In this topic I have two main substantive arguments. I believe that professional sports players (NBA NHL NFL) do not give away their right to be part of their trade deal negotiations. Joining the NBA or any other professional sports league is like joining a company, one with branches in the form of teams in many cities. If a company employee were to be transferred to another office, they do not have a legal right to say no. However, if they are an exceptionally valued member of a company, they might have such a right. The same comparative must be used when viewing today’s debate, pro players are just like company employees of a league and there is nothing that gives them the right to say no to a transfer when the average company employee cannot do the same. Pro Sports players sign on knowing what they are getting themselves into and I believe that professional players do not give away their right to be part of their trade deal negotiations.

Before I get even further into this paper I would like to give some key definitions needed to come in handy. We would define professional sports players as any player that has risen out of amateur leagues who competes in the highest level of competition within their nation, like the NBA, NHL, and NFL. We would define not giving up their right as all players will be able to be actively involved in there trade deal negotiations with the ability to block deals and trades unilaterally. In the opposition world, such a provision would exist through a no-trade clause but it would be up to a leagues discretion on who gets this right whereas in team proposition everyone would have the aforementioned privileges regardless of the team’s wishes.

A trade can be defined as a sports league transaction between sports clubs that involves an exchange of players from one club/team to another through the communication of the two teams without the player knowing in the word today.

My first point is the duty of the player, leagues of all sports are companies, and just like a company makes hires based on skills and performance, a sports league would make that same hire. Just like these workplace professionals, players work toward improving the league and that means being compliant with the rules, standards and regulations. This essentially means that when player declare for draft in the NFL or apply for auction in the IPL in India, they are choosing to play not for a specific team but for the league, at will of the decision of other teams. It is the teams that are taking the risk of choosing to pick the players in the first place because they take the player under the assumption that they meet the leagues’ and team’s standards. However, if a player does not meet those expectations, the team has every right to trade the player to a different team, as the team is the one taking a risk on the player in the first place, while the player is simply granted an opportunity to prove themselves. It is the duty of the player to perform at the best of their ability, and the purpose of the team and league that has to evaluate that to determine where the future of the player lies, thus creating the expectation and repercussion environment that a workplace is supposed to instill. If an IT firm had told an employee to relocate to another state to complete a project, the employee, especially a newer one, would be expected to make that travel. And a senior employee with more experience would have more leeway in that they could have more negotiating power when it comes to relocation. That same concept would apply to professional athletes at the point where better performing athletes with more experience would have more bargaining power granted to them by the league itself than a rookie who has not proven themselves yet. My second reason is the overall performance of the team The overall performance of a team is harmed in two ways, first it happens on an Individual level Players like all people all have the potential to perform to a better ability, but the catalyst to foster this is an incentive. An incentive like money, status, and pursuit of happiness are what drive people to work hard. The more incentives, more people are willing to work. The right to be a part of negotiations is one of those incentives that lead to people working harder. By only giving this right to the most valuable players, it is associated with a certain level of clout that indicates a player is really good. This creates another incentive that players have to work hard in order to reach the level in which they are recognized and afforded the right. With its status as an incentive, only giving some people the right to be in negotiations doesn’t dehumanize players but more serves as a wakeup call if traded to ensure that player try harder. Even in our society, certain people who have worked hard such as politicians have more rights an a similar comparative can be drawn to the issue of sports negotiations. Someone from the opposition would say, that this type of trading and dealing with players is unfair and cruel to the players. I would reply by first stating that being a professional in any sport is very hard and it has been unfair many years since the sport has been invented. This is why not everyone who does a sport can become a professional at it.

Secondly it happens at the professional level. In order for all teams in a league to have a fair chance and in order to keep games interesting for viewers, there must be fair competition in the entire league. And teams and leagues recognize this and have implemented measure to make sure that such a playing field exists. That is why the NFL, for example, lets the worst team go first in the annual drafts. And allowing for trades is the only way to ensure such a playing field exists. Coaches and managers are the ones that know best if a player is right for a team and if they are compatible and worth their costs. By allowing players to be a part of negotiations, you allow them to disrupt the fair field that exists and weakens team performance. Firstly, if players just deny going to a team that isn’t as good, than the entire fair dynamic is disrupted and the less good team will remain like just that. This is bad as it makes sports less competitive and less interesting to watchmaking is worse for all involved. The wellbeing of the entire sport should outweigh one player’s choice as it impacts more people. Secondly, is also harms individual team performance. Teams management knows what is best for the team and they should ultimately make the decision on which players to trade. By allowing players to block this process, then actions that are not in the best interest of the team could occur which harms individual team performance. The harms to the team outweigh any individual qualms as to the success of the team impacts far more people. Someone opposing would say, that if players are in the room to know what they are discussing then this would positively impact the players, my response would be, first the players you see on TV mostly do not have a college degree meaning they did not major or study marketing and sports agents major at all meaning they know nothing about that they are doing and what even goes on in the office. Second reason is that if a player can make their decisions then what is the purpose of having sport agents? Sports agents make up 21,000 jobs in the united states earning anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 dollars a year excluding signing bonuses and advertising commission. By letting players in on this then this would disrupt the natural flow between player and agent, leaving 61,000 agents unemployed and have no steady income as they can not be employed as anything else. This is a fineline of work. If you let players in on the negotiation then we would be destroying the lives of 21,000 hard working americans.

