CHINESE BASKETBALL

There is a story coming out of the world of sports that, once again, demonstrates how far removed I’ve become from the center of American philosophy. (Perhaps “philosophy” is too grandiose a concept to define behavior where most people are simply knee jerk responding to a set of principles stealthily imposed upon them by media-business interests out to get their money.) Unlike the previous two essays, where my alienation was the result of a debate focused on the wrong issues, in this case, my offense is a supposedly “absurd” answer to an obvious question.

To give the reader an idea of just how unacceptable my attitude has become, let’s hypothetically say the issue for debate was the following: “Do you think it should be legal for a parent to kill a baby who keeps them up at night with its crying?” If my response were “yes”, it wouldn’t be much further from the mainstream than my opinion in the issue about to be discussed … and yet, I find logic in this opinion and consider the perverse attitude that of almost everyone else.

            There is a young basketball player from China who is 7’ 5” tall. This in itself is noteworthy, but even more extraordinary is that he allegedly combines this size with the best skills of a man a foot shorter. This means he could very well be the first player taken in this year’s professional draft. This means he will soon sign a contract for bazillions of dollars. (I can’t remember his name, a mental lapse I will not fault myself for. Trying to remember a Chinese name is something like trying to bring home a glass full of fog.)   

         Up until here, no problem. The average American is thoroughly numb to the mammoth sums of money awarded famous athletes … or even the guy at the end of the bench who never takes off his warm up pants, just as they yawn away the fact that some guy can be 50 million dollars richer from one moment to the next. (See essay “Enron”). Such is the twisted nature of the scale of values they’ve come to accept.

            The plot begins to thicken when the Chinese government puts its more than two cents in, stating it will not permit its star athlete to play in America unless it can claim the better part of his earnings for itself. This is where the American mind set begins to see a perversion it cannot accept. This mind set finds less perversion in a man fielding ground balls for 25 million dollars a year.

            The Chinese government has its rationale for such a philosophy, a rationale the average gringo will never be exposed to, a rationale our objective media swindlers don’t want us to know, a rationale I tend to see less perversion in than a 25 million dollar shortstop.

            When one says the “Government”, in theory, we are saying the “people”. The government is not a business enterprise. The government does not collect money for itself. The government collects money for the people it governs. Now, in the end, how well it is used, where this money ends up, whose pockets get lined, yadda, yadda, are always relevant questions, be it in China, the United States, Timbuktu or Kalamazoo.

            Although China, in the post-Mao era, has become a capitalist society, there are still remnants of the old Communist system. The way athletic endeavor is handled is one of them. Under such a system, athletic activity is considered a part of the cultural patrimony and not viewed as an area for private business enterprise. I can’t say exactly how the Chinese government spends the funds it earmarks for athletic use, but I would hope it goes something like this (and if I am wrong here, it could be used thusly): 1) Much of these funds could serve to maintain and create athletic facilities for the average citizen. Sport is a positive activity, good for the mind, good for the body, fun for the whole family, and the government should give the citizenry the opportunity to practice sport if so desired. 2) Another part of these funds could be used to develop the athlete with a special gift, such as the basketball player in question. This is also a part of the national patrimony and the highest expression of any sporting or creative discipline should be given the opportunity to blossom.

            The talent of this Chinese basketball player has been developed exclusively with public funds. If the ultimate expression of this talent is such that some foreign entrepreneur wants to pay him millions of dollars to exploit this talent for his own private benefit, the Chinese government, as the representative of its citizens, wants to get back some of its investment so it could be used to benefit these citizens. Further justifying this stance is the fact that the athlete in question, contrary to the average American’s understanding of the case, is not being left with the salary of a Beijing street sweeper. He will still come out of this a very rich man.

