I pretty much agree with what you say below. There is a little tongue in cheek in my discussion of sports strikes as left. I did say the strikes and not the rest of the apparatus. For example, a strike by the Teamsters is left, relatively speaking in today's political climate, even when the Teamster union is not. I would say the image of sports "heroes" striking could be helpful in a more militant overall labor environment in the future.
The huge salaries are , of course, changing the class or strata status of professional athletes. But, again in a different political environment, if even a small percentage of pro athletes found a way to remain loyal to their working class roots, they might be a funding base for future political organization. Again, I don't see this today because the left in general is such as it is, as the saying goes. But with stronger left institutions, the Paul Robesons of the future may have some cash to bring to the movement.
Charles
odisio at igc.org> 07/16/99 07:40PM >
>>> Roger Odisio <r>>
Charles,
I don't think the baseball players union and their strikes have anything to do with being lefty. The supply of baseball labor power is artificially restricted because owners limit the number of pro teams. Capital and labor are partners in that; they both want it that way because it drives up both salaries and the revenue for individual teams. Moreover, baseball labor is unconnected to any other, even related, labor. You can be sure the players' union will not stop playing in support of a strike by vendors or stadium construction workers. In short, the player's union exists only for the purpose of maximizing player salaries. That ain't lefty in this circumstance, particularly as it is unconnected to the class struggle against capital.
In fact, the baseball players union is in some ways more conservative than the owners' consortium. An 18 person committee is due to offer recommendations in a few months about reorganizing baseball, some of which no doubt will require much more revenue sharing among teams. Besides the major capitalists like Murdock, Turner, Disney and Steinbrenner, who do you think will be the primary opponent of revenue sharing? Yep the players union because it will dampen salaries a bit. Actually it will hurt mostly the top salaries and probably *benefit* those players making less, and the union is *still* against it. The union will be in opposition to the small market owners, fans, and the best intererst of the game itself (with distinct haves and have nots, pennant races are currently a joke). How is that for being conservative? Donald Fehr has more in common with your local neoclassical apologist freemarket economist or Ayn Rand than he does with anything remotely lefty.