The word owner normally
comes with the connotation that one person has possession of another thing.
Golden State Warriors player Draymond Green recently brought up the point that
the professional sports should do away with the term owner and replace it with
the term chairman or something of the sort because “ to be owned by someone
sets a bad precedent to start. It sets the wrong tone. It gives one the wrong
mindset.” These comments I thought at the time were fake deep, but as time and
more news comes out on the mindset of some of these owners starts to come
across the news ticker every night I came to see he was on to something. Dallas
Mavericks owner Mark Cuban came out within twenty four hours to say that Green
owed the NBA an apology because he was trying to equate owning equity in a
company to the ownership of people and that was just plain wrong, but was he?
Since 2008 owners from the NBA’s Donald Sterling to the NFL’s Bob McNair have
been called out for their racial ideologies and have suffered varying degrees
of punishment for their stances. Cuban has a point in his rant, yes, for most
of these billionaires its fulfilling a dream by owning their own professional
sports teams and they do whatever they can for the guys on the their teams. The
problem that Green is pointing out though is that most professional sports are
minority dominated while over 97 percent of the teams are owned and governed by
white men. The racialism of the pro sports world is no secret with these white
men sitting atop with their pockets overflowing with money. The leeway of the
black quarterback in the NFL is often smaller than that of his white
counterpart and the same can be said of black coaches in regardless of sport. I
cannot in my right mind make the comparison to slavery as these world class
athletes make millions of dollars to play schoolyard games, but if they don’t perform
to the standards of what the “owner” envisions himself paying for they are
kicked off their “owners” property. That term owner holds a negative
connotation in the anals of American history. I think both parties are right in
a way. Yes, a lot of these owners will do anything for the communities in which
there teams are located and for the guys on the teams in which they watch from
a luxury suite every night. I would also have to ask “What’s in a name?” why
even associate with a word that has such a negative past with the ancestry of a
majority of your employees when you could hold the same power without it. It
will not be the end of the world if the owners of pro franchises no longer own
that title, but maybe just think about it for your employees.
Hey Bryce,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting thoughts here. I certainly think the term “owner” sounds a little odd for a team of people. Adding to the racial tone is, like you said, the vast majority of players being minorities and the owners being white. The white owner demographic, I believe, is simply due to the wealth demographic in this country. The vast majority of billionaires are white. I think the rubber really meets the road with the precedent, though. The precedent of wealthy whites owning a team of blacks should be enough to make anyone a little uneasy, despite the fact that the players are not enslaved and all the other obvious differences. There is a striking resemblance to the slavery dynamic, however, and if we want to stop idealizing that dynamic and the wealthy plantation owner lifestyle, then we need to get rid of its modern facets. Another example: Bigelow teas has a mint tea called “Plantation Mint.” The whole sittin’ on your porch looking out at your prosperity (and slaves) while enjoying the good life is still very much a culture myth or ideal in southern imagination, and that’s not really a good thing either. Let’s acknowledge the messed up parts of the past so we can get on with a better future without them.
Hi Bryce! Really interesting post, thanks for speaking to both sides of the argument. I totally agree that the word owner is particularly problematic in a system that the majority of owners are white males (and some females ie. the Chicago Bears) while the players are minority dominated. I have been trying to think of what else to call the owner of the team other than the owner... The titles CEO and president are already taken by the CEO and president of the team. I then considered terms such as the bank or the money but figured those wouldn’t catch on… Finally I realized the perfect name for ‘owner’ is majority stakeholder. The owner is just the majority stakeholder in any particular team! What would you call owners if we did away with that term? (anyone can answer this!)
ReplyDeleteI do agree that sports teams should do away with the term owner and replace the word with chairman. The word "owner" itself does send off a bad vibe, especially if there a controversial situation going on in the league of whatever sport it is. As you stated, many owners have already been called out for stating things that may have been seen as racially offensive. The fact that they are referred to as the owner of that team that they may have affected due to some racially sensitive words just adds to the fire of the situation in a way. The term chairman may be even more essential to thesesports being that the majority of owners across all sports are white, and the majority of athletes across many sports are African American. This is where these owners find themselves in a sticky situation and usually start to attract a lot of attention from the media.
ReplyDelete