Stand By Their Man

I've heard plenty of angles on the Mike Vick case. I've heard the racist one (would they go after Peyton Manning, who is white, like this?) and the appropriate punishment line (Hey man, they were only dogs. People shoot deer and other animals all the time, what's the big deal?). But, the union should have stood up for him one takes the cake.

Best I can tell, Mr. Bryant's argument goes like this: Sure, Mike Vick was wrong and should go to jail. But, the union should defend his right to work (Bryant doesn't say before, after or during his prison sentence) to show it's not a lackey of the league office. He argues that other sports unions have benefited more from being adversarial, rather than accommodating, with their commissioners.

Each salary system in the three major sports leagues (don't talk to me about hockey) has its pros and cons for the players. Baseball has no salary cap, though the Yankees, Red Sox and sometimes the Dodgers pay a tax for spending too much on players. This has led to a system with many well paid superstars playing for a few teams. Hence, while the World Series winner changes from year to year, there are some teams that start and end the season with no hope of winning. Basketball has a soft salary cap that allows teams to re-sign their own players for the most money, which leads to some stability. Football has a more complicated but 'harder' salary cap, but most contracts are not guaranteed (e.g., if a guy gets hurt he doesn't get paid), but a lot of money is paid up front and is guaranteed.

Football salaries are most closely tied to league revenue of the three in that the amount teams can spend on player salaries is directly proportional to revenues from the TV and other national media contracts, sales of apparel, etc. So, a successful NFL means more money for the players. So, why didn't the union defend the indefensible as Bryant claimed they should have? Because it would have cost the other union members money.

Let's say the union fights and wins for Vick's right to play next season after he gets out of the slam. Next thing you know, Coca-Cola or Bud says, "We are not paying tens of millions of advertising to have PETA up our asses. We are outta here." Then, what if a substantial number of casual fans say, "You know, I'm not gonna watch felons on the field." Then Fox, NBC and ESPN say to the league, "Uh, we're starting to lose money on this deal cause we can't recoup the money from big sponsors pulling out and our ratings are going down. Since you guys caused this, how 'bout a little something back?" The league makes less, then the salary cap goes down, then the players make less. So, is the union's primary responsibility to keep one guy employed or to protect the wages of the other 400 or so members?

Also, let's say the union fights and wins Vick's right to play. What team will hire him? He's an amazing talent, but the Falcons have been a .500 team with him the last four years. What owner is going to put up with protests, tougher to sell tickets, and all the other bullshit that will come with Vick for an average quarterback due a superstar's salary? Yeah, there might be one or two, but I doubt it. The union can't force a team to sign him.

Should a union fight for a member who's being denied his/her right to work under a contract. Absolutely. Those rights were fought and bargained for. Should it jeopardize the earning potential of the rest of its members to make a point so they can win some undetermined victory in the future? I don't think so.