Michael Jordan was as revolutionary a player as there ever was. But as an NBA owner, he's become part of that which he overcame.
Nov 9, 2011 - Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. -- Animal Farm
In George Orwell's classic novel, on one level an allegory for the Soviet Union under Stalin, the worker animals spy on a meeting between the pigs and the other farmers. The book begins with the pigs leading a revolution to overthrow the tyranny of man on their farm, but over time, they slowly start to look and act like the humans they once hated.
By the end, owning the farm changes the pigs so much the other animals no longer recognize them. For Orwell, who wrote the book after narrowly escaping the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, it was the way of all insurrections: the revolutionaries become the oppressors.
And there were few basketball players more revolutionary than Michael Jordan. He wasn't content to be a great player; he figured he had as much right to the money his basketball ability generated for the NBA as the owners. He was an employee of the Chicago Bulls, but he was the boss of Brand Jordan.
In the 1995 labor negotiations, he was one of the hard-liners pushing the union to decertify in order to get the best possible deal. That deal ended up being very good to him: he made $33 million in each of the 1996-97 and 1997-98 seasons. In all likelihood, when adjusted for inflation, no NBA player will ever make as much in a single season.
That's because, in 1999, the owners cut a deal with the "middle-class" of veteran role players to cap the salaries of the stars who would come after Jordan. And while he retired rather than take a drastic pay cut, Jordan was still at the center of the negotiations. When former Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin complained of the financial difficulties he was facing, Jordan famously replied that "if you can't make it work economically, you should sell the team."
No player knew how to make the NBA work economically better than Jordan. He redefined "crossing over", leveraging his athletic fame to become a commercial icon and scoring lucrative sponsorship deals with All-American companies like McDonald's, Hanes and Gatorade.
Even in 2011, eight years after his final retirement, he earned nearly $60 million in advertisements. Jordan made more money than Kobe or LeBron last year; now he wants them to accept drastic pay cuts so he can make even more.
When he bought the Charlotte Bobcats in 2010, he wasn't just becoming the second black man to ever own a major professional sports franchise in the United States. He was also the first former NBA player to be a majority owner of an NBA franchise: "Here's the difference between rich and wealthy," Chris Rock once said in a stand-up routine. "Shaq is rich; the white man who signs his check is wealthy."
The difference, as Rock explained, is generational. Wealth is something you can hand down to your kids and grand kids. It's owning assets that appreciate in value, things which let your money make money for you. More than anything else, it's being part of the right club.
Jay-Z, a minority owner of the New Jersey Nets used mostly to distract the media from the shady land deal that allowed for the construction of their new Brooklyn stadium, isn't in it. Jordan is.
Wealth allows a family to stay atop society even if the talent skips a generation. Jordan's oldest son, Jeffrey, is a 6'1 guard who walked on at Illinois and averaged 1.2 points a game in three seasons before transferring to Central Florida to play with his younger brother Marcus. Marcus is a 6'3 junior guard who averaged 15.2 points on 40.6% shooting for the Knights last season.
Jordan had to beat astronomical odds to become a professional athlete. Pro sports are just the family business for his sons. You don't need to be an NBA player to become an NBA executive; you just need to know the right people. Jeffrey and Marcus Jordan will one day control a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars; Jay-Z's children are free to keep purchasing front-row tickets.
Jordan was born before the passage of the Civil Rights Act and grew up in a small North Carolina city that was a major port for the Confederate Navy. His parents worked at an electric plant and a bank; their son is one of the key decision-makers in boardroom negotiations worth billions of dollars.
He is the American Dream: a man who used hard work and ingenuity to climb the economic ladder all the way to the top, a worker who earned enough capitol to become an owner. But in the process, he's aligned himself with people he once loathed against people just like him who are fighting to hang on to the very successes he once fought so hard for. That's the part of the American Dream we prefer not to think about.
As Orwell reminds us in Animal Farm, every utopia has a dark side.
26 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
This guy...
"I could never be a thug, they don't dress this well." - Malice
by Julius Coxswain on Nov 9, 2011 10:11 AM EST reply actions
Lol. Because I want to watch some NBA games obviously.
by Jonathan Tjarks on Nov 9, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
It'
Get The Frickin' Rebound
by fuhry on Nov 9, 2011 10:39 AM EST reply actions
s not really that simple.
Personally, I think buying this franchise was a major stretch for Jordan, and a lot of other owners that bought at the very peak of value. I think Jordan has a lot of debt to service. If the value of the Bobcats drops below what he bought it for, Jordan could be underwater and in danger of personal bankruptcy.
My impression is that Jordan and the other newer owners were banking on an NHL type of labor agreement when they bought their franchises. They’re willing to go to the mat for it.
Also, as a Knick fan, I still believe that Jordan is, and always has been, beatable. He’s an enormously talented and competitive guy, but he has also been lucky. I would not be shedding any tears if he ends up in bankruptcy and begging Charles Oakley for a loan.
Get The Frickin' Rebound
by fuhry on Nov 9, 2011 10:44 AM EST reply actions
Yes. This is capitalism: ownership takes a lot of the risk by investing the capitol necessary to run a business. Jordan and his ilk want all the rewards of ownership with none of the risks.
by Jonathan Tjarks on Nov 9, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So...
Do we start calling MJ Napolean?
Bullets Forever | Twitter
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 9, 2011 10:46 AM EST reply actions
That would make Pippen Snowball, as his contributions to the Bulls’ titles are steadily forgotten by history.
by Jonathan Tjarks on Nov 9, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Because now he actually sees the books.
