"Talent Grab": on the exorbitant pay of celebrities (New Yorker, Oct. 11, 2010)

Talent Grab
Malcolm Gladwell
The New Yorker, Oct. 11, 2010, p84
When Marvin Miller took over as the head of the Major League Baseball
Players Association, in 1966, he quickly realized that his members did
not know what being in a union meant. He would talk to the players
about how unfair their contracts were, about how the owners took an
outsized portion of the profits, how pitiful their pensions and health-
care benefits were, and how much better things would be if they
organized themselves. But they weren't listening. The players were
young, and many came from small towns far from the centers of
organized labor. They thought of themselves as privileged: they got to
eat steak for dinner, and be cheered by thousands of fans. Even when
Miller brought up something as seemingly straightforward as the
baseball-card business, the players were oblivious of their worth.
"The Topps bubble-gum company would go into the minor leagues," Miller
recalls, "and if the scouts told them someone was going to make it to
the majors, they would sign those kids. You know what they would pay
them? Five dollars. We're talking about 1966, 1967. Five dollars to
sign. And that meant they would own them for five years, and the
players got no percentage of sales, the way you would with any other
kind of deal like that. If you made it to the majors, you got a
hundred and twenty-five dollars per year--for the company's right to
take your picture, use it in their advertising, put it on a card, use
your name and your record on the back of it. I used to say to the
players, 'Why'd you sign?' And they'd look sheepish and say, 'When I
was a kid, I used to collect cards, and now they want to put me on
one!' "
One season when Miller was making his annual rounds of the spring-
training sites, he decided to put his argument to the players as
plainly as he could. He was visiting the San Francisco Giants, in
Phoenix, Arizona. "The right fielder for the Giants was Bobby Bonds, a
nice man," Miller says. "I knew what Bonds's salary was. And,
considering that he was a really prime ballplayer--that he had hit
more home runs as a lead-off man than anyone had ever hit in the major
leagues, that he was a speedy base runner--the number shocked me. I
was always shocked when I looked at salaries in those days. So I said,
'I want to tell you something. Take any one of you--take Bobby Bonds.
I'm going to make a prediction.' " The prediction was about Bobby
Bonds's son. The Giants' owner encouraged his players to bring their
families to spring training, so Miller knew Bonds's son well. He was
just a little kid, but already it was clear that he was something
special. "I said, 'If we can get rid of the system as we now know it,
then Bobby Bonds's son, if he makes it to the majors, will make more
in one year than Bobby will in his whole career.' And the eyebrows
went up." Bobby Bonds's son, of course, was Barry Bonds, one of the
greatest players of his generation. And Miller was absolutely right:
he ended up making more in one year than all the members of his
father's San Francisco Giants team made in their entire careers,
combined. That was Marvin Miller's revolution--and, nearly half a
century later, we are still dealing with its consequences.
There was a time, not so long ago, when people at the very top of
their profession--the "talent"--did not make a lot of money. In the
postwar years, corporate lawyers, Wall Street investment bankers,
Fortune 500 executives, all-star professional athletes, and the like
made a fraction of what they earn today. In baseball, between the mid-
nineteen-forties and the mid-nineteen-sixties, the game's minimum and
highest salaries both fell by more than a third, in constant dollars.
In 1935, lawyers in the United States made, on average, four times the
country's per-capita income. By 1958, that number was 2.4. The
president of DuPont, Crawford Greenewalt, testified before Congress in
1955 that he took home half what his predecessor had made thirty years
earlier. ("Being an honest man," Greenewalt added wryly, "I think I
should say that when I pointed the discrepancy out to him he replied
merely that he was easily twice as good as I and hence deserved it.")
That era was an upside-down version of our own: when society gazed
upon captains of industry and commerce, it marvelled at how ordinary
their lives were. A Wall Street Journal profile of the C.E.O. of one
of the country's "top industrial concerns" in the late nineteen-
forties began with a description of "Mr. C" jotting down the cost of a
taxi ride in a little black book he used to track his expenses. His
after-tax income, Mr. C said, was $36,611, and the year before it had
been $21,032. He'd bought two cars the previous year, but had to dip
into his savings to afford them. "Mr. C has never lived extravagantly
or even elegantly," the article reported. "He's never owned a yacht or
a string of race horses. His main relaxation is swimming. 'My idea of
fun would be to have a swimming pool behind the house so I could take
a dip whenever I felt like it. But to build it I'd have to sell a
couple of my Government bonds. I don't like to do that, so I'm getting
along without the pool.' " Getting along without the pool?
