As my kids hit sports with a full stride, I'm noticing a problem that is as old as little league itself: coaches who favor their own children.
In the past, it seems the problem existed, but it was more of an unintentional thing: the coach either didn't know he was favoring his kid or honestly thought his kid was better. I'm now running into a bold kind of favoritism: "I'm spending the time out here, so my kid gets the benefits."
Despicable, yes, but what exactly is the problem with this kind of attitude?
The fundamental problem is, when a man agrees to coach, he is taking on a responsibility to all the children. He's "coach," not "dad," and he needs to behave like a coach.
To put it in legal terms, a coach has a fiduciary responsibility to treat all the kids fairly, and if one or two kids are getting preferred treatment, at least one or two other kids are getting poor treatment. If he wants to wear the "dad hat" while he coaches, he shouldn't take the title of "coach." He should take the title of dictator or tyrant, because that is the essence of tyranny: taking a thing of trust and appropriating it for personal gain. Moreover, he's not acting as a "coach," so why call himself one?
Such an approach to coaching is also impractical. My town's little league is an incorporated 501(c)(3) organization that is registered with the Michigan Attorney General. It must also deal with small legal issues almost every year. How did it get incorporated? I did it, though I charged them. How did the league obtain 501(c)(3) status (a real hassle)? I did it, but this time, I did it free. Who registered the organization with the AG? I did. Again, free. Who has handled the petty legal issues that have arisen for the past seven years without charge? I have.
So does my kid get preferred treatment on the field? Of course not, and I wouldn't ask for it. I did such things out of charity, as a lawyer. I didn't do them as "dad."
Lots of people volunteer time off the field, and lots of people donate money to the league. I know an industrialist whose company sponsors a team, provides an auxiliary baseball diamond for flow-over use, and pumps equipment and money into the league. Should his son play all the best positions, all the time? Of course he should, if the father/coach's approach is the right way to do things. The industrialist, though, doesn't ask for such things, because he intuitively realizes what every sane person knows: you do such things to help the community, not to get a personal benefit for your kid.
But if the father/coach's approach is correct, all the donors should get preferential treatment. Nevermind that such an approach would create an incredible mess.
Fortunately, most people who donate time and money don't expect a tangible benefit.
And back when civic virtue was more ingrained, this type of understanding was second nature. Today, as civic virtue erodes, such things have to be explained.
Addendum:
Feel free to print this short essay, cut-and-paste it, or send this post. You don't need to give me credit. It's especially intended for the father/coach in your community who no longer understands such fundamental ethical principles.
