Beyond the playing field

Poor Andre Dawson.

The headlines Monday stated he lost his arbitration case, meaning the Chicago Tribune saved $150,000. So Dawson will have to settle for only a 370-percent pay increase. Too bad. That extra dough would have come in handy. For instance, the Awesome right fielder could have used that money to pay for the taxes on the $2 million he was seeking.

Such are the trials and tribulations of a man with the God-given talent to knock a juiced baseball out of the park and gun down baserunners.

What does this mean from a sociological perspective? Are athletes worth the money they make?

Of course not. But who is worth a million bucks a year?

Are athletes entitled to receive the millions offered to them? Sure. Remember, the arbitrator did not make the Chicago Tribune-owned Cubs pay Dawson $1,850,000. That’s what the Cubs offered.

The fact Dawson would still be an All-Star but not an MVP in most other ballparks doesn’t matter. The Cubs want him to play in Wrigley Field.

Salaries in baseball—and all other professional sports—have gotten out of hand. But it’s not the players’ fault. They are the commodity and the buyers set the price.

We all have talents. Some have the talent to be professional athletes and start at a minimum annual salary of about $60,000. Others have the talent to be, oh, let’s say a journalist, and hope to make $60,000 in three years. That’s the low end of one scale and the high end on the other.

Pros have an average career of five years while a journalist, as in most professions, can have the same job 50 years later. And still earn less.

But that’s the way it goes. We all do what we can.

There aren’t many professional athletes out there in relation to the entire populace. Some reward is justified considering their short careers and the odds they have to overcome to make it to that level. In the four major professional sports (baseball, football, basketball, hockey), there are 2,351 roster spots. There are 10 times as many students on this campus alone.

Athletes are in the public light more and are expected to perform under intense scrutiny from the media, fans and hecklers. Some of which are one in the same. The fans pay to see the players. The electronic media pay to broadcast the games. It wouldn’t be fair if the owners kept all the money when the players do all the work. So the money trickles down.

Of course, I can’t help but get upset when utility infielder/outfielder Jose Oquendo loses an arbitration case to the St. Louis Cardinals, but still will receive $275,000 after making a paltry $100,000 last year.

What makes sense is when a person gets a raise for a job well done. That works in every profession. People always earn money based on past as opposed to present performance.

Then along comes Gary Redus, who batted .236 last year for the ChiSox. He will make $460,000 after the club tried to cut his salary to $370,000. And how about the Sox‘ Dave LaPoint being awarded $425,000 after the club offered $265,000? His earned run average was over 4.50 in 1987.

But who said life is fair?