In 1959, the Ladies' Home Journal dispatched a writer to the suburban
Chicago home of "Mr. O'Rourke," one of the country's "most successful
executives." Since the Wall Street Journal's visit with Mr. C, America
had undergone extraordinary growth. But Mr. O'Rourke's life was no
more extravagant than that of his counterpart of a dozen years
earlier. He lived in an ivy-covered Georgian, with ten rooms. Mrs.
O'Rourke, "a slim blonde in a tweed suit and loafers," gave the writer
a tour. "For our neighborhood this is not a large place," she said.
"You can see that we've made do with rugs from our old home and that
this room has never seen the services of an interior decorator. We've
bought our furniture piece by piece over the years and I've never
thrown anything away." Their summer house was a small cottage on a
lake. "I'm president of one of the larger companies in the U.S.," Mr.
O'Rourke said, "yet chances are I will never become a millionaire."
The truly rich in the nineteen-fifties and sixties were people who had
inherited money--the heirs of the great fortunes of the Gilded Age.
Entrepreneurs who sold their own businesses could also become wealthy,
because capital-gains taxes were relatively low. But the marketplace
chose not to pay salaried professionals and managers a lot of money,
and society chose not to let them keep much of what they made. On
income above two hundred thousand dollars a year, the marginal tax
rate was as high as ninety-one per cent. Formerly exclusive
occupations, meanwhile, were opening themselves to new talent, as a
result of the expansion of the public university system. Economists of
the era were convinced, as one analysis put it, that there was a
"connection between economic growth and the advance of democracy on
the one hand and the worsening economic status of the intellectual and
professional classes on the other." In 1956, Roswell Magill, a partner
at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, spoke for a generation of professionals
when he wrote that law firms "can no longer honestly assure promising
young men that if they become partners they can save money in
substantial amounts, build country homes and gardens for themselves
like their fathers and grandfathers did, and plan extensive European
And then, suddenly, the world changed. Taxes began to fall. The
salaries paid to high-level professionals--"talent"--started to rise.
Baseball players became multimillionaires. C.E.O.s got private jets.
The lawyers at Cravath, Swaine & Moore who once despaired of their
economic future began saving money in substantial amounts, building
country homes and gardens for themselves like their fathers and
grandfathers did, and planning extensive European holidays. In the
nineteen-seventies, against all expectations, the salaryman rose from
the dead.
The story of how this transformation happened has been told in many
different ways. Economists have pointed to the globalization of the
world economy and the rise of what Robert Frank and Philip Cook call
the "winner-take-all" economy. Political scientists speak of how the
social consensus changed in favor of privilege: taxes came down, and
the commitment to economic equality eroded. But there is one more
crucial piece to the puzzle. As Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman
School of Management, at the University of Toronto, argued in the
Harvard Business Review a few years ago, people who fell into the
category of "Talent" came to realize that what they possessed was
relatively scarce compared with what the class of owners, "Capital,"
had at their disposal. People like O'Rourke and Mr. C and Roswell
Magill "woke up"--in Martin's phrase--to what they were really worth.
And who woke them up? The Marvin Millers of the world.
Marvin Miller is in his nineties now. He lives in a modest Manhattan
high-rise on the Upper East Side, decorated with Japanese prints. He
is slight and wiry: the ballplayers he represented for so long always
loomed over him. His head is large and his features are aquiline. He
has a wispy mustache--a slightly diminished version of the mustache he
was asked to shave, by baseball's traditionalists, upon his election
to the union job. He said no to that request, just as he said no to
the suggestion, floated by the players, that Richard Nixon serve as
his general counsel, and no to virtually every scheme that baseball's
owners tried to foist upon him during his time in office. It was never
wise to cross Marvin Miller. Bowie Kuhn, the commissioner of baseball,
once accused Miller of failing to "reciprocate" his overtures of
friendship. Miller responded that Kuhn was not trying to be friends:
he was trying to "pick my brains," and "there was scant possibility of
reciprocity in that department."