            Americans tend to forget that almost all our great athletes have benefited greatly from the use of public money. Even as little kids, when we first start throwing a baseball or dribbling a basketball, it is the field in the park or that court down at the schoolyard where we generally get started. As we reach adolescence and begin to show some talent, it is almost always the public school system that begins to more formally hone these talents. All the coaches, facilities, equipment, uniforms, transport, referees, scorekeepers, organization and whatever other accoutrements necessary for sophisticated competition, are provided by the taxpayers. For those of us who show some special talent, the next stop is to play at a great University, where the finishing touches are put on the skills of a possible professional. Most of these Universities are provided by the State, and, although they receive funds from many different sources, public money plays a substantial role in their operations. Even if these athletic programs pay for themselves, the physical plant and the general ambiance and installation of this higher educational ruse used to stage this burlesque, has been created primarily by the citizenry. It’s most likely that the coach who just got you to the Final Four, the same guy who earns millions of dollars more than that chemistry professor competing for the Nobel Prize, has his check signed by someone responsible for the taxpayer’s money.

            Now, there can be no doubt that all of us, in becoming what we are today, have been educated so we can assume the work we do. We all learn to read and write, to do a little arithmetic, making us functional pieces in a modern society. Many of us take our educations beyond these basic standards and assume more sophisticated, professional class jobs; but almost all of us, from stock clerks, to bus drivers, to plumbers, to teachers, to doctors, to scientists, to scholars and beyond, have used public funds to get there, just like Jamal Lightning, professional kick returner has.

            So what’s the difference?

            The difference is this: 1) Those of us who are not professional athletes are generally doing jobs that are more essential for the proper functioning of our society (except for Kenneth Lay and his ilk), and 2) in comparison to the professional athlete, our bank accounts have to be found with a microscope. (Some people might question the essentiality of an egghead scholar specializing in medieval Estonian literature, but at least such person is not earning much differently from the rest of us.)

            At this point, I see Margaret Thatcher raising her hand in the middle of the lecture hall.

            “Yes Margaret.”

            “As long as the market can bear the cost of the 25 million dollar shortstop, the salary is justified. It’s a business decision.”

            Ah Margaret … smart as a whip, that Margaret. But there is an essential element of her own rhetoric that she is conveniently forgetting here. One of the holiest mantras of the free market gurus is that such a philosophy, with its competitive format, will eventually find the best convergence of price and product for the consumer. But the big time sports industry does not really work that way. It has a monopoly on the best players and there is only one place the sports fan can go to see this product. The competitive aspects of this business are limited to the procurement of the players, an expense that is passed on to a consumer with limited options. Instead of producing the best product at the most reasonable price, it produces the best product at the highest price the consumer is willing to pay, a level the entrepreneur is always searching for. In corroborating these thoughts, the next time you go to the game, try to remember what the same ticket cost 15 years ago. Such a business climate regularly engenders radioactive mutants like the 25 million dollar shortstop.

            And now I see Ronald Reagan, who is sitting next to Margaret Thatcher, raising his hand.

            “Yes Ronnie, you have a question?”

            “Yes. I’d like to … uhh …” he leans towards Margaret, who whispers in his ear, “oh yeah … doesn’t our society reclaim a lot of these high salaries through taxation?”

            Ah, Ronnie, Ronnie, Ronnie … the Hollywood President romanticizing a situation that does not, in reality, ride happily off into the sunset. It’s true; the 25 million dollar shortstop does get taxed. He pays more to the Government (the people) than the rest of us do. But he also goes to war with the people (the government) when he hires an army of financial advisors hell bent on having him pay as little as possible. They almost always succeed. The great athlete’s fortune remains pretty much intact.

            Ergo, if the Chinese government, acting as the spokesperson for Chinese society in general, feels this exaggerated, perhaps even perverse worth given to athletes in Occidente is not in harmony with their values, is that such a radical attitude? Are we permitting the murder of the baby that cries too much? Might it not be more reasonable than a 25 million dollar shortstop?

            As an acceptable center-left politician in the United States, I could conceivably suggest the following: Being that the pro athlete has benefited greatly from public funds; and being that he makes gargantuan sums of money in a business that does not respond that naturally to the needs of the consumer; and, due to these circumstances, his inflated salary ends up being paid for by these disenfranchised consumers; I propose: an unavoidable surtax, to be used exclusively for the maintenance and creation of public recreational facilities; 1) of 10% of every dollar made by every professional athlete in the United States; and 2) of 5% on every ticket sold, starting from the collegiate level on up, at every sporting event in the United States.

            Is this such an unthinkable idea? Don’t the consumers of the sporting product, who contribute so much to the perverse amount of money earned by the 25 million dollar shortstop, deserve these facilities? 

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info