There has to be a clear distinction made in the Proposition world. In my opponents world, players become a linchpin and deciding factor to the teams that they go to. Unfortunately, in the eyes of recruiting teams, this opens up a vulnerability to ensure that they get the player that they want. This leads to other teams within the league offering bribes to players to try entice them to lean towards their team in the trade-deal negotiations, especially to rookies and international players. When players are liable for the decision rather than the team itself, this type of bribing is a lot more common. An individual is a lot easier to manipulate than an organization. So with this bribe in hand, the player has only two options: First, either take the bribe and fall into a system of exploitation. Or second, decide to not to take the bribe. However, the second option is never as easy as it sounds. These teams ensure that the player knows that if they refuse to take the bribe then the league will find about the player’s association with a bribe deal. Unfortunately, for the player, if they chose to reject the offer, then their name will be exposed as in association with these corrupt dealings. Before these rookies have had a chance to make a name for themselves, they are stuck in a double-bind, choosing between falling into a corrupt system with a small chance others will find out, or have a one hundred percent chance that they get associated with the idea of corruption. In Latin America, players have significant leeway into their trade negotiations, which made them more vulnerable to bribes. The MLB Braves coach, John Coppolella was caught for spending $16.48 million dollars on trade-deal prospects. Unfortunately, all thirteen prospects lost their seat and their chance at achieving something greater. Thus, these rookie players lose the opportunity to transfer to other teams and are trapped into this one team. This occurs in leagues all over the world, more so in leagues with less guided regulations, in which players are exploited at an even higher rate.

I have shown and proven mass amounts of evidence on why we should not have a trade deal clause, many players in the professional sports world today are in the dilema in when and whether they are going to get traded or not, this keeps the players motivated and always giving their one hundred percent. Giving the players the right will end up terribly and should never be in play as it will lose the player, team and owner a lot of money. Therefore I urge my audience to vote neg in letting players in on their trade negotiations.

Reflection

In my short life, there are many experiences that could qualify as life-changing. Every new experience was, at one time or another, the first experience. For good or bad, each instance changed the course that my life has taken. But, the most transformative experience was the birth of my youngest brother.

Joel is someone my parents often call a happy accident. At the time that my mother became pregnant, I was 13, and my other brother, Jake, was 10. We were what you would call a well-rounded, perfect family of four. We neatly fit into the perfect classification in nearly every way. We didn’t realize what we were missing until the moment that my youngest brother first opened his striking blue eyes.

In truth, I resented the fact that I would be having another sibling. Nothing needed to be added to our family, and my mother, already 38 at the time, was considered high risk because of her age. The pregnancy itself was full of complications that sent the straight course of my life into rollercoaster-like loops that my 13-year-old mind had a hard time comprehending. But now, I can see how forging through those loops helped me to roll with the punches that life inevitably brings

The day Joel was born, my mother took me with her to the hospital rather than my father. It wasn’t a planned move, but Jake and my father were both feverish; I was the next best alternative. Sitting with her through every contraction, I gained a new respect for just how powerful and strong a woman could be in what might be considered their weakest moment. Holding her hand and feeding her ice chips, I gained a connection with my mother that I didn’t realize we were lacking.

The moment my new baby brother came into this world, I realized two things nearly simultaneously. First, you don’t realize how much you need something until it’s sitting in your lap. Second, my life after this moment would never be the same. The moment he curled his chubby little finger around mine, I understood the words “happy accident” completely.

There are many different experiences in life that have changed a part of me as a person. But, nothing so profoundly changed my views and outlook on life like the birth of my youngest brother. Joel’s arrival was a life-altering event that caused me to see the world through new eyes.