Miller came to baseball from the United Steelworkers union, where he
was the chief economist. He was present during the epic eight-day
White House negotiating session that narrowly averted a strike at the
height of the Vietnam War, in 1965. He cut his teeth at the State,
County and Municipal Workers of America and later served on the
National War Labor Board. By temperament and experience, he is that
increasingly rare species--the union man. Miller remembers going to
Manhattan's Lower East Side one Saturday morning as a child and seeing
his father on the picket line for the Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union. "My father sold ladies' coats on Division Street," Miller
recalled, speaking in his apartment one muggy day this summer.
"Management had been non-union for years and years and years, the
Depression was on, and they were cutting the work year for everybody.
The strike lasted a month. One day, my father came home later than
usual. I was still up, and he had a document with him that he wanted
me to read. It was a settlement. The workers got almost everything
they were striking for." Miller was describing a day in his life that
happened more than seventy-five years ago. But there are some things
that a union man never forgets. "They got a restoration of the work-
year cuts," he went on, ticking off the details as if the contract
were in front of him. "They got affirmation that the management would
obey the new wage law and pay time and a half for overtime and Sunday
work--and a whole raft of small things. It was very impressive to me
as a kid."
The baseball union that Miller took over, however, was not a real
union. It was a Players Association. Each team elected a
representative, and the reps formed a loosely structured committee--
headed by a part-time adviser who was selected and paid for by the
owners. The owners did as they pleased. They required the players to
abide by rules and regulations without even giving them copies of the
rules and regulations they were to abide by. Every player signed what
was called the Uniform Player's Contract, a document so lopsided in
its provisions, and so utterly without regard for the rights of the
player, that it reminded Miller of the standard lease that the
landlords' association in New York draws up for prospective tenants. A
few months after taking the job, Miller was invited to attend a
meeting, in Chicago, of Major League Baseball's Executive Council, a
group consisting of the commissioner and a handful of owners, who
served as the game's governing body. There he discovered that the
league had decided to terminate the agreement that had been in place
for the previous ten years for funding the players' pension system.
The owners had been giving the players sixty per cent of the revenue
from broadcasting the World Series. But, with a new, much larger
television deal coming up, the owners had decided that sixty per cent
would be too much.
Miller--the veteran of a hundred union negotiations--was stunned as he
listened to the owners' "decision." In the world he had just come
from, this did not happen. There had been no collective bargaining;
the upcoming announcement was presented to him as a settled matter.
Years later, in his memoirs, he recalled:
I looked across the room, hoping to find a sign that someone
understood how blatantly illegal and offensive this all was. My eyes
fell on Bowie, the only practicing lawyer in the room. I looked for a
flicker of comprehension in his eyes, an awareness that his clients
were about to display publicly their violations of law, demonstrating
for all to see that they had engaged in a willful refusal to
bargain. . . . Kuhn showed not the slightest sign of comprehension.
Miller had no staff at that point, and virtually no budget. He was up
against a group of owners who were among the wealthiest men in
America. In the past, whenever major battles between the owners and
the players had been taken to the courts--including to the Supreme
Court--the owners had invariably won. Miller's own members barely
understood what a union was for--and there he was, at a meeting of
baseball's governing committee, being treated like a potted plant.
Yet when Miller pushed back, the owners capitulated. He ended up
winning the television-revenue battle. He rebuilt the players' pension
system. He got the owners to agree to collective bargaining--which
meant that the players had a seat at the table on every issue
affecting the game. He won binding arbitration for salary disputes and
other grievances, a victory that he describes as the "difference
between dictatorship and democracy"; no longer would players be forced
to take whatever they were offered by their team. Then he won free
agency, which gave veteran players the right to offer their services
to any team they chose.
