“Even Sugar Got Free…”: Black Athletes and the Contradictions of Free Agency

“Even Sugar Got Free…” *: 
Black Athletes and the Contradictions of Free Agency

by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan (in Exile)

One of the common narrative frames of the 2012 playoffs was how the Oklahoma City Thunder did things the “right way.”  Ignoring the team’s move from Seattle, a fact that left Sonics fans with a bitter taste in their mouth, Thunder mania stemmed from the fact that the bulk of their roster was made-up of draft picks and players who arrived via trade.  Embodying a “rags-to-riches” ideology, one that celebrates individuals and institutions that supposedly pull themselves up by their bootstraps (or draft-picks), the celebration of the Thunder makes perfects sense given our national imagination about sports.  In praising the Thunder for choosing to trade several players to acquire endless draft picks (a fact that surely also had to do with the pending sale of the team and dumping salary), fans and media pundits reimagined the Thunder as creating their own destiny. 

This celebratory tone was amplified during the 2012 finals, which pitted the Thunder against the Heat, an organization imagined as everything wrong with sports.  “The fact that we equate the Heat with evil and the Thunder with good reveals one big truth: sports fans and media hate it when a player chooses where he plays, and love it when a player has no choice over where he plays,” writes Nicholas Schwartz. “Writers and fans simply approve when a player has absolutely no choice over where he can play — like the Oklahoma City players dealt through trades — and disapprove when a player has a choice in which uniform he puts on. The criticism of the Heat ‘model’ for winning reveals that sports fans simply don't want athletes to have any power over the course of their careers.”

What is clear from this “logic” and the celebration of the Thunder is that fans and media alike don’t like free agency.  Worse yet, they don’t approve of players, particularly young African American men, determining their own future.  In wake of LeBron James’ decision to take his talents to South Beach, William Rhoden noted the oppositional nature of free agency for the black athlete: “There are many lessons contained in the James free-agency drama. The first is controlling the game, not allowing the game to control you. Here is James, a 25-year-old African-American man with a high school diploma, commanding a global stage.”  The response that he should “shut up and play” where he is told to play reflects the hegemony of white racial framing.  The message is clear: professional basketball players are lucky enough to earn millions of dollars for playing a game, and that the least they can be is grateful, appreciated and loyal to their fans and city. 

The contempt for player movement within the NBA has been on full display in recent years.  The condemnation directed at LeBron James both typified this mentality all while perpetuating the idea that free agency is destroying the league.  On The Bleacher Report, Asher Chancey named James the #1 worst traitor in sports history (the Sonics/Thunders’ owners are no where on the list). “By holding a prime-time news conference to announce to the world that the City of Cleveland was losing one the best athletes in professional sports, LeBron showed all the qualities we suspect our favorite athletes possess but hope they do not,” he notes. “LeBron showed the entire world that he has an enormous ego, he cares about himself first and all others second, and that the game of basketball is just that to him, a game.” 

In other words, in holding a nationally held press conference that millions of people chose to watch, by raising money for the Boys and Girl’s Club, and in exercising his rights under free agency, he was denigrated (and dehumanized) as a traitor.  He was said to be worse than owners who moved their teams to other cities or franchises that fire its workers because of a lockout. 

Telling, no? 

With jerseys burning in the background and fans ranting in virtual spaces, Dan Gilbert made clear his feelings about James and the enterprise of free agency:

As you now know, our former hero, who grew up in the very region that he deserted this evening, is no longer a Cleveland Cavalier.  This was announced with a several day, narcissistic, self-promotional build-up culminating with a national TV special of his “decision” unlike anything ever “witnessed” in the history of sports and probably the history of entertainment. Clearly, this is bitterly disappointing to all of us…. his shocking act of disloyalty from our home grown “chosen one” sends the exact opposite lesson of what we would want our children to learn. And “who” we would want them to grow-up to become. But the good news is that this heartless and callous action can only serve as the antidote to the so-called “curse” on Cleveland, Ohio. The self-declared former "King” will be taking the “curse” with him down south. And until he does “right” by Cleveland and Ohio, James (and the town where he plays) will unfortunately own this dreaded spell and bad karma.

