Isenberg media quotes

December 16, 2007

On the Mitchell Report

Do you think MLBPA is interested in addressing the steroid issue?
I know the union has been severely criticized for not being as cooperative as some would like. It would be easy for players associations to give in to the pressure to randomly test athletes without any restrictions and without cause. But it would be a disservice to their members. An owner can use drug testing to rid his team of unwanted contracts. What owner wouldn't want to tear up a long-term, guaranteed contract of an unproductive player? So just keep testing him. At some point he will probably take an over-the-counter cold remedy containing a banned substance.

Do you think the Mitchell Report will serve its purpose?
It's too early to tell. I am all for increased awareness about the steroid issue. Any effort to look back at the last decade or so should be done with the hope that it would help us move forward. There are certainly some good ideas put forward in the Mitchell Report, but there's really no magic solution to correct the problem. We can focus on integrity and health issues -- and for the vast majority those two reasons are reason enough to avoid performance enhancing drugs. But it's certainly not going to compel all, particularly those who calculate the potential economic rewards of taking steroids as being greater that the  perceived risks (and costs) of getting caught.

Do you think it was right for Sen. George Mitchell to name names?
I was disappointed that the Mitchell Report put forward 85 current and former MLB players. Attorney David Cornwell, appearing on ESPN, commented that Mitchell, in his press conference, spoke about the importance of proper drug testing, mentioning integrity, independence and confidentiality, and how we need scientific evidence, not hearsay, to prove steroid use. Yet, the basis for the most damaging accusations in the Mitchell Report is all hearsay.

Is there common ground between the owners and players?
Steroids has become a lightening-rod issue in not just baseball, but also in Congress, the media and the courts. Still, players cannot simply cower to pressure by owners and others. Too much is at stake to put careers in the balance on the basis of circumstantial evidence (canceled checks, unsworn testimony, etc.). Professional leagues are working to root out steroid users. Players associations have the same goal, but at the same time, want to preserve athletes’ privacy and prevent owners from using drug testing as a weapon against players.

What about the larger issue of steroids in our society and the influence pro athletes have on kids?
The pressure to compete at all levels, from high school to college to the pros, encourages athletes  -- and coaches, parents, administrators, etc. -- to do things that fall somewhere between pushing the envelop to outright cheating. As I've said many times, that for every dollar invested in sports (by parents, by athletic departments, by boosters, by professional franchises), there's an expectation of a reasonable return on that investment. Athletes are competitive by nature. They know if they do not get the job done, they will be penalized (loss of starting position, scholarship, roster spot, lower salary, etc.).  And then there is the opposite for a job well done, which is exactly why cheating in society, not just sports, is prevalent.

What did you write in your book, Money Players, on the issue of steroids?

From Chapter 17, page 128:

What is rarely talked about is the impact of athletes who use steroids on those who don’t. Think about a course you took in which the professor graded on a curve. The breakdown might have been something like this:
A: 20%; B: 20%; C: 50%; D: 5%; F: 5%

Your grade is based not solely on your work, but on your work compared to the work of other students in the class. Professional teams “grade” athletes in a similar manner, but with salaries instead of letters. The highest-graded players get the A contracts. Then the B contracts and so on. Get an F and you’re out
of the league.

In the class, each student who cheats to get a higher grade pushes another student down to a lower grade. The same can happen in sports. Athletes who enhance their performance by cheating with steroids can push you down to a lower-level contract or worse. How would you feel if you were cut from a team and the last roster spot went to someone who was taking steroids? It’s in your enlightened self-interest not only to avoid steroids, but to work with your players association to get them out of the game.

--Marc Isenberg

December 09, 2007

The interesting market for college football coaches

Ray Melick, sports columnist for the Birmingham News, wrote an article on the contract game played between coaches and athletic departments, in which I am quoted:

"That is part and parcel of the craziness of college athletics," said Marc Isenberg...

"It's amazing to me how contracts operate in college athletics. If there was a true governing body of college athletics, a true commissioner, then buyouts would not be in the picture because as long as a player or coach is under contract, they would not be free to negotiate with anybody else. If there was a commissioner, there would be no tampering or negotiating.

"As it is, if a coach signs a five- or 10-year rollover deal, that deal is only as good as long as another, bigger program doesn't come along courting him."

A few more thoughts on the subject of college coaching contracts:
1) College coaches are really the only true free agents in sports. The only barrier to sign with another school is whatever buyout a coach negotiates and accepts. When Curt Flood and the MLBPA fought for free agency, it was -- and still is -- a modified free agent system where players earn the right to become a free agent after a certain number of years of service. Both players and management recognized the need for some type of orderly system whereby teams can recoup its investment in a player (aided by the fact that contracts in the early years are artificially set below the market), then eventually allow players varying degrees of economic freedom. I don't begrudge coaches who exploit this favorable marketplace. I just question how this system serves the interests of both schools and student-athletes. Let's not forget: amateur scholarship athletes do not have the right to move freely among schools.

2) College sports would be better served with a commissioner. I am somewhat loathe to give the NCAA broader powers, but in situations like this I think college sports would be better served if the NCAA president had the ability to act in the best interest of the game and its stated mission to serve student athletes. I would venture that the 32 NFL owners understand the benefits of free markets (after all that's how most of them acquired large fortunes), but they also recognize how the League as a whole is strengthened by working together. Think about the absurdity of a NFL system that allowed the worst NFL teams to poach the best coaches off the best teams -- without regard to a legal contract.

3) The marketplace is flawed. Good coaches win more than bad coaches, so logically athletic departments pay great coaches more. But not always -- this year two of the highest paid coaches in college football history combined for just 9 wins. Still, many college presidents and athletic directors are resigned to the market forces driving up coaches' salaries. Said LSU Chancellor Sean O'Keefe, who just raised the ante to retain Les Miles: "Is this a favorable trend? The answer is: Of course not. That said, it's also market dynamics. The value of things is determined by the demand that exists. There's nothing unfair about that."

--Marc Isenberg (marc.isenberg@gmail.com)

12/10 UPDATE: Another view: Sporting News writer Mike DeCourcy e-mails: "However, you also have to look at the other side of it. One reason colleges like this arrangement is it makes easier to fire them when that time comes. That's why coaches get fired or forced out for so many nonsensical reasons, right down to ''We don't like him.' (Houston Nutt, for instance). So long as the market is fluid, colleges can be that juvenile and still be assured there's a steady supply of coaching talent to fill the voids they create."

Money Players: The book