Not even Miller thought it would be that easy. At one point, he wanted
the owners to use surplus income from the pension fund to pay for
increased benefits. The owners drew a line in the sand. Reluctantly,
Miller led the players out on strike--the first strike in the history
of professional sports. This time, surely, the fight would be long and
bloody. It was not. The owners folded after thirteen days. As Leonard
Koppett, of the Times, memorably summed up the course of the
PLAYERS: We want higher pensions., OWNERS: We won't give you one damn
cent for that., PLAYERS: You don't have to--the money is already
there. Just let us use it., OWNERS: It would be imprudent., PLAYERS:
We did it before, and anyhow, we won't play unless we can have some of
it. , OWNERS: Okay.
This discovery that Capital was suddenly vulnerable swept across the
professional classes in the mid-nineteen-seventies. At exactly the
same time that Miller was leading the ballplayers out on strike, for
example, a parallel revolution was taking place in the publishing
world, as authors and their agents began to rewrite the terms of their
relationship with publishers. One of the instigators of that
revolution was Mort Janklow, a corporate lawyer who, in 1972, did a
favor for his college friend William Safire, and sold Safire's memoir
of his years as a speechwriter in the Nixon Administration to William
Morrow & Company. Here is how Janklow describes the earliest days of
the uprising:
"So Bill delivers the book on September 1, 1973," Janklow said, in his
Park Avenue office, this past summer. "Ten or fifteen days go by, and
Larry Hughes, his editor at Morrow, calls me and says, 'This really
doesn't work for us. There's no central theme, it seems too episodic--
a bunch of the editors read it, and it's really unacceptable. We feel
bad about it, because we love Bill. But we're going to return the book
to you, and we want you to give back the advance.' "
Hughes was exercising the terms of what was then the standard
publishing contract--the agreement that every author signed when he or
she sold a book. Janklow knew nothing about the publishing world when
he agreed to help his friend, and remembers looking at that contract
for the first time and being aghast. "My first thought was, Jesus,
does anybody sign this?" he said. "The analogy I've always made is,
the old publishing agreement was to the writer what the New York
apartment lease is to a tenant. Because, if you ever read your lease,
the only thing that's permanent is the obligation to pay rent. The
building breaks down, you pay rent. It's very weighted in favor of the
landlord. That was the existing agreement in publishing.
"The author needed to deliver a book at a certain time at a certain
quality of content, which had to be 'acceptable' to the publisher,"
Janklow went on. "But there were no parameters on what acceptability
meant. So all the publisher had to say was 'It's unacceptable,' and he
was out of the contract."
To Janklow, the real reason for Morrow's decision was obvious. It was
about what had happened in the interval between when the company
bought Safire's book and when the manuscript was handed in: Watergate.
Morrow just didn't want to publish a pre-Watergate book in a post-
Watergate world.
Janklow decided to fight. His friend's reputation was on the line.
Hughes referred Janklow to the publisher's lawyer, Maurice Greenbaum,
of Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst. "It was considered a very literary, high-
level firm," Janklow recalled. "And Maury Greenbaum was the classic
aristocratic fourth-generation German Jew, with a pince-nez. So I went
to see him, and he said, 'Let me tell you about how publishing works,'
and off he went in the most sanctimonious manner. I was a serious
corporate lawyer, and he was lecturing me like I was a freshman in law
school. He said, 'You're in a standards business. You can't force a
publisher to publish a book. If the publisher doesn't want the book,
you give the money back and you take back the book. That's the way the
business has worked for hundreds of years.' When he was finished, I
said, 'Mr. Greenbaum, I'm not trying to force the publisher to publish
the book. I'm just trying to force the publisher to pay for it. This
acceptability clause was being fraudulently exercised, and I'm going
to sue you.' So Greenbaum's jaw clenched, and the veins on his
forehead popped, and he said, 'You don't understand. If you start a
lawsuit, I will see to it that you never work in this business again.'
The case went to arbitration. Janklow had uncovered a William Morrow
memo written in the summer of 1973--before Safire handed in his
manuscript--saying that because of the Watergate scandal the firm
ought to back out of its deal with Safire. Humiliated, Morrow settled,
and a jolt of electricity went through the literary world. The likes
of Larry Hughes and Maury Greenbaum didn't have all the power after
all, and, as one author after another--Judith Krantz, Barbara Taylor
Bradford, and Sidney Sheldon, among others--called Janklow asking him
to represent them, he began steadily extracting concessions from
publishers, revising the acceptability clause and the financial terms
so that authors were no longer held hostage to the whims of their
publishers. "The publisher would say, 'Send back that contract or
there's no deal,' " Janklow went on. "And I would say, 'Fine, there's
no deal,' and hang up. They'd call back in an hour: 'Whoa, what do you
mean?' The point I was making was that the author was more important
than the publisher."
