Recently, Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade ignited a minor controversy when he suggested that players in the NBA who spend the offseason competing in the Olympics should be paid for their efforts. The tournament, Wade argued, is a tremendous financial risk for players already under contract with other organizations, especially as it takes up a large portion of time that could be utilized for rest and rehab.
Recently, Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade ignited a minor controversy when he suggested that players in the NBA who spend the offseason competing in the Olympics should be paid for their efforts. The tournament, Wade argued, is a tremendous financial risk for players already under contract with other organizations, especially as it takes up a large portion of time that could be utilized for rest and rehab.
The potential for injury hovers above every game, every scrimmage, every crowded rebound and wild elbow of this extended international road trip, and the players do it off the books.
Naturally, the instinctive public reaction favored outrage. Many were quick to lash out at Wade for having the gall to pollute the grand Olympic tradition with such a mercenary line of reasoning. This in itself did not make the argument unreasonable, but unacceptable.
Ultimately, Wade was forced to skip the Olympics in order to give his body time to recover from the injuries that he played through during his team’s run to an NBA title last month, which blunted the issue’s momentum somewhat. With the games now fully underway, the compensation dilemma has been abandoned for the moment, but it has not died.
It’s a problem that gets a lot more coverage as it relates to college athletics. How can you ask an athlete to commit to a program, tournament or event—enterprises that exist only to make a profit—without compensating the individual for participating?
The NCAA’s rebuttal is straightforward: Players are not paid, but they are certainly compensated in the form of scholarships toward an undergraduate degree as long as the athletes are willing to compete. The Olympic defense is murkier—a position of philosophical certitude propped up with travel expense receipts that will have to be addressed more thoroughly in the interim before the 2014 winter games in Russia.
In theory (and in promotion), the Olympic Games are meant to be a showcase of the world’s greatest athletes, a celebration of the spirit of competition and a testament to the tremendous ability of sports to bring people together. This high-minded ideal is the crux of the event’s identity, and it’s as good a reason as any to tune in.
And, for now, it would seem that the NBA’s elite are not lacking for motivation when the time comes to make the trip out to the games. Even as he was reflexively admonished for his comments on the subject of player compensation, Wade was willing to go to London—he was one of the many high-profile players fighting it out for roster spots this summer. But that willingness to participate doesn’t render the discussion unnecessary.
NBA Commissioner David Stern pointed out the long-term benefits of introducing professional American basketball players to international competition. He is noticeably more animated when talking about how the decision inspired player and program development around the world, expanding the range of talent funneled into the NBA and establishing millions of new fans in the process. It made the league a better product and a significantly more profitable enterprise. Stern never hesitated to ask what the Olympics could do for him; it’s worth asking now what the NBA might be willing to offer their players in return.
