This is remotely connected wiht the Rockets, but I think it's an important question that needs to be addressed. The media and fans have displayed a great disdain for sports players, deeming them spoiled and undeserving of their multi-million dollar contracts. One such incident is the recent Ron Artest situation where some members of the media advocated trading the player or benching him without pay because of his request for a rest. Some members of this site have used the word hate for Steve Francis because he complained of lack of being involved in players and also when he hesitated on accepting the Mcgrady deal. You often hear the argument, "The guy's making 10 million such dollars a year--what does he have to complain about?" This similar argument was made against players such as Terell Owens in his Baltimore trade situation and Allen Iverson with his disputes with Larry Brown a few years ago. I ask this question. Why is it so easy to judge these players and deem them spoiled when movies stars and muscicians make millions? Why aren't they seen as spoiled and undeserving? Why are these people against players and not agains actors and singers? Also, what is the difference between people who complain about their jobs and their bosses and players like TO, Iverson, and Ron Artest. How many people do you know want longer vacations and breaks? Fans have to understand that life in the NBA or any other sports isn't easy. You constantly travel and work virtually everyday for 7-8 months without any vacation time. Not even a day off when you want it as opposed to the real working world where you can take some days off for yourself. These players expose their bodies to extreme physical exertions and pressures from the media and fans to perform. So before criticize and demean players we should look at ourselves.
Look, in a given work place you have varying different type of personalities. One of those personalties is one of a complainer and a spoiled whiner, essentially a malcontent. In any given occupation, most of us can't dictate or demand our own terms to our superiors. A professional sport athelete (on the top most stage) seems to be able to do this; they seem to be able to easily break the contracts and 'shut it down' as so to speak. Additonally, the atheletes you mentioned use the media for their own agenda. Just look at how much propaganda Artest is getting. As a result, I personally consider them fair game in terms of criticism. You also forget that these atheletes are paid by US, the FANS; and thus in some sense we're they're boss too. The only reason they make so much is because we're willing to pay for them. So then ask yourself this, would you want an employee like Ron Artest?
because a contract is an obligation. and when you're being richly rewarded, people expect some level of effort, if not performance/results. when someone says, "hey, yeah..i signed that contract...and i still want the jack...but, man, i think i'd like to try my hand at music," that will never be well received. not among average fans. particularly when those fans are asked to shell out HUGE dollars to watch these guys play games they apparently don't care that much about.
Let me ask you this. If you believe in this logic that athletes seem to dictate to their superiors and usually get their way, do you believe that other professions such as actors, musicians are also in the same category as athletes? You should, following your line of logic. YOu think Tom Cruise and these other guys don't uise their star power for leverage in contract situations? Secondly, what you said about players using the media are generalizations and assumptions. There's no proof Artest is using this as a publicity stunt. There are players who may do this, such as Rodman, but you have no proof Francis and Iverson do this. Not all players are alike. They are simply assumptions. You do have a valid point on resenting their ability to break the contracts. My problem is that fans and the media make generalizations and lump players into one big category. If a player speaks out about something such as playing time, that player is considered a whiner and troblemaker. Why can't players criticize the performance of the coach? What does money have to do with a player being unhappy or upset about the direction of the team or a transaction? SO just because you make 10 mill a year means you can't criticize the coach or the league? It means you can't ask for a day of rest? There is a dangerous perception here of the athlete as a threat because he speaks out against the organization. Why fans and the media do not tolerate players speaking out is something alarming. Is it that we view these players as ignorant bafoons who just need to play ball and have no say in anything? I don't know if this is the underlying perception from fans and the media, but if so this is a very dangerous position to take.
At least he isn't like one of those hollywood types & saying that he refuses to play because Bush got re-elected. I remember last year on 610 they were talking about artest for mobley or francis. damn, I am happy that never happened.
Dude, where are you posting in? What kind of forum are you in? This is a BASKETBALL forum. Why do you expect us to talk about Tom Cruise?