Janklow and Miller have never met, and they occupy entirely different
social universes. Miller is a class warrior. Janklow is a rich
corporate lawyer. Miller organized the ballplayers. The only thing
Janklow ever organized was his Columbia Law School reunion. But their
stories are remarkably similar. The insurgent comes to a previously
insular professional world. He studies the prevailing rules of
engagement, and is aghast. (For New Yorkers of a certain age,
apparently, nothing represents injustice quite like the landlord's
contract.) And when he mounts an attack on what everyone else had
assumed was the impregnable fortress of Capital, Capital crumbles.
Comrade Janklow, meet Comrade Miller.
Why did Capital crumble? Maury Greenbaum had no doubt been glowering
at upstart agents for years and no one had ever challenged him before.
Bobby Bonds was as deserving of a big contract as his son. So what
changed to allow Talent's value to be realized?
The economists Aya Chacar and William Hesterly offer an answer, in a
recent issue of the journal Managerial and Decision Economics, by
drawing on the work of Alan Page Fiske. Fiske is a U.C.L.A.
anthropologist who argues that people use one of four models to guide
the way they interact with one another: communal sharing, equality
matching, market pricing, and authority ranking. Communal sharing is a
group of roommates in a house who are free to read one another's books
and wear one another's clothing. Equality matching is a car pool: if I
drive your child to school today, you drive my child to school
tomorrow. Market pricing is where the terms of exchange are open to
negotiation, or subject to the laws of supply and demand. And
authority ranking is paternalism: it is a hierarchical system in which
"superiors appropriate or pre-empt what they wish," as Fiske writes,
and "have pastoral responsibility to provide for inferiors who are in
need and to protect them."
Fiske's point isn't that one of these paradigms is better than the
rest. It is that, as human beings, we choose the relational form
that's most appropriate to a particular circumstance. Fiske gives the
example of a dinner party. You buy the food at the store, paying more
for those items which are considered more valuable. That's market
pricing. Some of the people who come may have been invited because
they invited you to a dinner party in the past: that's equality
matching. At the party, everyone is asked to serve himself or herself
(communal sharing), but, as the host, you tell your guests where to
sit and they do as they are told (authority ranking). Suppose, though,
you were to switch the models you were using for your dinner party. If
you use equality matching to acquire the food, communal sharing for
your invitations, authority ranking for the choice of what to serve,
and market pricing for the seating, then you could have the same food,
the same guests, and the same venue, but you wouldn't have a dinner
party anymore. You'd have a community fund-raiser. The model chosen in
any situation has a profound effect on the nature of the interaction,
and that, Chacar and Hesterly maintain, is what explains Talent's
transformation: across the professional world, relational models
suddenly changed.
When Miller took over the players' union, in 1966, the game was
governed by the so-called reserve clause. It was a provision
interpreted to mean that the club owned the rights to a player in
perpetuity--that is, from the moment a player signed a minor-league
contract, he belonged to his team, and no longer had any freedom of
choice about where he played. Whenever Miller, in his early years as
the union's head, was speaking to players, he would pound away at how
wrong that system was. "At every meeting," he said, "I talked about
how the reserve clause made them pieces of property. It took away all
their dignity as human beings. It left them without any real
bargaining power. You can't bargain if the employer can simply say,
'This is your salary and if you don't like it you are barred from
organized baseball.' "
But it wasn't easy to convince the players that the reserve clause was
an indignity. Miller remembers running into the Yankees' ace Jim
Bouton, and listening to Bouton argue, bafflingly, that the reserve
clause somehow preserved the continuity and integrity of the game. "I
ran into that kind of thinking over and over," Miller says.
