At Home Plate
| Home | Main Archive | Fantasy Archive | Forums | Reviews |
|
|
At Home Plate |
||||
|
|
What Makes a Good Commissioner?by Jonathan LeshanskiMarch 5, 2004 Over the past several years there have been innumerable complaints about the current baseball commissioner Bud Selig. That is certainly nothing new - every baseball commissioner has had his critics and has been ripped for decisions made during his term - yet many commissioners have been good for the game. In this time of crisis where baseball faces a scourge unlike any its seen before it raises the question as to what makes a commissioner? Perhaps more important is - what makes a good commissioner? Baseball has had its share of great commissioners and league presidents including Ban Johnson and Kenesaw Mountain Landis. These two stand out more than others for a handful of reasons. First of all they were both strong independent men, they were also autocrats, and they had visions as to what baseball should and should not be. Some might argue that Johnson was not an autocrat once his American League joined the National League to form the modern major leagues (see What Every Fan Should Know), but that is not the issue I am addressing here - for Johnson was an autocrat in the American League before it joined the “majors” and most would say he was the most important man in the game until the appointment of Kenesaw Mountain Landis. The basic definition of an autocrat is someone who rules with absolute power - and in baseball that essentially means a benign dictator. It is something that in MLB’s history has rarely existed. In fact it has really only happened a handful of times and the situations behind it were exceptional. Ban Johnson had that role when he took the Western League and made it the most successful baseball league in the US, transforming it into the American League, and Commissioner Landis took the role in the wake of the 1919 Black Sox Scandal. However the commissioner of baseball (and before that the league presidents) has always been chosen by owners - and owners don’t like to give up power, especially if it means they are putting someone above themselves when it comes to baseball’s direction – someone that could pull the plug on an owner’s individual decisions. Because of that, most baseball commissioners have been either figureheads or stooges that would keep the status quo. One of the greatest fears of ownership has always been that a commissioner would side with the players or the players union in principle or on specific issues that would hurt ownership and their rights. Commissioners have for the most part been kept weak and ineffective in order to keep the owners in power, while projecting an image, which suggests that there is someone in a higher office who acts for the good of the game. Yet in truth the commissioner has little power. With the selection of Bud Selig the owners, in many ways, gave up all pretense of having a figurehead who was supposed to be fair and impartial in doing what is good for the game. Perhaps by saying that I am taking some license. The commissioner’s job has never required that a commissioner be fair or impartial - just that they do what needed to be done. For the most part that has involved being the bad guy - excommunicating players from the game, canceling seasons, decreeing suspensions, and talking about strikes. Predominantly commissioners have been little more than the mouthpiece of the owners - hence Bud Selig. With Selig the owners abandoned all pretense that the good of the game was more important than the good of the owners. In fairness Selig has tried hard to be a good commissioner and he has overseen some good changes in the game (see: Selig) while bringing baseball back to a point where it seems ready to enjoy a new golden age, but on some issues he seems either clueless or unaware of how bad his policies make him look. Nonetheless, baseball is not the game it was when the role of the commissioner was created back in 1921 even though in many ways not much has changed. In 1921 baseball and its public image needed to be cleaned up; the public required assurance that the games were fair and that players were not being paid off to throw games - this coming in the wake of the revelation that the 1919 World Series had been sold to gamblers. The owners were desperate and reached out for a man whose image was perceived as incorruptible - yet had shown himself to be a friend of baseball (and the owner’s beloved reserve clause). They gave that man unlimited power in exchange for him cleaning up the game. Not much has changed; baseball has a new scourge and it needs to be cleaned up. It needs someone to purge it of drugs, cheating and solve some of the financial ills of the game. However the lords of baseball have lost much of their power over the years because of the formation of the Players Union and the introduction of corporate owners into the old boy’s club. That perhaps is one of the most overlooked factors in baseball today. Baseball has changed because of corporate ownership. Corporations are run by accountants and are accountable to shareholders - and they seek to maximize returns no matter what. Baseball at its very origin was a gentleman’s game. It was organized and run by gentleman’s clubs (a term which has a very different meaning today) and for the most part the owners in baseball have been a very limited and affluent group. There have always been exceptions of course, but baseball has not changed that much. The best owners from a fan’s perspective are still the owners that don’t care about maximizing profit, but about winning. This is why Ted Turner’s Braves were superb and why CNN’s Braves no longer have that same feeling of dominance attached to them. It is why the Yankees are the Yankees and not the same team that CBS sold to George Steinbrenner for $10 million. To the accountants who run corporations, the good of baseball is less important than the bottom line - and that means limiting risks, including risks that an independent commissioner might possibly override ownership decisions - particularly when it comes to the players. The other factor that has changed the game is of course the Player’s Union and the fact that every issue in the game today needs to be negotiated in a Collective Bargaining Agreement between owners and players. The Players Union has eroded any potential power that a commissioner might have in the game. Even with the modern agreement every suspension handed out by a commissioner’s office is subject to arbitration and has the potential to be reduced or even overturned. Between the Player’s Union and the owners the commissionership has become little more than a joke - and it doesn't even have a good punch line. Under the current circumstances it is hard to imagine that even the best commissioner can do much to fix the problems in the game. There are only two real solutions. One, we continue on the path we are on now, where the commissioner is little more than the mouthpiece and representative of the owners - a counterpart to the head of the Player’s Union. Or two, that the role of the commissioner become truly independent - supported by both the Players Union and ownership - without having to answer to anyone but the good of the game and the fans. In that role they would need be nominated, in a manner similar to a judge advancing to the Supreme Court, going through an approval process, but being given real power to make decisions when all was said and done - and with a union of both owners and the players union needed to provide checks and balances on their decision. The ideal candidate would be a truly independent fan, someone who loves the game for the game - someone from outside baseball’s power structure - belonging to neither ownership nor player’s interests, but someone with a vision for baseball, its betterment and its future. Maybe all those wild rumors about Rudy Guiliani wanting to be a commissioner were not as crazy as they seemed. Share your thoughts or comments on the role of the commissioner or this article by clicking here! |
|
| Copyright 2002-5 At Home Plate, Inc. • Contact us | Home • Archive • Fantasy • Forums • Reviews |