I sometimes wonder how people would react if the same principles that govern society were applied to professional athletics.
For example, if we are our brother’s keeper, if need is a legitimate claim on the property of others, then shouldn’t the Green Bay Packers give Aaron Rogers to the Cleveland Browns? Rogers is clearly one of the elite quarterbacks in the NFL, and the Browns desperately need a good quarterback. A trade would be out of the question, because the Packers would get some value in return (such a trade would probably require half of the Browns team). No, the Packers should just give Rogers away, and their only reward will be the knowledge that they helped someone in need.
Or, since we live in a democracy, shouldn’t the “will of the people” prevail when it comes to strategy during a game? Why should the elitist manager or coach be the only one making decisions? Shouldn’t the fans be allowed to vote when it comes time to decide whether to walk Albert Pujols or go for it on fourth down?
And speaking of elistists, we need an affirmative action program for professional sports. Professional sports do not reflect the racial makeup of society. As an example, blacks comprise about 80 percent of the National Basketball Association (NBA), which far exceeds their ratio in the American population. Clearly, the white owners of NBA teams are discriminating against their own people, as well as Asians and Hispanics.
And what about professional golf? Professional golfers only get paid when they perform well. In fact, they often play for two days, and if they “miss the cut,” they get paid nothing. Not only are they forced to work for free, they must often suffer the humiliation of being told that they aren’t good enough.
Of course, the previous three paragraphs were written in sarcasm. Any rational person understands that applying such ideas to athletics would drive fans away and destroy the respective sports. Athletics are about the pursuit of excellence, and to use any other criteria—such as need, “the will of the people,” or “social justice”—makes a mockery of that pursuit.
As absurd as these ideas would be when applied to athletics, we witness them applied to our lives every day. We are forced to financially support entitlement programs because of the needs of the poor. We are compelled to act contrary to our own judgment, and instead abide by the dictates of “the people.” Businesses are forced to give consideration to factors other than skills and expertise when hiring or promoting. Employees and employers cannot reach mutually acceptable terms of employment, but must instead abide by labor laws established by politicians and bureaucrats.
If these ideas are absurd when applied to a game, why are they taken seriously when applied to our lives? Life is not a game.