How we treat people

“Go where you’re treated best.” – Andrew Henderson, “Nomad Capitalist”

This writer received a surprising number of positive messages in response to Saturday’s column expressing gratitude to former national basketball team coach Tab Baldwin. The majority echoed their thanks, and a significant number expressed disappointment at how his exit was handled. A few said outright that he didn’t deserve a hatchet job in at least one media outlet (not The Star), which attempted to justify his exit and downplay his contribution to Philippine basketball.

All the big stories of the past few weeks boil down to one thing: how we treat athletes, how we treat one another. When we talk about athletes and allegations of offenses, it’s business, it’s their livelihood and passion. But often, it’s being turned into a personal issue, a supposed disobedience or lack of loyalty in some cases. When people are provoked, or can find better treatment elsewhere, they leave. Period. More and more, young people are not putting down roots where they’re from, but exploring the world. Studies have borne this out. This generation doesn’t buy houses or cars. They don’t stay put. Ignoring that fact doesn’t invalidate it.

Former ad executive Marianne Cantwell wrote the book “Be A Free Range Human: Escape the 9-5, Create A Life You Love and Still Pay the Bills” in 2013. She foretold that a growing number of people around the world would be dissatisfied with unfulfilling routine and mind-numbing confinement. She showed how it would be possible to earn more, have more leisure, and experience the world from anywhere in it. The book was not released in the Philippines, but still developed a small following. That trend is one factor, a by-product of a tired, century-old American educational system (like this country’s) designed to generate more employees, not leaders, business owners or entrepreneurs.

But there is another factor: the feudal lord system of sports leadership in the Philippines. In simplest terms, many sports leaders are of the mind that athletes (and sometimes coaches) are somehow beholden to them, are their property and owe them outside of the playing arena. It begins in college, when school leagues create rules to curtail student-athletes from transferring to rival colleges in the guise of preventing poaching. Actually, they want to be able to use the players’ talents, even when the said athlete would benefit more from a course in another school. It’s a form of ownership, paid servitude.

Professional sports is similar in many cases, but involving money more than free tuition and perks. Athletes can be traded any time, and it’s a risk of doing business that they assume. But when they change teams, leagues or management or their own volition, pressure is put on them to stay put, or they are branded as ungrateful after having been given a more comfortable life or better income.

I’ve always found this philosophy insulting. It disregards what the athlete has put into the agreement. The athlete has a limited time to be able to perform at the highest level. Therefore, they try to get the most out of any contract they enter into. Mind you, a contract is an agreement between two parties that assume they both bring equal value into the deal. It is not a loan or favor. The athlete (or coach) puts his talent, effort, energy, time and risk of injury into the contract. If it were not fair, then the other side would not sign it. Therefore, once the contract expires, both sides are considered to have done their part. If not, it would have been revised or pre-terminated. So why do team sports association heads, owners, managers, and the like act like they own the player, the athlete as if they did not do anything?

If that outdated belief is not updated, we will continue to have sports leaders trying to shame athletes in public, threaten them with bans or other harm to their livelihood, and so on. Why can’t we just treat them better, as they deserve?