So what does this mean for the future? Is it an anomaly or will players continue to dictate where they will play? Granted, they have to become free agents first (various by sport but is 5-6 years usually), but that's when most players are really becoming "stars".
Contracts in most sports are becoming shorter and shorter as they are, other than the NFL, guaranteed. It's easy to see a scenario where every couple of years the stars decide to create "super teams" to almost guarantee a championship. To counter this trend, the owners could try to lock up stars for longer contracts, but will they opt for getting stuck in Kansas City or Toronto and guaranteed money or will they choose to play for teams where they can win?
This could really be an interesting next decade in sports from the perspective of free agency. I'm concerned more than anything because while team owners haven't had a great track record, at least they are business people with some common sense. Having players dictating things would be like inmates running the asylum.
4 comments:
Should be interesting. I suspect there will be more problems than expected. Getting three egos to work together is no easy accomplishment
Oh, I am sorry for Cleveland - I know he was a big source of pride for them (though what that says about Cleveland I will not muse upon...)
"at least they are business people with some common sense"
How can you say that when almost every professional league has had to implement a salary cap because their owners were too stupid to say "no" on their own?
Eric I think a salary cap is an inevitability in sports stemming from two things: unequal market revenues (revenue sharing doesn't do nearly enough) and the free market system of free agency. You can't say no if half of you are saying YES! It's doesn't make them bad businessmen; in fact, it shows that they are the ultimate capitalistic businessmen.
Post a Comment