Where did free agency come from in professional sports? Many here may be a bit too young to remember how it all came about and why.

In the days before free agency, team owners in pro sports had it all. They set the salaries and back then the people we today call legends were making miniscule wages compared to what the top players earn today even when adjusted for frustration. They also had this little thing called the “reserve clause” in all the contracts. It gave the owners the right to re-sign a player as many times as they wished, trade said player whenever they wished, and dump any player whenever they wished. That meant that if a player hated his situation, he was out of luck and stuck. Either that or it was retirement city. Trade requests and demands were unheard of. They got their 60-70 thousand bucks a year and were supposed to consider themselves among the lucky few.

Well, the creation of player’s unions once the labor movement bled into the sports market began to give the players a little more power against the owners that were back then making millions in profits each season. There were no “second tier” markets because owner overhead was so low that every owner was almost guaranteed to make millions by the wheelbarrow full. “Labor” began a publicity campaign illustrating the point that is still the first comment in every negotiation to this day regardless of the sport. “Why,” they argued, “should the bosses make millions each year while we – the people that are the source of their wealth – live off whatever scraps they decide to let fall off the table? Is it fair for them to grow fat and wealthy while we can barely make ends meet?”

That point gained them a good deal of momentum initially and salaries began to creep up. The public felt a lot of empathy toward the players and supported them. But then the owners started lobbying the public themselves. “Some of these players that are crying poverty,” they pointed out, “now earn more money than the President of the United States! Should they get paid more for playing a game than the man that is in charge of keeping the nation safe?”

That’s when it happened. Because of the nature of the reserve clause, a player had no choice as to what team drafted him, no choice but to take whatever salary was offered, no choice but to quit the game when so ordered, and no choice if their owner decided to send them to another team. In fact the owners didn’t care a bit whether said move pulled the player away from family and friends and forced them to adjust to living as many as 3,000 miles away from home. The players were forced to allow themselves to be treateed like chattel – property that can be moved from one place to another without reprisal.

Wait! Chattel? Owner? Human beings as personal property with no say and no choice but to labor and thank their “owner” for the opportunity to do the work? Union reps for, I believe it was the NFL but could be wrong, actually pulled out and distributed copies of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation at media gatherings and started referring to themselves as the modern equivalent of slaves. Civil rights organizations perked up like meercats on the Serenghetti at the sound of that word and all hell, as they say, broke loose.

The owners had no answer for the accusation, despite the fact that there were now players starting to bump up against the million dollar a year salary plateau. There were too many valid points being made on the other side.

It was from stuff such as this that free agency was born. It was designed to give the players some say and control over their own careers. It worked fine for a while. Players made a lot more money and got to choose where they wanted to play. Owners began rewarding players that remained loyal to their “home” team and didn’t leave for other cities by giving them scouting and middle management jobs after retirement. The owners avoided being branded as slave owners and racists so soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the forced desegregation of the schools. (The last thing the owners wanted was to become the next civil rights battleground and the ACLU was already gathering up the pitchforks and torches.) The owners didn’t mind at all, as long as it didn’t cost them anything. They made up for the lost revenue by raising ticket prices, charging $4 for a quarter’s worth of beer or a 50 cent hot dog, etc.

But the NFL and NBA owners in particular are still VERY sensitive about the whole race thing because their sports are largely dominated by minority players. Urban leaders are still quick to point out how few minority quarterbacks there are or how minorities are woefully underrepresented in real management and ownership roles. The fans have become embittered as well because the day at the ballpark or court that used to cost $20 to attend now had them spending that much just to park a car in the lot next door. They look at these players making more in a year than they’ll see in their lifetimes and scream, “enough is enough!”

Mark my words, you WILL see the race card get played as the CBA deadlines draw closer. Now it’s the OWNERS crying poverty and seeking protection from the millionaire players. Meanwhile, in the end, the ones ultimately getting screwed over will be the fans. Black, white, or even crippled Indian alike will miss games because of lockouts. Young, old, fat, or skinny, will pay the additional costs that will, as always, roll down to their level.

Some may claim that “The Decision” was justifiable because it was an opressed group figuring out how to stick it to the man by turning the tables and winning by using the man’s own system against him. DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT.

It was the fans of the Cavs that got screwed by “The Decision.” It was one millionaire getting richer at the public embarrassment of another millionaire. Did Lebron have the right to do it? Sure. But was it morally right for him to do it in a manner that exploited the national media, got him even more money and endorsements, and basically allowed him to plot revenge against any player or media reporter that spoke out against him? The majority of sports fans seem to think not. Does anyone really think the deep lines in the sand the owners are now drawing in the CBA discussions are anything but retaliation and a concerted effort to make sure that nobody else can exploit the legal loopholes the way James did?

In the end it really is all about color. The color green.

Enjoy your screwing over in the name of greed and thank you for reading yet another of my ridiculously verbose rants.

My name is Bruce Barker and I’m just one of the faceless millions watching this entire circus parade as it goes by and feeling a strong tug in the general area of my wallet.