Lately, it seems like professional athletes have become more and more entitled. We’ve seen this a couple of times recently in Boston sports alone, especially in two main cases: Rafael Devers’ insistence on playing third base despite the presence of a clearly better defensive third baseman, and Matthew Judon’s near-holdout in search of a contract extension despite the fact that he was actively under contract at the time. In both cases, there is a strong element of entitlement present — these athletes feel that they have enough sway for their wishes to be heeded by their team.
In 2023, the Boston Red Sox signed homegrown star Rafael Devers to an 11-year, 331-million-dollar contract, investing in him as the centerpiece of the team. Since breaking into the league in 2017, he has demonstrated elite hitting talent but played poorly as a defensive third baseman. Every year of his seven complete seasons playing third base, he has statistically been the worst defender at his position either in the American League or the entire MLB. Then, in the most recent offseason, the Sox signed free agent Alex Bregman, the reigning AL Gold Glove-winning third baseman. It seemed that the clear roster choice was to move Devers to designated hitter and give the hot corner to Bregman, but initially, Devers refused to give up his spot. Speaking through an interpreter, he said, “Third base is my position,” as well as saying that when he signed his huge contract, the agreement was that he would play third base for the Sox. However, the front office that signed him has since been replaced, and it is clear that Bregman is the better choice. While Devers did give in after a brief standoff, the initial stubbornness is not immediately forgotten. Why did he feel that he was in a position to make such a call, one that is clearly a decision for the coaching staff and front office? The evident answer is an overgrown sense of entitlement, as Devers is convinced he should be playing a position that Bregman is much more qualified for.
Before the 2024-25 NFL season, Matthew Judon was coming off a series of productive seasons as a Patriots edge rusher. During the offseason, multiple Patriots — not including himself — had agreed to contract extensions, but Judon and the team were unable to reach a deal. Prior to training camp, he initially said that he would play out his last season under contract, but he quickly changed his tune. He expressed that he would hold out until he received a new contract and was seen at Patriots practices multiple times not wearing pads and talking animatedly with Eliot Wolf, the exec who would negotiate for the Pats, and new coach Jerod Mayo. He made it clear that he would not play without signing a new contract. However, the fact remained that he was, in fact, still under contract. And as with such contracts, it stipulated that he had to play football. The idea of contract holdouts goes against a fundamental part of signing a contract: the promise to play for years to come, whether or not you feel that the contract aged well. So, again, where does this contradiction come from? I believe that, once more, this is the result of entitlement. Judon, and other athletes who engage in holdouts, feel that they are entitled to a right not to play, despite signing a deal that specifically says that they must.
Clearly, there is a strong presence of entitlement in professional sports. Athletes seem to think that they deserve rights and privileges beyond what they do, which are really closer to those of what they fundamentally are: employees of a large business enterprise.