The attitude of the players was a textbook example of authority
ranking. The players didn't see themselves as exploited. Their
salaries may not have been as high as they could have been, but they
were higher than those of their peers back home. And the owners took
care of them in the paternalistic way that superiors, in an authority-
ranking system, take care of their subordinates: an owner might slip a
player a fifty-dollar bill after a particularly good game, or pick up
his medical bills if his child was sick. The players were content with
the reserve clause because they had a model in their heads that said
their best interests lay in letting the owners call the shots. "The
implicit assumption in economics is that agents who find themselves on
the short side of a bargaining regime will aggressively seek greater
parity," Chacar and Hesterly write. "This reasoning, however, presumes
that agents view economic relationships through a market lens"--and
until Miller worked his magic the players simply hadn't made that
Even on Wall Street, authority ranking held sway. In 1956, the head of
Goldman Sachs, Sidney Weinberg, took the Ford Motor Company public, in
what was at that point far and away the biggest initial public
offering in history. As Charles Ellis, in "The Partnership," describes
the deal:
When Henry Ford had asked Weinberg at the outset what his fee would
be, Weinberg had declined to get specific; he offered to work for a
dollar a year until everything was over and then let the family decide
what his efforts were really worth. Far more than the actual fee,
Weinberg always said he appreciated an affectionate, handwritten
letter he received from Ford, which says, along with other flattering
things, "Without you, it could not have been accomplished." Weinberg
had the letter framed and hung in his office, where he would proudly
direct visitors' attention to it, saying: "That's the big payoff as
far as I'm concerned." He was speaking more literally than his guests
knew. The fee finally paid was estimated at the time to be as high as
a million dollars. The actual fee was nowhere near that amount: For
two years' work and a dazzling success, the indispensable man was paid
only $250,000. Deeply disappointed, Sidney Weinberg never mentioned
the amount.
Let us enumerate all the surreal details of that transaction. A dollar
a year? No banker today would so completely defer to a client on the
details of his compensation, or suppress his anger at being tossed
such a meagre bone, or point triumphantly at a thank-you letter as the
real payoff. Weinberg was at that time the leading investment banker
on Wall Street. He was so "indispensable" that the parties to the
transaction (the Ford I.P.O. was an enormously complex deal involving
both the Ford family and the Ford Foundation) fought over who would
get to retain him. Weinberg had enormous leverage: a banker in the
same position today would have held Ford for ransom. But he chose not
to. He didn't create a bidding war between family and foundation; he
chose to swallow his pride and profess to be happy with a handwritten
note. That's authority ranking: Weinberg's assumption was that he
worked for Ford; that if the client gave him two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars for two years' work on the biggest deal of all time
then he was obliged to accept it.
What has changed today is not just that there is an extra zero or two
on the end of that fee. What has changed is that the investment banker
now perceives the social relations between client and banker as open
to negotiation. When Roger Martin, of the University of Toronto, says
that the talent revolution represented a change in sensibility, this
is what he means. Maurice Greenbaum, sneering over his pince-nez at
Janklow, represented the last gasp of the old order. He assumed that
the social relations of publishing were settled. Janklow, on the other
side of the table, was the new breed. He assumed that they were up in
the air.
In the mid-nineteen-seventies, private-equity managers like Teddy
Forstmann and Henry Kravis pioneered the practice of charging the now
common sum of "two and twenty" for managing their clients' money--that
is, an annual service fee of one and a half or two per cent of assets
under management, in addition to a twenty-per-cent share of any
profits. Two and twenty was the basis on which the modern high-end
money-management world was built: it is what has created billionaires
where there were once only millionaires. Why did Forstmann do it?
Because, he says now, "I wanted to be a principal and not an agent."
He was no longer satisfied with a social order that placed him below
his investors. He wanted an order that placed him on the same plane
with his investors.
Why did the Hollywood agent Tom Pollock demand, in 1975, that
Twentieth Century Fox grant his client George Lucas full ownership of
any potential sequels to "Star Wars"? Because Lucas didn't want to
work for the studio. In his apprenticeship with Francis Ford Coppola,
he'd seen the frustrations that could lead to. He wanted to work with
the studio. "That way, the project could never be buried in studio
hell," Pollock said. "The whole deal came from a fear that the studio
wouldn't agree to make the movie and wouldn't let it go. What he was
looking for was control."
