Nothing wrong with Abraham's self-interest

New York Jets defensive end John Abraham has missed the last five games — including one in the playoffs — and is listed as questionable for Saturday's 4:30 p.m. matchup with Pittsburgh. Abraham has a strained knee, but he has been medically cleared to play. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that he'll play against the Steelers, and it's because he doesn't want to play.

It's the playoffs, and I'm sure he'd like to win a Superbowl, but he has been open about saying that he doesn't want to hurt his future career options by aggravating the injury. He'll be a free agent in the off season and doesn't want his value to be diminished by possible injury this weekend. Abraham has been bashed in the media for being selfish and not showing enough loyalty to his team and teammates.

While I wouldn't like this if I were his teammate, I can't say he isn't justified. When he becomes a free agent, I guarantee that whatever teams go after him will care more about the status of his knee than his loyalty to his former teammates.

Pundits — mainly former players — keep throwing around loyalty as an old-school mentality that is disappearing from today's players as the actors in pro sports get more used to free agency. Players used to have to be loyal to teams because they had to be. They weren't allowed to switch teams. Team owners were player owners. Players had to be loyal to their teams, because they would be unemployed if the team decided to cut them. "Gentleman's agreements" among the owners meant that players would have nowhere to go.

When free agency finally allowed players to move to other teams without being released by their former team — in 1993 in the NFL — loyalty went out the window in favor of capitalism. Sorry, but capitalism breeds disloyalty.

And now teams are the ones asking for loyalty, not players. That's the way it should be. These players may make huge salaries, but they are not exorbitant, in the sense that they make money based on the revenue they bring to teams. And most players are underpaid based on the amount of revenue they bring in.

The Jets may or may not be in the running for Abraham as a free agent. They will definitely not be offering him the same amount of money if he tears up his knee on Saturday being "loyal" to his team. That's because no other team would — again, capitalism. As much as teams gain by being able to bid for the best players that become available, they need to bite the bullet on what they lose in loyalty for a given game.

Abraham is entirely justified in saving his body for the future. He has nothing to gain from his loyalty and everything to lose.

Hearing former players talk about how they or someone else played with a broken leg or a torn shoulder and in the same breath say that they are the pioneers of free agency disgusts me. If those players had the opportunity for free agency, they would have acted with more self-interest with their bodies. They would have been sacrificing millions of dollars in risking serious injury. They could show loyalty to the team and hope for some in return from the team.

Teams are just as guilty of being disloyal as players are. Why is Jerry Rice in Seattle? Why is Emmitt Smith in Arizona? It's not because they were disloyal. Their teams didn't want them anymore (two in Jerry's case). The teams were the disloyal ones.

It's not fair to act like athletes like Abraham are disloyal when they are just playing the game of professional sports the way the teams have for years.