LeBron and Loyalty
In the wake of LeBron James’s decision to sign with the Miami Heat, many sports pundits are buzzing about “loyalty.” For many, the assumptions seem to be that loyalty is a virtue and that Bron-Bron don’t got it.
Is loyalty always a virtue? Clearly not. Loyalty to the mafia is not virtuous. Loyalty to Enron is not virtuous. Loyalty to your family when they are invested in crime and exploitation is not virtuous (think Arrested Development). Loyalty to your family when they are slogging it out through hard times IS virtuous. Loyalty is neutral; the object of loyalty determines whether it is virtuous.
Loyalty to a sports franchise? That’s complex. Players undertake legal obligations to the team and unspoken, mutually understood obligations to the fans. With few exceptions, loyalty for the duration of the contract seems in order. Given the lifestyle and moral support most NBA players enjoy, gratitude also seems in order.
The Cavs and the city of Cleveland have certainly been generous to James. Cavs fans have invested a colossal amount of time and money and a wholly undue amount of emotional capital into him. Most of us would agree that he should at least be grateful.
But the question is whether James owes Cleveland loyalty. If loyalty means James sticking with the Cavs for his entire career, then I don’t think so.
James fulfilled every obligation he undertook with the Cavs. They hired him to play basketball, and he played the hell out of basketball. He was the 2004-05 rookie of the year; he’s played in the last six All-Star games; he was named the league MVP the past two years. Despite an underwhelming supporting cast, he has led his team to playoff berths for the past five years. He led them all the way to the NBA finals in 2007. He won basketball games.
And then his contract expired. At 25 years old, he was/is the envy of the league. Managers began clearing cap space; the lovechild of Donald Trump and Anne Robinson couldn’t have dismissed more players. LeBron had options that the rest of us could only dream of. He never pinky-promised to stay in Cleveland forever.
But you’ll say, “He means so much to the people of Ohio. They invested everything into him. They idolized him. Their emotional well-being depends on him!”
So what? What obligates him to be co-dependent?
But you’ll say, “He was so heartless. So classless. So Favre-esque.”
And here I would agree. Gratitude may not entail loyalty, but in James's case it does entail treating his fans with respect, which he didn't.
Every step he’s taken throughout this free-agency fiasco has been calculated to garner publicity. The Yankees caps, the appearances with Jay Z, the private meetings with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh (meetings that were of course announced to the media), the Larry King interview, the abominable hour-long television special—all of it was spectacle, and it was all about him. In the case of the television special, he leveraged the anxiety his fans—and the voyeurism of the nation—into a shallow PR stunt. That's downright ghoulish. He was too stupid to understand or too selfish to care that it was all the exact opposite of gratitude.
He could have left with class. He could have deflected some of the media intrigue, lay low, signed the Miami contract, and written a public letter along these lines: “Dear Cleveland: I’ve always said that my choice this summer would come down to winning championships, and I honestly believe that I have the best chance to do that in Miami. Thank you so much for the past six years. Goodbyes suck, but I hope you know that I’m truly grateful for my time with you all.—LeBron.”
It may not have been loyal. But it would have been gracious.
