Is There Still A Place For Loyalty In The Sports World?

Seeing a professional athlete — like Derek Jeter — retire from the only club he ever played for is a remarkable thing and something that doesn’t happen all that often any more. The Jeters, Tim Duncans and Tom Bradys of the sports world are truly becoming a thing of the past. And it’s not just players.

Gone are the days of the lifetime franchise player or coach. In both the professional and collegiate ranks, coaches seem to bounce around from team to team just as much as players do. And while players and coaches typically jump ship to follow the money, the trend is beginning to catch on at the high school and youth levels as well.

Why is this happening? Is it a good thing? And most importantly, is there a place for loyalty in sports in the year 2015?

Let’s look at why athletes play for the teams they do in the first place: much like sports fandom, geography plays a major role. In most cases, an athlete plays for their particular high school team because that’s the town they live in and the school they go to. But is that best for each individual athlete?

While there is a certain nostalgia and pride that comes with playing for your high school team and potentially bringing a championship to your hometown, does the limited choice in team hold athletes back? For an athlete trying to make the jump to the next level, doesn’t it make sense to play for the team that gives you the best chance to develop and succeed?

Well, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Today, athletes at all levels are looking to improve their skills, win championships and get scouted to the next level. That means players are leaving their hometowns to attend prep schools with pedigreed programs; abandoning their high school squads to play for a club team; or even transferring schools looking for more playing time. 

And as mentioned earlier, coaches have caught on to the act as well. While long-tenured college coaches like Dean Smith, Paul Bryant and Joe Paterno were once the standard, mainstays like Mike Krzyzewski and Geno Auriemma are now in a league of their own. Recruits used to commit to schools because they wanted to play for a coaching icon; now they may not even know who the coach is by the time they suit up to play. The college coaching position has become volatile, with coaches coming and going quicker than their recruiting classes.

Why so much turnover? With increasing television dollars and trigger-happy boosters, college coaches must win to maintain their employment. So each school simply becomes a stepping-stone to a more desirable job — one with easier recruiting and deeper booster pockets. Heck, some coaches are even spurning their alma maters.

Is this good for sports? Don’t we want to see coaches developing players and fostering long-running programs? Isn’t it the job of a coach to build their program into a winning one not just inherit one?

Part of the problem is a lack of loyalty on the school/organization side. How are coaches supposed to develop a true program if they’re on such a short leash to win immediately? And how are coaches supposed to win immediately if their lack of an established program doesn’t attract talented players?

Loyalty used to be one of the most valued traits in sports, and while we still admire athletes and coaches who stick with one team, the concept seems old and outdated.

What do you think?

Does loyalty still have a place in the world of sports or is putting yourself in the best possible position for success more important?

Author Bio

Travis Armideo, marketing manager at Gladiator Custom Mouthguards, is a lifelong ice hockey player. He began playing for various clubs at a young age and continued onto junior teams, while also playing lacrosse at the collegiate level. Travis is still heavily involved in athletics, coaching high school and youth ice hockey athletes, as well as playing men’s league ice hockey on a regular basis.