For the first part to this post, see “King James? Or James El Rey?"
I feel like I should start by clarifying my problem. I’m not mad at Shaquille O’Neal for making more than Tuvalu. Ultimately, it’s not really his fault. I’m also not really concerned with whether European basketball threatens the NBA’s dominance on the world. I have opinions on the matter, and much more can be written, but that’s not really the point of these posts. (In fact, I’m not entirely sure where I’m going with this. I just know that something strikes me about this whole scenario, and I feel the need to express what seems like an all too familiar trend. After all, what good is a blog if you can’t write stuff like this? :-) These are not complete thoughts; they’re really more the start of a discussion. Feel free to chime in. But back to “the point.”)
The point lies beneath the surface, and the NBA is just one of the many areas where it manifests itself. It is a pervasive idea that undergirds almost every business model and personal financial plan in this country. It is the insatiable and inherently unattainable quest for one thing: more.
Everyone in America may like what they have, but what they really want is more. Sure, Donald Trump’s got a lot of cash. But why does he keep building hotels and casinos? He wants more. Maybe he has to take in a lot of cash to maintain that dying animal on his head he calls a haircut. Or maybe it’s just that he’s not satisfied with what he has. Maybe it’s not even money that he wants more of. Maybe it’s fame … prestige … power. It’s a rabbit trail that has no end.
This is the issue with these pro athletes. The guys I mentioned in the last post make PLENTY of money, and most have plenty of prestige and fame. They don’t need more money. They just want it. Sure, you get your taxes taken care of in Europe, and the team typically provides a house and a car. But come on. Are these guys really struggling to pay their mortgages? They don’t care about a house payment. They care about more. LeBron James isn’t thinking about playing in Europe cause he needs the cash. He’s said that he would entertain these offers in order to make a statement – to brand himself as a global icon. He’s already one of the most recognizable figures on the planet. But he wants more.
It’s not just in the billionaires, either. It’s right around the corner, in your own neighborhoods. People want more money so they can have bigger houses, nicer cars, more stuff. Why? They probably couldn’t tell you. They just want it. Sure, that stuff brings a level of comfort, but are they really uncomfortable where they are? And if so, isn’t it really due mostly to a comparison with people that have more? I know I’m not dissatisfied with my ’97 Nissan Maxima until I see one of my friends with a 2007 BMW. Then all of a sudden I’m not so “comfortable” anymore.
I just bought a new iPhone 3G about a month ago. Why? I have no idea. Steve Jobs told me to, I guess. It’s not that it’s not cool, or useful. It is. I love it. But why did I buy it? I really have no answer, other than to say that I wanted it. Which begs the question, why did I want it? The answer to that is probably a little less comfortable.
Please understand – there’s nothing inherently wrong with buying an iPhone, or wanting a nicer house or car. There are plenty of times when the Lord blesses us with financial benefits that can be used for our own pleasure and enjoyment. What I’m more concerned with is the attitude that underlies everything. So often we just want more for more’s sake. What sense does that make? Where is that in a biblical worldview? And more practically, where does it end?
God typically does not take kindly to those who squander wealth in frivolity and lavishness while people go hungry and lack basic human needs. Deuteronomy, for example, mandates several provisions for the people of Israel to take care of those in need in their community. The Lord saw this quest for more imbedded in human nature and expected his covenant people to rise above it. I believe he asks his new covenant people, the church, to do the same thing.
At this point I suppose I could go into a rant about how Jesus is the answer to our quest for more, and that he is the only one that truly satisfies. But I kinda hate that, to be honest. It’s not that there’s not an element of truth in it, it’s just that I hate trying to make Jesus fit in a Sprite commercial – like he’s the one that truly quenches your thirst for more toys. He doesn’t. If you are obsessed with a desire to have more on this earth and find true satisfaction and happiness in it, you will find Jesus fantastically disappointing. He won’t give you more, he’ll ask you to be content with less. It’s not that he wants to make you miserable, but he certainly doesn’t want you getting fat off your own blessing.
The truth is, true satisfaction really is found in Jesus, but it’s not the same satisfaction we search for. He won’t provide the answer to your quest for more, because there is no answer. It’s a bogus quest. In fact, in many ways, Jesus offers a respite from satisfaction itself. He offers a way out of the rat race for more by reorienting our focus. We no longer have to scramble to build and maintain our own kingdom out of the fool’s gold of this world, but instead we can follow him in building God’s kingdom on earth – a kingdom that is built on a sure foundation and will never fade.
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
King James? Or James El Rey? (Part 1)
Wow, two sports posts in one day? I know, call me one dimensional. Truth is, I was planning on posting this thought today, and when the Favre news hit, I just couldn’t resist. Rest assured, though I might mention sports every now and again, this is by no means an exclusive sports blog. Breathe easy, female readership (read: Mom).
I wanted to mention this, because it’s a fascinating story in the early stages of its development, and its implications are far beyond the realm of sports. It seems quite a few people are choosing to play ball in Europe rather than the NBA. For those of you new to the story, let me catch you up to date.
