Unless you live under a rock — or hate sports, which I find unlikely given that you’re reading a niche column in the Daily about just that — you probably heard the name Luka Dončić once or twice over the past week.
When the Los Angeles Lakers acquired Dončić in a three-team trade, the sports world was (rightfully) set on fire. Shams Charania’s initial announcement on X, formerly known as Twitter, garnered over 91 million views in its first 36 hours. Dallas Mavericks fans held a full funeral — casket, pallbearers and all — for their lost superstar outside the American Airlines Center.
It was one of the biggest trades in NBA history — by many accounts, the biggest — and everybody had something to say, including point guard Dennis Schroder. Commenting to NBC Sports Bay Area on Monday, the journeyman, who was traded for the second time this season as I wrote this column, compared the NBA’s trade deadline, which passed Thursday at 3 p.m. EST, to “modern slavery.”
Within ten minutes, thousands of commenters quickly pointed out that Schroder is scheduled to make over $13 million this season and may not be in quite the position to compare his struggle to one of humanity’s darkest systems.
Though “slavery” may be too strong a term, Schroder’s claim isn’t entirely baseless. Take the Dončić trade, for example. When he got dealt to the Lakers, entirely without his knowledge, Luka immediately lost eligibility to sign a $345 million supermax contract in the coming offseason. Now, the maximum contract the Lakers can offer him is a five-year, $229 million deal, a loss of $116 million.
Currently, owners and their general managers can play games with players’ careers and lives whenever they want. It’s why a no-trade clause is one of the most valuable additions to a contract — and the reason I was able to get Kevin Durant whenever I wanted in NBA 2K19. Of course, this level of power is reserved for only the biggest superstars who sign contracts at their peaks. Even if Dončić might have agreed to the trade had he possessed the clause, he was never given the choice.
Now, consider a different case, involving teams on two entirely different continents. Recently, 21-year-old Colombian footballer Jhon Durán made a shocking move: He left the most prestigious league in the world to play in Saudi Arabia.
To many, it seemed like the sudden onset of clinical insanity. Why would a youngster with all the promise in the world ditch offers from some of the sport’s best clubs to play in a league that’s not even mentioned in the same breath? Well, the answer, as it often is with head-scratching decisions, is money. While Durán was making just under $4 million annually at Aston Villa, he will now be making tens of millions more.
For Premier League clubs like Villa, getting a team to agree to buy your player for money is only half the battle. After, the player must negotiate the contract on their own terms. Thus, players like Durán have the ultimate say in their own futures.
While it would be entirely illogical for American leagues like the NBA to adopt this type of system, there is a noticeable difference in player control across the pond.
For Jimmy Butler, who finally got his wish to leave Miami after being thrice suspended for holding out, it took pissing off an entire front office and fanbase to influence his own life. Now, most players needn’t,and won’t, take such drastic steps, but with the current system, I can’t say I blame them.