Let me ask you a question. Did you know about Artest's album until this incident happend? It was reported that Artest requested time off (from Donnie Walsh) due to personal health and family issues. The next thing he does is go to the media and talk about how he's taking time off due to the several issues including obligations to his album release. Donnie Walsh was then asked if he knew anything about this album, and Walsh reportedly said all he know was that Artest requested timeoff for personal health and family issues. If Artest wanted to keep things away from the media, he could've of said he was taking time off for personal reasons, but he didn't did he. Look, I never said I had a problem with Francis. But TO and Iverson are other stories we can discuss later.
Players can't criticize their coaches? Where have you been the last several years? Your boy Iverson criticized Larry Brown to the media. Kobe Bryant was known to be critical of Phillip and the Triangle Offense. What about JKidd and Coach Bryon Scott? To me, you seem to turn a blind eye to what the players say and do. Look here's another way to look at the Artest situation. You own a company where one of your top employees is Artest. He's one of the leaders in your company. The whole goal of your company is to acheive a specific goal by a certain deadline. Thousands of people are supporting your company, and plus all your other employees look at Artest as a company leader and key component. A few weeks into this campaign, Artest goes up to you and says, "I gotta take a few weeks off to work on my other job". Answer my question directly, tbui, what would you say? More importantly, how would you feel? Are the goals of your company no longer a priority?
You gotta be kidding? Music, movies > basketball They are a form of art, which offer mankind a lot more than basketball ever could.. Although some are just jackasses, spoiled with connections and no talent with nothing to offer to anything cultural. And those do get criticized, a lot worse than basketball players for their highly paid shortcommings.
Don't think this was mentioned. Because pro athletes in the NBA and NFL work under a salary cap, all the fans know this and we all dream up trade scenarios that are even predicated on getting a soon to be expiring contract or relieveing ourselves of a bad contract. Basically it's just a much more fan salient part of the whole entertainment package. People do complain about how much money other entertainers make, like the Simpsons and Friends cast awhile back when they were making crazy demands. Thing of it is, how often do you hear how much an actor or musician makes? Or complaining about it? You really don't or at least nowhere near the extent that it happens in sports. Also look at the situation with the NHL right now. Players don't want a cap owners do blah, blah, blah. NBA lockout a few years back including I think it was Ewing's now infamous quote "yeah we make a lot of money but we spend a lot of money too." MLB has had a strike and will probably have another. How often do you hear about a movie company locking out it actors or an artist striking from his record label?
My point is that for the most part the media and fans are quick to condemn players who speak out and the argument turns into one involving money, which doesn't make much sense to me. If a player is upset let him be. Now I make no illusions saying players aren't responsible. Take Sprewell's comments about feeding his family, now that was stupid and deserves to be criticized and made fun of by the media and fans. But things like what Francis said of Van Gundy's offense and Iverson shouldn't be condemned. Now, If I were a front office guy in the Pacers organization, of course I wouldn't be happy. But I fail to see how this is different than someone leaving Waterhouse Coopers or JP Morgan for another job. Why is this different. Please explain to me. Of course the execs and the managers are upset but hey, they can't do anything about that now can they? In Artest's case, he was stupid and revealed his musical gig. He could've just said he needed some rest and ended it. Hey, people in the corporate take time off all the time. For health reasons or other job interviews. The problem here is how do you punish Artest. The pacers have to make that decision. Either fire him from the job, trade him, jeep him. Make a damn decision. The problem is it's difficult since the guy's talented and the "pool of employees"in the NBA is so small that there are few better than Artest that could be traded for him.
Actually, from what I heard, what Sprewell said was out of context. I believe (note the qualifier here) that he was just joking around, and the reporters took that and pasted it into a whole different context. Players criticizing their coach's game plan is fine...I really don't mind that at all.
