Sacrifice: The "King James" Version

Last night’s LeBron James media spectacle was fascinating on so many levels.

First, there was the hour-long special on ESPN: the first time I can recall that a single athlete was able to commandeer an international television network's programming. In prime-time, no less. Second, and in a related fashion, there was the decision itself: so closely guarded and carefully timed it was like watching the teasers for an episode of LOST. Third, and most important, was the range of reactions to the decision.

Loyalty vs. Opportunism

The city of Cleveland was, understandably, upset. Many folks there feel that this was a public slap in the face. Cleveland hasn’t had a whole lot to cheer about with regard to their sports franchises for an awfully long time. Losing LeBron must feel like going back to square one. A lot of folks talk about loyalty and point to the kinds of athletes (like baseball’s Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripkin) who could easily have gone out on the market in search of winning franchises that would pay them gobs of money one year at a time. But those kinds of players are truly exceptions in this day and age. Most players change teams looking for the best deal they can get, whether that comes in the form of money or winning (or both if they are lucky). Why would LeBron even consider loyalty in the age of free agency?

Defending LeBron last night was former NBA player, Mark Jackson. Refuting a point about loyalty and courtesy made by former NBA coach Jeff van Gundy (who wanted LeBron to have at least called the Cleveland ownership ahead of time to let them know what his decision was going to be), Jackson pointed to the fact that dozens of players are traded every year without being informed ahead of time. Loyalty, for Jackson, has to go both ways. And I agree. Players in all sports have fought (and continue to fight) long and hard for more say in their futures.

Sacrifice

But at the same time that Jackson was complicating the point about loyalty, he was making a wrong-headed case for seeing what LeBron (and Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh) did as a “sacrifice.” Apparently the three players, acting in collusion with one another, agreed to take less than their value on the open market in order to allow Miami to afford all three of them. Jackson sees this as a noble sacrifice, one that mitigates, I suppose, the other noble sacrifice that LeBron did not make by staying in Cleveland. In fact, Jackson went so far as to say that he made sure to watch the ESPN special with his kids so they could see the sacrifice and class of this great athlete. What kind of sacrifice are we talking about here? In 2010, LeBron James made $14.4 million in salary alone. That doesn’t include the vale of his endorsements (Forbes guessed that his endorsements brought his annual take up to about $40 million in 2009). And then there’s the issue of taxes. According to a source called “WalletPop” (the veracity of which I have admittedly no clear sense), James’s decision to go to Miami could serve him well come tax time:

Assuming that James took just under $17 million from the Heat (which is probably pretty close to accurate), he would pay no state income tax, leaving him with the same $17 million. If he had gone to New York, even if he nabbed an additional $1.5 million (as the salary difference has been speculated), he would shell out close to $1.7 million in New York state taxes. That doesn't count James' endorsements with companies like Nike, Sprint and McDonald's. Those deals are said to bring in $40 million per year for James, landing him at #19 on the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful celebrities of 2009 (just behind his idol, Michael Jordan)…And that doesn't count other taxes such as local taxes (New York has a bunch) or property taxes (on average, New Yorkers pay a bigger percentage of their income for property taxes than Floridians). In fact, overall, Florida has a fairly attractive tax picture. Compared to other states, it is ranked by the Tax Foundation as 47th in terms of state and local tax burdens; New York, on the other hand is 2nd (just behind New Jersey, the home of the Nets, also desperate to sign James).

So, the bottom line for me is that all this talk of sacrifice is more a product of the drama rather than the reality of the economics. I’ll sing his praises and use him (and his advisors) as examples of an excellent business sense, but I can’t see it as a sacrifice which, to me means considering a greater good and going without something you really could use in order to serve that greater good.

Winning

Of course, the real “greater good” here for LeBron is winning. He said as much. Signing with Miami, he said, gives him “the best opportunity to win and to win now and to win in the future. Winning is a huge thing for me.” Winning is a huge thing for all athletes, of course. But is that what sports is all about? Is it really the greater good? We’ve all heard (and repeated) the clichés about winning not being everything, or “It’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.” And no player in the throes of a competition really buys any of it. That kind of wisdom comes from hindsight and a kind of distanced appreciation of the game. Winning is almost everything for these athletes and for the owners. It’s what puts people in the seats, scores lucrative telecasting contracts, secures endorsement deals, spurs endless complaining about “bad” officiating, etc. When a player goes after the thing – winning -- that will make him or her a superstar (and secure more money and power along the way) we can’t really blame them. But we can’t call it a sacrifice, either.

I say this as someone who really hates losing, but also understands (now) that it’s not the end of the world. In fact, it’s sometimes necessary. And this is precisely why I wouldn’t want my kids to hear that it’s all about winning, even from someone as talented and thoughtful as LeBron James…because at their level of development, it really can’t be. It has to be about learning how to get better, how to work hard, how to really sacrifice, and how to lose.

I don't blame LeBron James for wanting to win. Of course he wants to win. At his level, it really matters. And I don't blame him for seeking a novel way to accomplish that goal. But I do hold him responsible for courting the false rhetoric of sacrifice that people like Mark Jackson picked up on. It's disingenuous.

The Bigger Picture

In a recent issue of the New Yorker, Nancy Franklin wrote a compelling essay on the impact of 3-D technology on television coverage of sports. Franklin admits to being enraptured by the beauty of a sand-trap shot, the ball seeming to come right at her, but at the end of her essay she raised an important point about, well, the whole point.

No one knows yet whether the romance of 3-D will ripen into love, and profits—whether anyone other than compulsive first adopters will find it necessary to their lives. What does seem clear is that 3-D will change the way that sports are presented. The sand-trap shot didn’t reflect how golf really looks; and crowds in stadiums aren’t really thrilling to look at. The risk is that, in order to satisfy the craving that this technology engenders in us, sports producers will distort the particular energies of each sport and try to turn every shot into a highlight.

In much the same way, nobody knows if this “super team” will blossom into the champion that everyone expects them to be (there are little intangibles, like interpersonal “chemistry” that play a large role in a team’s ultimate success or surprising failure – just ask anyone who played for the hapless 1984 Bonita Vista High School baseball team). But one thing is for sure: this arrangement has changed the “particular energies” of not just basketball but all team sports, for better or worse. Like every moment of change, it emerged out of a much longer historical context, but it might be a good catalyst for a larger discussion about what really matters.




What I want my kids to know about competition (and life in general) is that the small things matter just as much as the big things. I want them to know what sacrifice really looks like, what compassion is, how to win graciously and how to lose graciously, too. Watching David high-five his friend, Nathan, after losing a game of Chutes and Ladders to him, or watching Trinity run up and hug her gymnastics teacher because she “just loves gymnastics so much I think my eyes will pop out!” makes me prouder than any game they might win or feat of skill they might demonstrate.

I can’t say that I taught them any of that, but I sure hope they don’t forget it.