The craze started a few months ago when Brandon Jennings, one the top 5 high school recruits in the country (ranked #1 by some services), reneged on his commitment to Arizona to sign with an Italian team. Most people still expect him to declare for the NBA draft next year, but he has set a precedent for high school recruits looking to get around the one-and-done rule. Why go to college and make a mockery of an educational institution by labeling yourself a “student-athlete” (seriously?) for nine months when you can essentially take a year-long vacation, make some euros, and dunk on some Serbian fools? I’d certainly be tempted.
People have noticed this was an option ever since the one-and-done rule was put into effect, but Jennings is the only player (at least certainly the most notable) to actually take advantage of it. But the story doesn’t stop there. Ever since Jennings’ decision, several NBA players have left the league for the seemingly greener pastures of the Euro-league. Carlos Arroyo (formerly of the Orlando Magic) recently signed to play with a team in Tel-Aviv, and Earl Boykins (a 10-year veteran most recently with the Charlotte Bobcats) just became Italy’s Virtus Bologna’s (insert lunchmeat joke here) highest paid player, making around $3.5 million for the upcoming season.
So what’s the big deal? Is the league really mourning the loss of Carlos Arroyo and Earl Boykins? Not really. It’s part of a growing trend of parity on the global stage, though. Americans were shocked to discover that other countries actually had players on par with the USA’s best when the Americans were defeated in the 2004 Olympics twice, earning a bronze medal for their efforts, and bested again in the 2006 World Championships. That was one thing, but now to have players like Boykins, who’s never played outside the NBA in his career, be lured overseas is cause for a little concern.
But it gets worse. The biggest name to head overseas recently is ex-Atlanta Hawk’s forward Josh Childress. He’s not exactly a household name, but he was a solid contributor for the Hawks (who nearly upset the champion Boston Celtics this year in the playoffs), and was the 6th overall draft pick taken in the 2004 NBA draft. He’s no scrub. He’s no slouch, either, as he’s now making about $20 million over 3 years for Greek powerhouse Olympiacos.
But the biggest news of all is that reports have surface that LeBron James, the king himself, would entertain offers to play in Europe “for a year or two” when he becomes a free agent in 2010. In fact, he’s already talked to teams in Moscow and the aforementioned Olympiacos team in Greece. Now, his condition is that the offer is for $50 million per year, but still. Can you imagine the fallout if the NBA’s golden boy ditched the league to play in Europe? Commissioner David Stern would have a stroke.
See, lots of NBA players leave to play in Europe. This year alone, the following players have left for European pastures: Nenad Krstic, Juan Carlos Navarro, Jorge Garbajosa, Carlos Delfino, Bostjan Nachbar, and Primoz Brezec, in addition to the above named players. But even the casual observer will note a common thread in these guys: they ain’t from ‘round these parts. They all came from overseas, and played for professional squads over there. Their leaving isn’t that big of a concern, because it’s happened for years, and it makes sense. But Josh Childress played ball at Stanford, and grew up in California. LeBron James is from Akron, Ohio -- how less foreign can he be?
So why would these guys leave the greatest league on earth to play for such “lesser” teams? Well, it actually makes a lot of sense. For one, at the time of this writing, $1 is worth about 0.65 euros, and that’s the highest I’ve seen it in a while. Also, the money in Europe is essentially tax free, as teams usually pay their athletes’ taxes for them. Also typically in the deal is a free house and car. And to top it all off, there is no salary cap in Europe. Some team would actually be allowed to pay LeBron $50 mil, if they could afford it (and it’s not out of the question by any means). No NBA team can even hope to match that. For comparison, the salary cap last year was set at $55.63 million per team. Match a $50 million offer, and you couldn’t afford to pay me. OK, you could afford me, but not much else. And yes, I know there are salary cap exceptions, but my point still stands. No salary cap > salary cap.
Plus, if you were an athlete in the prime of your life, where would you rather live? Cleveland, Ohio or Athens, Greece (home of Olympiacos)? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
But here’s my point in all this: where does it end?
Undoubtedly, once the collective bargaining agreement is up in 2011, there will be an outcry from the players to boost the salary cap (or eliminate it) to compete with the money being offered overseas. But is that really the solution? Pay our professional athletes more money? I would imagine the average working man would balk at that, rightfully so. After all, increased salaries ultimately mean increased ticket prices, and a quick glance at the economy today suggests that isn’t exactly a change people would be welcome to.
Is catering to our athletes even more really what America needs? This is the problem inherent with America – indeed, with capitalism itself. There is no possible way to satisfy the greed of human beings. Every year athletes are whining and pouting that they’re not being paid enough when they’ve already seen more money than 99% of the world will ever see. In the 2007-2008 season, Shaquille O’Neal made about $21 million. The country of Tuvalu, a small nation in the Polynesian islands, posted a GDP in 2007 of $15 million. Think Tuvalu is insignificant? What about Zimbabwe? They’re only worth about 30 Shaqs. And they have more than 13 million people living there. 1.8 million of them live with HIV, and the life expectancy for females is 34 (males are 37).
Something is wrong here.
I wanted to mention this, because it’s a fascinating story in the early stages of its development, and its implications are far beyond the realm of sports. It seems quite a few people are choosing to play ball in Europe rather than the NBA. For those of you new to the story, let me catch you up to date.