Ray Allen’s recent decision to join the Heat has prompted similar outrage.  Fans have burned his jersey; Jarrett Jack took to twitter to call him a traitor; he has been called “Benedict Allen;” “Judas Shuttlesworth” has become such a common reframe that t-shirts are now available.  He joins, James, Carmelo Anthony and Deron Williams, who both found their way to New York (although traded, they are still condemned for not being loyal), and Dwight Howard, whose indecision has not masked his determination to leave Orlando, as the cited examples of what is wrong with today’s NBA player.  Absent from the list of “traitors” bandied about within the national media has been Steve Nash, who despite ample criticism from fans and media within Phoenix is not required to take the loyalty litmus test.

Charles Moriano sees the power of whiteness within these differential treatments from the national media:

To simply honor Nash’s greatness without studying the incredible white privilege that he receives is to disrespect and dishonor his NBA colleagues. Nash is not only the most under-criticized NBA superstar to never reach the finals, but his smooth escape to LA, candor about the importance of money, and bold statements on “no true loyalty in sports” with no national debate has redefined “Disney World” for Dwight Howard [1].

Allen knows better than to utter Nash’s words, and Lebron’s act (not manner) of joining other stars to chase a ring brought labels of “coward“, “fraud“, and “scared little kid” deserving of an “asterisk” on future titles — and that’s just one article! If Steve rides Kobe’s coattails to a title, will it be tainted? Will it even be debated?

Such actions from Black ballers are regularly met with “get-back-in-your-place-you-spoiled-ungrateful-fill-in-the-racial-code-word-blank” media backlash. Whereas Steve Nash seems to get a pass because he is doing it “for his kids,” the (black) ballers of the new generation are once again cast as selfish pollutants to the league.  

Whether citing loyalty or noting rivalries, owners, fans and sports media continually display their contempt for player movement?  While acknowledging the right of players to take their talents anywhere, Jemele Hill waxes nostalgically for a time where rivalries was part of the NBA fabric:

But I don't know if I'm comfortable with such cozy collaborations among supposedly irreconcilable foes becoming the norm in the NBA. If a player could so easily jump to a team that just beat him in the Eastern Conference Finals -- even if part of the motivation was sticking it to the team that tried to trade him -- that doesn't say much about the state of player and team rivalries in this league,” writes Hill.  “In-season rivalries haven't blocked career decisions in some time, but can you blame me for being Pollyannish and wishing that they still did?”

Players going from one team to a rival is nothing new – Rodman to Bulls and then the Lakers; Horace Grant to the Lakers; Karl Malone and Gary Payton to the Lakers; Robert Horry to the Lakers and then the Spurs; don’t forget Shaq?  Additionally, beyond presuming that the players have all the power in the process, why isn’t Hill and others demanding changes to the collective bargaining agreement, which encourages players to seek out big markets (to make money outside of the sports) all while limiting the ability to teams to retain its role players.  The failure to address these various issues reveals the discomfort and anxiety about (black) players determining their own futures, exercising power in the face of overwhelming white ownership, overwhelmingly white media commentators, and white fans.

One has to wonder if CBS or NBC asked any sports commentator to join their enterprise, would they cite loyalty in declining their offer?  Where is the outage at coaches that coach for rivals, CEOS that parachute from one company to the next, or companies that race to the bottom?  I know they are too busy lamenting Ray Allen to the Heat but the hypocrisy and double standards are thick. 

In 1970, Curt Flood’s life would forever changed and so would the American sports fabric when he wrote the following to Bowie Kuhn:

After twelve years in the major leagues, I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes.  I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States. It is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I am capable of playing.  I have received a contract offer from the Philadelphia club, but I believe I have the right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decisions.  I, therefore, request that you make known to all Major League clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them of my availability for the 1970 season (Flood, 194-195).

Denounced as disloyal, as leading to the destruction of baseball, as being selfish and everything wrong with athletes of his day, Flood’s courage brought about free agency across the sporting landscape.  One has to wonder how those who often celebrate Flood, who invoke his name as evidence of a once politically engaged athlete, can denounce and demonize the players who are merely standing on the shoulders of Flood and Spencer Haywood.  One has to wonder how the blogosphere, how the twitter generation, and how the 24-sports industry that spans ESPN and sports talk, would have treated Flood.  The contempt for player movement and the outrage directed at players who “take their talents” elsewhere is telling in this regard, begging the question of what is “free” in “free agency.”  

***

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He has written on sport, video games, film, and social movements, appearing in both popular and academic mediums. His work explores the political economy of popular culture, examining the interplay between racism, state violence, and popular representations through contextual, textual, and subtextual analysis.  Leonard’s latest book After Artest: Race and the Assault on Blackness was just published by SUNY Press.

* Paul Mooney