At that same moment, the world of modelling was transformed, when
Lauren Hutton decided that she would no longer do piecework, the way
every model had always done, and instead demanded that her biggest
client, Revlon, sign her to a proper contract. Here is Hutton in an
interview with her fellow-model Paulina Porizkova, in Vogue last year:
PAULINA PORIZKOVA: Can I ask a question? What was modeling like in
1975?, LAUREN: We modeled by the hour before 1974 or 1975. A good
working model would have six jobs a day. You'd get a dollar a minute,
$60 an hour. . . . So when the Revlon thing came, suddenly it was no
longer about $60 an hour. I was getting $25,000 a day, and that was
shocking., PAULINA: How did that happen? , LAUREN: I read an article
about a sports guy named Catfish Hunter on the bottom right-hand
corner of the New York Times front page one day. It said he was going
to get a million-dollar contract. . . . Veruschka had retired; Twiggy
had retired; Jean Shrimpton had retired. All the stars were gone. Dick
Avedon had no choice but to work with me continually. I yelled over to
my boyfriend and asked, "How do you get a contract?" He didn't even
take a second to yell back: "Don't tell them. Don't do any makeup ads.
Just refuse to do it. Tell all your photographers you want a
contract." Avedon got it like that, and after six months, that was
it. . . . It took six months to work out a contract that had never
been worked out before, and basically all contracts [after that] were
based on that., PAULINA: Lauren, I salute you. I got my house because
of you.
Catfish Hunter, of course, pitched for the New York Yankees. He was
the first baseball player Marvin Miller liberated from the tyranny of
the reserve clause. The insurgent comes to a previously insular
professional world. She studies the prevailing rules of engagement,
and when she mounts an attack on what everyone had assumed was the
impregnable fortress of Capital, Capital crumbles. Comrade Hutton,
meet Comrade Miller.
At one of the many meetings that Miller had with each baseball team
when he first took over as union boss, a player stood up and
hesitantly asked a question: "We know that you have been working for
unions for most of your adult life, and we gather from what general
managers and club presidents and owners and league presidents and the
commissioner's office are telling us that they don't like you. So what
we want to know is, can you get along with these people? Or is this
going to be a perpetual conflict?"
Miller tried to answer as truthfully as he could: "I said, 'I think I
can get along with most people. But you have to remember that labor
relations in this country are adversarial. The interests of the owners
and your interests are diametrically opposed on many things, and you
can't hold up as a standard whether they like me.' Then I said, 'I'm
going to go further. If at any time during my tenure here you find
there's a pattern of owners and owners' officials singing my praises,
you'd better fire me. I'm not kidding.' "
Miller knew firsthand, from his days with the United Steelworkers, how
important the lessons of class solidarity and confrontation were. The
men who worked in the mills had few financial or social resources.
They could not threaten to go to the mill across the street, because
their own mill could easily replace them. But a roller operator at
U.S. Steel, by standing firm with his fellow-steelworkers, saw the
$2.31 an hour he made in 1948 rise to $2.56 in 1950, $2.81 in 1952, up
again the next year to $2.90, and then to $2.95, and on and on, rising
steadily to $3.57, in 1958.
Miller's goal was to get his ballplayers to think like steelworkers--
to persuade members of the professional class to learn from members of
the working class. His great insight was that if you brought trade
unionism to the world of talent--to a class with great social and
economic resources, whose abilities were exceptional and who couldn't
easily be replaced--you wouldn't be measuring your success in
fractions of a dollar anymore. The class struggle that characterized
the conventional world of organized labor would turn into a rout. And
so it did: the share of total baseball revenues paid to baseball
players in salary went from ten per cent in the pre-Miller years to
near fifty per cent by the beginning of the eighties. By 2003, the
minimum salary in baseball was fifty times as high as it was when
Miller took over, and the average salary was a hundred and thirty-four
times as high. In 2005, Barry Bonds, the little boy playing at
Miller's feet, was paid twenty-two million dollars by the San
Francisco Giants--which is not only more than what his father's
teammates collectively received in their lifetimes but more than a
good number of baseball's owners ever made in a single year.
