Columnist Peter King noted that Russell "loved money and what it bought far, far more than he cared for football." Another columnist, Don Banks, quoted a league source who said "(Russell) just refused to work at it. That sums up the whole thing. He was in love with the idea of being a wealthy young guy, but he has no drive to be a great quarterback. He's a young guy who came into a lot of money and notoriety by virtue of being the No. 1 pick. But in that situation, unless you have that special motivation, what's the point of working hard? If you already have the money, the only thing that keeps you improving is the work ethic. I just think he doesn't really want to be an NFL player. He was a great college football player, but he didn't want it in the NFL. If he keeps playing now, he plays only out of boredom."
So in addition to replacing Ryan Leaf as the biggest NFL draft bust, JaMarcus Russell becomes an intriguing extreme example of someone who works to live as opposed to lives to work. He's someone that apparently doesn't care for his job so much, except for that fact that it affords him a lot of money and things that a lot of money will buy.
So let me ask a question - does our society really think that's wrong? Let me play devil's advocate on this one, because I think we can be pretty inconsistent here.
If Joe Financial Analyst chooses to do a passable job at work and remain a mid-level manager to make his $120,000 annual salary because it affords him a "good enough" life for him and his family, should we crucify him for not staying until midnight reviewing charts and analyst reports which would make him an even higher performer? Does Joe really have a moral obligation to "max out his potential" (whatever that means) so that he's the best financial analyst that he can be, regardless of what the consequences are? If his desire is to work only to the level which affords him the ability to provide a given lifestyle for his family, who are we to judge?
As King said, Russell loved money and what it could buy more than football itself. In other words, if football paid minimum wage, he wouldn't play, in contrast with so called warriors of the sport (let's say, Tom Brady or even Derek Jeter in baseball) who the media implies simply dedicate themselves and play for the love of the game even if they weren't getting paid (puh-leeze). So what? Are you really going to tell me that if investment bankers, neurosurgeons or anesthesiologists weren't making high salaries, that people in those professions would still choose to work in those fields if they got paid minimum wage?
Or are we condemning Russell for "throwing his future earnings away" because he could have made even more money in his next contract. Really? What if he simply was content with $38 million, realizing that he can easily live on that for the rest of his life? Would we similarly condemn a person who created a start up tech company, cashed out and sold it to Microsoft for $38 million? Sure, the entrepreneur could have made more money if he wanted to put the effort into further developing the business, but somehow we're not inclined to batter his character as we are with JaMarcus Russell. That's what Russell did - he built up his "venture" at LSU and sold out, retiring to the Caribbean beach villa next door to the tech entrepreneur.
Blame the NFL salary structure, which pays ridiculous guaranteed rookie salaries with no consideration of performance, but don't blame Russell for taking advantage of a system which absolutely provides no meaningful incentive for future performance.
Interestingly, ESPN.com had a little web tool that estimates how long it took for JaMarcus Russell to make my annual salary, and how long I'd have to work to earn what he did in three years. If he doesn't care about the game, the "respect" of his fellow players, and the barbs thrown by the sports media, who's to say that he didn't do what was right for himself? He cares most about money and he got $38 million of it for doing very little - by his measure, I'd say he's pretty pleased with himself.
Posts
1 comment:
Not chiming in because I have any allegiance to JaMarcus (let the Jason Campbell era begin!). Rather, your post reminded me of something I read a few years back, about how rich it is that many sportswriters make a living verbally abusing athletes for not staying in shape, when they themselves have let themselves go. I suppose it's the combination of fame and fortune (and probably a little bit of envy) that causes us to hold our athletes to extraordinarily high expectations in terms of drivenness and devotion to craft, when it really does take a special person to not only be gifted physically but also be hungry/disciplined enough to punish their body and mind to perform at an elite level. Nice post.
Post a Comment