of racism, acting like he was an “owner” of his tenants when he was kicking them out for committing the crime of being black or Mexican. Because words and language lead to actions, and actions do matter, and they’re being used to oppress minorities to this very day. Just ask Donald Sterling.
Photo credit – David C. Jones/Flickr
One argument is that “ownership” refers to the franchise, not the individual players, but we don’t call the founders or CEO’s of businesses “owners”,,,
>>>
Yeah, we do.
If I start a business, and I own all the shares (or at least 51%) , I’m the owner. I’m not just the founder, and I’m not just the CEO. Whoever owns the equity is the owner of the business.
That doesn’t mean I own the employees. It does mean I own the stuff.
Aren’t we all slaves in a fashion? I mean I lost my job in August 2013 and it pretty much made me start over. I had to give up my apartment and move in with friends who let me stay rent free. I just started a minimum wage job just to keep my truck. If you live paycheck to paycheck then you are a slave to your job. The only ones who aren’t are the ones who don’t work at all and live off the government.
Contract allows voluntary commitments to permeate between people in a way similar to objects. It’s not a good or bad thing, in itself, no more than any promise is a good or bad thing. Before Curt Flood refused his trade, breaking the rules of the day, it was unheard of for athletes to seek a better home for their talents, or to have any sayn where they play, how much they earn, perks, etc. you could have either played for your owner or not played. Things are much more fair now. Owners still own their personal stakes, but it’s a… Read more »
Actually we do refer to the owners of businesses as owners. Its commonplace usage and doesnt refer to slavery. If you work for a private company as an employee you work for the owner (or owners.) If there are more than one we sometimes refer to them as “partners” but that is dependent on industry custom. We don’t refer to CEO’s as owners unless they actually are owners. Google “business owner” and watch the myriad results populate.
I understand that, however, I see a small business and an NBA team as completely different entities. And companies who make as much as sports teams usually don’t have owners. The point is that Sterling, as evidenced by the quote, thinks he “owns” his players in a different sense than a business, and if he left they would presumably go broke and wither without him. Nothing about those comments suggest an employee-employer relationship. And Sterling isn’t the only guy who’s thought this way within the four major sports. Look up Dan Gilbert’s response to LeBron James leaving Cleveland for Miami.… Read more »