Miller knew that the owners would never sing his praises. How could
they, after he had so thoroughly trounced them? Twenty-eight years
after his retirement, Miller is still not even a member of baseball's
Hall of Fame, despite the fact that no one outside of Babe Ruth and
Jackie Robinson has had as great an impact on the modern game.
"My wife was alive and well one of the last times they voted--three
years ago this December," Miller said, shaking his head at the sheer
pettiness of it all. "We had a long talk. She said she had come to the
conclusion that some things had had their time, and that this is not
funny anymore. She said, 'You can do what you want, of course. But I
think you would do well to ask them not to nominate you anymore.' I
thought about it, and she was right. So I wrote a letter to the group
that did the nominating, and I thanked them, but I said we'd all be
better off if they didn't do it again."
He shrugged. He hadn't taken over the Players Association for the
money. He lives in a plain vanilla high-rise on Manhattan's Upper East
Side. He doesn't summer in the Hamptons. He was a union man--and in
his world you measured your success by the size of the bite you took
out of Capital. "I guess I have to remember what I said to the players
originally," he said, after a moment's reflection. "If the owners
praise me, fire me."
But, if one side so thoroughly dominates another in the marketplace,
is it really market pricing anymore? A negotiation in which a man can
get paid twenty-two million dollars for hitting a baseball is not
really a negotiation. It is a capitulation, and the lingering question
left by Miller's revolution is whether the scales ended up being
tilted too far in the direction of Talent--whether what Talent did
with its newfound power was simply create a new authority ranking,
this time with itself at the top. A few years ago, a group of
economists looked at more than a hundred Fortune 500 firms, trying to
figure out what predicted how much money the C.E.O. made.
Compensation, it turned out, was only weakly related to the size and
profitability of the company. What really mattered was how much money
the members of the compensation committee of the board of directors
made in their jobs. Pay is not determined vertically, in other words,
according to the characteristics of the organization an executive
works for; it is determined horizontally, according to the
characteristics of the executive's peers. They decide, among
themselves, what the right amount is. This is not a market.
Chacar and Hesterly observe that in the modern knowledge economy the
most successful and profitable industries aren't necessarily those
with the talented employees. That's because Talent can demand so much
in salary that there's no money left over for shareholders. Retail
banking--the branch down the street where you have your checking
account--is a more reliable source of profits, Roger Martin says, than
the billion-dollar deal-making of investment banks. What do you do
when your branch manager threatens to walk if he doesn't get a big
raise? You let him walk. But you can't do that if you're Lazard. "The
problem with investment banking is that you need investment bankers,"
Martin says, "and they become superstars on their own, and, oops, you
got a problem--which is that they take all the money."
When, a few years ago, Robert Nardelli left Home Depot, he was given a
severance package worth two hundred and ten million dollars, even
though the board of the company was unhappy with his performance. He
got that much because he wrote that number into his contract when he
was hired, and the reason Home Depot agreed to that provision back
then is that Capital has become accustomed to saying yes to Talent,
even in cases where Talent does not end up being all that Talented.
The problem with the old system of authority ranking was arrogance--
the assumption that the world ought to be ordered according to the
whims of Capital. The problem with the new order is greed--the
assumption that Talent deserves whatever it can extort. As Martin
says, the attitude of the professional class has gone from "how much
is enough to how much can I get."
A decade before Marvin Miller came to baseball, Stan Musial, one of
the greatest players in the history of the game, had his worst season
as a professional, hitting seventy-six points below his career
average. Musial then went to the general manager of his team and asked
for a twenty-per-cent pay cut from his salary of a hundred thousand
dollars. Miller would be outraged by that story: even at his original
salary, Musial was grossly underpaid. Miller would also point out that
Musial's team would not have unilaterally raised his salary by twenty
per cent if he'd performed brilliantly that season. In both cases,
Miller would have been absolutely right. But it is hard--in an era in
which failed executives are rewarded like kings and hedge-fund
managers live like the robber barons of the Gilded Age--not to be just
a little nostalgic for the explanation that Musial gave for his
decision: "There wasn't anything noble about it. I had a lousy year. I
didn't deserve the money."
Malcolm Gladwell
Reply to

Site Timeline Threads

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.