NBA: There needs to be more backlash for the Player Empowerment movement

Should there be more backlash when it comes to player empowerment movement in the NBA?

As far back as I certainly can remember, no single event in sports garnered as much backlash as The Decision telecast.

In LeBron James’ first year with the Miami Heat, he was booed in virtually every arena in the league as the first installment of “The Heatles” tour in 2010-2011 ended on the heels of an NBA Finals loss and an alienated LeBron James lashing back at fans by saying that they would need to go back to their sedentary lives in spite of momentarily basking in his failure.

The year following, an ever-so image-conscious James shifted course and decided to revert back to his fun-loving ways and ditched the anti-hero persona that was clearly foreign to him. A few years later, he would announce his decision to return back to Cleveland in a less dramatic fashion.

More from Sir Charles In Charge

• Dillon Brooks proved his value to Houston Rockets in the 2023 FIBA World Cup
• NBA Trade Rumors: 1 Player from each team most likely to be traded in-season
• Golden State Warriors: Buy or sell Chris Paul being a day 1 starter
• Does Christian Wood make the Los Angeles Lakers a legit contender?
• NBA Power Rankings: Tiering all 30 projected starting point guards for 2023-24

The point is that a lesson was learned and no player since James would ever announce his defection from one team to another in the same manner.

And while James, given his place among the historical NBA elite, is far more image-conscious than the average superstar, the fact is that fans ultimately can have a marked impact on superstars.

Just to state the obvious: the player empowerment movement is a superstar issue.

On one side of the fence, people like Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban argue that the elite of any working-class should have the autonomy to choose their place of business.

Yesterday, Golden State coach and ex-player Steve Kerr said it was “bad for the league”.

Similar to how James at one point felt alienated from a league and national fan base that had essentially embraced him ever since he picked up a basketball, the key impact that the player empowerment movement has had is a measure of alienation from superstars to the respective teams, organizations and fan base whom they play for. The problem is that the backlash is only limited to a micro-level.

The next time Anthony Davis goes back to New Orleans as a newly-minted Los Angeles Laker, he will be booed incessantly by fans. Other fan bases, however, won’t treat him in a similar manner.

Make no mistake: if Anthony Davis believed for one moment that he would take even a similar type of popularity hit that LeBron James did after The Decision, he would have never demanded a trade.

At the end of the day, the player empowerment movement should be condemned as Kerr said because it appears significantly motivated by entitlement more so than exploitation.

Extending the Davis example further, New Orleans hired general manager David Griffin, who is well-regarded among the league, and also won the first pick in the NBA draft to get the most widely heralded rookie since LeBron James.

Neither of those variables made a difference to Davis, thereby calling into question if winning was in fact what led to his motivation for demanding a trade.

In the same way that Amazon has a list of products under an item being looked at, fans who are in favor of player empowerment would probably also defend the existence of super-teams.

The problem is that it completely steps on the face of maintaining a competitive balance.

It is also absolutely unprofessional for superstars to voice their displeasure in spite of being under contract.

As mentioned before, this isn’t an issue of exploitation from their standpoint.

Adam Silver is known as a players’ commissioner and as NBA revenue has risen over the years, so have the salaries of NBA superstars.

Ironically, for the purposes of incentivizing superstars to stay on their respective teams, the NBA even went as so far as to offer a super-max contract.

The real issue that superstars likely pinpoint in fueling their “empowerment” to demand trades amidst being under contract is that they are fully aware – and butt hurt – about the fact that there is no loyalty in sports.

Isaiah Thomas risked millions of dollars a few years ago by playing in the NBA playoffs in spite of a health issue and coming off his sister’s death.

By way of thanking him, the Boston Celtics traded him to the Cleveland Cavaliers for Kyrie Irving. Thomas ends up costing himself what was likely his one and only chance at a nine-figure contract.

However, relating Thomas’ situation to what Davis had to endure in New Orleans is comparing apples to oranges.

Concerns of health have given a pass for why players like Kawahi Leonard chose to sit out the majority of an NBA season. Davis simply wanted to be a free agent years before he actually was. Bill Simmons coined this term “pre-agency”.

Kyrie Irving did this with Cleveland and Paul George did it with Indiana. At the end of the day, the player empowerment movement is fueled by misguided feelings but causes legitimate indignation and alienation.

This is an absolute fact that fans need to be cognizant of and stop letting superstars off the hook by excusing players like Davis from receiving the same type of backlash LeBron James once did.

The NBA is a copycat league and just the same way that Davis, Irving, and George demanded trades for reasons not relating to the legitimate concern of their health, so will other superstars.

That would not be the case though if a backlash followed.

Just to reiterate: if Anthony Davis believed for one moment that he would take even a similar type of popularity hit that LeBron James did after The Decision, he would have never demanded a trade.