The craze started a few months ago when Brandon Jennings, one the top 5 high school recruits in the country (ranked #1 by some services), reneged on his commitment to Arizona to sign with an Italian team. Most people still expect him to declare for the NBA draft next year, but he has set a precedent for high school recruits looking to get around the one-and-done rule. Why go to college and make a mockery of an educational institution by labeling yourself a “student-athlete” (seriously?) for nine months when you can essentially take a year-long vacation, make some euros, and dunk on some Serbian fools? I’d certainly be tempted.
People have noticed this was an option ever since the one-and-done rule was put into effect, but Jennings is the only player (at least certainly the most notable) to actually take advantage of it. But the story doesn’t stop there. Ever since Jennings’ decision, several NBA players have left the league for the seemingly greener pastures of the Euro-league. Carlos Arroyo (formerly of the Orlando Magic) recently signed to play with a team in Tel-Aviv, and Earl Boykins (a 10-year veteran most recently with the Charlotte Bobcats) just became Italy’s Virtus Bologna’s (insert lunchmeat joke here) highest paid player, making around $3.5 million for the upcoming season.
So what’s the big deal? Is the league really mourning the loss of Carlos Arroyo and Earl Boykins? Not really. It’s part of a growing trend of parity on the global stage, though. Americans were shocked to discover that other countries actually had players on par with the USA’s best when the Americans were defeated in the 2004 Olympics twice, earning a bronze medal for their efforts, and bested again in the 2006 World Championships. That was one thing, but now to have players like Boykins, who’s never played outside the NBA in his career, be lured overseas is cause for a little concern.
But it gets worse. The biggest name to head overseas recently is ex-Atlanta Hawk’s forward Josh Childress. He’s not exactly a household name, but he was a solid contributor for the Hawks (who nearly upset the champion Boston Celtics this year in the playoffs), and was the 6th overall draft pick taken in the 2004 NBA draft. He’s no scrub. He’s no slouch, either, as he’s now making about $20 million over 3 years for Greek powerhouse Olympiacos.
But the biggest news of all is that reports have surface that LeBron James, the king himself, would entertain offers to play in Europe “for a year or two” when he becomes a free agent in 2010. In fact, he’s already talked to teams in Moscow and the aforementioned Olympiacos team in Greece. Now, his condition is that the offer is for $50 million per year, but still. Can you imagine the fallout if the NBA’s golden boy ditched the league to play in Europe? Commissioner David Stern would have a stroke.
See, lots of NBA players leave to play in Europe. This year alone, the following players have left for European pastures: Nenad Krstic, Juan Carlos Navarro, Jorge Garbajosa, Carlos Delfino, Bostjan Nachbar, and Primoz Brezec, in addition to the above named players. But even the casual observer will note a common thread in these guys: they ain’t from ‘round these parts. They all came from overseas, and played for professional squads over there. Their leaving isn’t that big of a concern, because it’s happened for years, and it makes sense. But Josh Childress played ball at Stanford, and grew up in California. LeBron James is from Akron, Ohio -- how less foreign can he be?
So why would these guys leave the greatest league on earth to play for such “lesser” teams? Well, it actually makes a lot of sense. For one, at the time of this writing, $1 is worth about 0.65 euros, and that’s the highest I’ve seen it in a while. Also, the money in Europe is essentially tax free, as teams usually pay their athletes’ taxes for them. Also typically in the deal is a free house and car. And to top it all off, there is no salary cap in Europe. Some team would actually be allowed to pay LeBron $50 mil, if they could afford it (and it’s not out of the question by any means). No NBA team can even hope to match that. For comparison, the salary cap last year was set at $55.63 million per team. Match a $50 million offer, and you couldn’t afford to pay me. OK, you could afford me, but not much else. And yes, I know there are salary cap exceptions, but my point still stands. No salary cap > salary cap.
Plus, if you were an athlete in the prime of your life, where would you rather live? Cleveland, Ohio or Athens, Greece (home of Olympiacos)? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
But here’s my point in all this: where does it end?
Undoubtedly, once the collective bargaining agreement is up in 2011, there will be an outcry from the players to boost the salary cap (or eliminate it) to compete with the money being offered overseas. But is that really the solution? Pay our professional athletes more money? I would imagine the average working man would balk at that, rightfully so. After all, increased salaries ultimately mean increased ticket prices, and a quick glance at the economy today suggests that isn’t exactly a change people would be welcome to.
Is catering to our athletes even more really what America needs? This is the problem inherent with America – indeed, with capitalism itself. There is no possible way to satisfy the greed of human beings. Every year athletes are whining and pouting that they’re not being paid enough when they’ve already seen more money than 99% of the world will ever see. In the 2007-2008 season, Shaquille O’Neal made about $21 million. The country of Tuvalu, a small nation in the Polynesian islands, posted a GDP in 2007 of $15 million. Think Tuvalu is insignificant? What about Zimbabwe? They’re only worth about 30 Shaqs. And they have more than 13 million people living there. 1.8 million of them live with HIV, and the life expectancy for females is 34 (males are 37).
Something is wrong here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