The thing is they should keep that kind of stuff out of the media and behind closed doors. If you have a problem with your boss do you send out some mass e-mail to complain about it and justify your actions? No you sack up go in his office and tell him to his face about your concerns. Now I know things leak out and the only way the talking heads keep their jobs is to have these love spats to jeer at, but it seems like sports is going the way of wrestling, where the attraction is the sideshow.
What the difference here is, is that Artest is not leaving the Pacer's organization for another job. If that were the case he would simply retire. He's coming back. When people / employees are depending on you to give your personal best and you don't for your own personal reasons, that's called taking advantage of the system. There could've have been several ways that Artest could have avoided this situation. He could've released the album during the NBA offseason. He could've let management know ahead of time. Look, Shaq released an album didn't he. I don't have a problem with that at all. tbui, there's a professional way to handle things, and then there's an immature and selfish way. Those are only two ways of many, but guess which one Artest chose. You seem to forget that in our analogy, that there's a deadline, a specific deadline with a specific goal in mind. Every game counts in the NBA. For example, if the company we are discussing about was a software company, Artest would be one of the lead / principal programmers and the specific goal in mind would be some software that had a release date months from now.
I think you already know the answer to your question, and are just egging us until we say what you want, but here's my two cents. many people hold the same attitude towards athletes as they do musicians and actors and celebrities. However, if you break down their talents we have three groups, 1) intelligence 2) artistic creativity 3) athletic ability (we assume none of these overlap and each "star" is only one of the three. so we have three people earning $10 million a year, the CEO, the musician/actor, and the basketball player. All of them earn the same but recieve different amounts of respect. People are more likely to listen to a CEO when he speaks because he shows his brain works, less people will listen to the artisan but some will, and few will listen to the athlete. As a society, while we are willing to pay each of the equally, based upon their economic contribution to their industries (let's assume this is true), we do not consider the people to be equal. Historically, the intelligent ones are supposed to make the most, the artisans are in the middle and the physically gifted are at the bottom, as they are either used for labor, war or entertainment. Brains over brawn, always, those who create most while exerting the least amount of physical labor are seen more as people and less as animals (who are all physical). Because of this historical and societal norm which has been around for centuries, that is why we tend to disrespect the athletes complaints and say they are less deserving of their earnings.
Ahhh, the social contructionalist's point of view...interesting. Anyways, here's my final note, because I really want this thread to die. I'll go back to original two questions: I ask this question. Why is it so easy to judge these players and deem them spoiled when movies stars and muscicians make millions? Why aren't they seen as spoiled and undeserving? Why are these people against players and not agains actors and singers? It's easy to jude these players because their occupation is in a public forum. Movie stars, politicians, musicians, and professional athletes know that public scrutiny is part of their job. They can take it or they can leave it. And as somebody noted earlier, the other public professions are indeed viewed as spoiled and underserving as well. ClutchBBS is not a forum where you'll find these criticisms. Also, what is the difference between people who complain about their jobs and their bosses and players like TO, Iverson, and Ron Artest. How many people do you know want longer vacations and breaks? Essentially, there's nothing wrong about complaining about a coach's gameplan or a coach's methods. The preferred method would be to keep the situation in house (like PhillyRocket mentioned). But if a player does criticize a coach's plan or whatnot, then they leave themselves open to criticism as well. Why can't fans, writers, or analyst criticize a player? And like I said earlier, if players wanted longer vacations or more breaks, then a player can handle this professionally via different channels like the players' union. But it seems to me, that the players that you mentioned (Iverson, TO, and Artest) only really care about themselves. That's it I'm done. I'm getting off the soapbox now. Cheers!
so the CONSUMER controls the company. . . Does this mean Since I got a Dell I can malign some poor smuck that is drilling in 1000 CD Roms a nite Rocket River
I disagree with you Nyquil. I haven't embarassed or attacked anyone. I haven't said I was 100% right and that everyone else is wrong. I am opening this up to discussion. that's all.
