California Sports Lawyer® Founder and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans has written a column about meritocracy in sports and how sports provides an environment where political opponents can find common ground.
You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).
~
Sports are often a place where conservatives and progressives can meet on the common ground of meritocracy. There is however a further angle to this relationship phenomenon between political adversaries beyond meritocracy. Sports, and professional sports in particular, with a growing interest in college sports, there are also the practices of labor protection through unions and the redistribution of wealth.
Labor in sports is highly protected and the athletes are very well paid through the advocacy of their players associations (e.g., unions) and the pocketbooks of fans and owners. Each professional sports league has a different level of protection and payments based on union history and power. For example, contracts in baseball are guaranteed, while in football they are not unless specified.
Payment also has to do with practicality. Baseball careers tend to last longer than football, but it is also a much longer path through the minor leagues to reach a Major League Baseball roster. Whereas, there is no minor league system for the National Football League except through the NCAA and the member institutions (e.g., colleges and universities). Basketball is similar to football, while hockey and soccer are more like baseball in terms of player development through a minor league system with the added benefit of a college option.
The fact that a college athlete in basketball or football can have a such a short career and must go through college to be drafted despite some minor exceptions has created and continues to perpetuate the call to pay college athletes. It has created the NIL era now known. NIL that continues to grow and formulate in college sports that looks more and more like a professional sports league.
Sports leagues have also become well-known for their revenue redistribution and sharing models. A principle more akin to socialism than capitalism or meritocracy. Sports leagues do this because they enjoy antitrust exemptions and exceptions at least in some form and to further protect their investments they invest in revenue sharing by contract and league agreements. After all, the worst franchise in the league is a reflection on the whole league. In other words, sports leagues are more powerful and popular when there is more parity among its members.
In the United Kingdom’s Premier League, there is also the practice of relegation that forces teams to perform and spend money or be relegated to a lower league. Very much a meritocracy policy that enforces capitalism and survival of the fittest business and practices. On the other hand are the principles of salary caps, luxury taxes, and league minimum spend. The luxury tax quite literally serves as a tax on the rich (the teams that spend the most). Its purpose is intended to discourage teams from “buying” wins and championships, while redistributing tax revenue to teams that did not spend money.
The salary cap works against the players and in favor of the owners by limiting how much teams can pay a roster of players. A minimum spend requires teams to spend a certain amount or be penalized. None of these non-meritorious principles and practices are scientific in success.
Success can be relative to each league or franchise, but the foundation and goal of every franchise should be to win a championship every year. League success should be to have parity among the teams (e.g., a wide variety of winning teams every year or to at least be profitable and provide a good product on and off the field). It may be obvious to the sports executive and fan alike that success is never guaranteed and maybe some franchises try harder or maybe have more or fewer resources.
Years of business knowledge and experience among experts would find that free and open competition is the common ground in success. Sports competition is always called into question when there is cheating or planned outcomes. It violates the social contract that sports are meritocratic. Sports leagues and franchises are businesses that are often looking for an edge over the competition, but in the pursuit of an edge the rules must be followed.
While sports are meritocratic on the field, there are often policies surrounding play on and off the field that are much more socialistic. Sports are the one thing in America where people excuse otherwise opposing viewpoints for love of team and sport. Many have wondered what might happen if meritocracy was implemented through all league, franchise, and player involvement in sports.
~
About Jeremy M. Evans:
Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. Evans is an award-winning attorney and industry leader based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.
Copyright © 2025. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.