The only alternative to leveling the NBA income distribution as it is/was – is contraction.
This isn’t the NFL where owners were already raking the money in and asked for more – and got it. The league and teams, a LOT of them, have been losing money for years, My favorite league is on the edge, one of those tipping points.
So many of the contributors here seem to think it’s no problem that teams and the league are really, truly in dire financial straits.
These aren’t good economic times where losses can be ignored for 10 years while looking to some hypothetical sale of the franchises down the road.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 9, 2011 1:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
If adjusted for inflation, had non-player expenses remained constant between 1999 and 2010, the NBA would have made a record profit. Most of the debt the league has incurred has come from financing costs for over-leveraged owners buying in at the height of the housing bubble. As Jordan once told them in 1999, if they can’t make it work economically, they should sell. There’s certainly plenty of interested buyers: Larry Ellison, worth $33 billion, has been trying to get a team for nearly a decade.
by Jonathan Tjarks on Nov 9, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Tell that to Indy, Milw, Sac, SA etc....
You can’t take one subset of circumstances to make a point and ignore the others, however accurate those examples may be.
Not so strange that 12 years ago when the players were getting 48% running a team made sense.
Also I’d like a league where more owners aren’t forced to look down the road towards a sale. Stable owners who want their teams (yes, their teams) to be a part of the commmunity and or a family asset have always been one of the best bonds between a team and their cities.
The current system forced on smaller markets of ‘lose money now to make money on a sale later’ just is NOT in the best interests of the league.
Now, on the arena issue, I think if the players give .5% towards a pension fund then the owners should give .5% towards an infrastructure pool to help finance new Arenas and upgrades on older ones.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 9, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
If SA can't survive in the current model - who can?
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 9, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
SA recent spending spree is not the common behavior of the franchise. They were trying hard for one last championship with their current core. That type of flexibility is what the current system allows for.
"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG
by LasEspuelas on Nov 9, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Nice seeing a fellow PTR poster in here speaking knowledge.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Nov 10, 2011 2:32 AM EST up reply actions
Players were getting 55-57% of designated BRI.
The salary cap was set at 48%.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 10, 2011 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
What's Orwellian...
…about advocating for the position which will profit you the most – from the perspective of your new position?
As explained above, he is no longer a player.
If any other player happens to become an owner of a Professional sports team, that player will do the exact same thing.
Nothing newsworthy here, folks…same ol’ , same ol’
Cold, daring, no flies on me...
by Envy on Nov 9, 2011 4:24 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Right...
"I could never be a thug, they don't dress this well." - Malice
by Julius Coxswain on Nov 9, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously?
What’s Orwellian……about advocating for the position which will profit you the most – from the perspective of your new position?"
Did you even read Animal Farm, properly?
by Daniel Lim on Nov 11, 2011 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
I read Animal Farm ...PROPERLY,,,
That’s why I reject the premise of the article, and your response to mine.
In Animal Farm, the theme was CHANGE of perspective.
My point is that MJ has not changed.
He is doing exactly what he did prior to assuming a new role. He was always advocating for himself, essentially. That’s what he is doing now.
We can question the appearance of his stance when he was a player, but we all know that the viability of MJ the brand was the foremost goal – not ‘players’ rights…
Cold, daring, no flies on me...
by Envy on Nov 15, 2011 9:11 AM EST up reply actions
Straight-up greed is a defense of hypocrisy, but it’s not a particularly morally compelling one.
by Jonathan Tjarks on Nov 15, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
Players' League
This is the exact reason why a so-called Player’s League is a pipedream. Players want their money, but put them in charge and they still want their money, but now everyone owns a piece. Who gets how much? If you think the current lockout is bad, try to get the players/owners to agree between all 300+ of them who gets what.
by DW19 on Nov 9, 2011 5:00 PM EST reply actions
Good point.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 9, 2011 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
Don't comment on what you don't bother reading
Excellent article Jon.
You’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head with Jordan.
It couldn’t more with the Napoleon comparison.
Pity there remains commenters who give the average American a stinking, poofhead “I don’t read the subject matter in comparison but I just want to comment” reputation,even after your exposition in the clearest possible way.
I quote Michael C Teniente and Envy -
“What’s Orwellian…
…about advocating for the position which will profit you the most – from the perspective of your new position?”
“Quit trying to make stories about things that have no real meaning.”
Like – seriously?
by Daniel Lim on Nov 11, 2011 6:43 PM EST reply actions
* "It couldn't be more apt with the Napoleon comparison".
by Daniel Lim on Nov 11, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
In other words...
MJ never was the Orwellian ‘pig’, he was ALWAYS the ‘man’.
Cold, daring, no flies on me...
by Envy on Nov 15, 2011 9:23 AM EST reply actions
Exactly. Napoleon talked a lot about power to the people when he was one of the powerless. Once he got that power, he steadily abandoned that. Jordan is who he is. If, like Orwell, you have a pessimistic view of the human condition, you’d expect Kobe and LeBron to pull this same stuff thirty years from now.
by Jonathan Tjarks on Nov 15, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
We actually agree, Jon
“…when he was one of the powerless”.
That’s why I Felt the MJ comparison was not the most apt. Kobe and LeBron are similar in this way, to a lesser degree – still, those guys were/are not powerless.
Now if the player highlighted were say…a Derek Fisher type – a non-superstar with deep Union affiliation becoming a turncoat owner, THEN that would be Orwellian to the Nth degree…
Cold, daring, no flies on me...
by Envy on Nov 16, 2011 10:01 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed