Stephon Marbury vs. Michael Jordan: Who is right?

Stephon Marbury is clearly not a fan of Michael Jordan. Judging from his comments earlier this month, he does not appreciate how kids kill other kids for the Jordan sneakers. You could view his comments as jealous rants or out of genuine concern for today’s youth.

Sure, Michael Jordan earns a great deal of money from his Jordan Brand apparel, in particular, his shoes. Yes, there are cases where adolescents are robbed for their Jordan’s. Sometimes these incidents result in the loss of a life. However, is this Michael Jordan’s fault?

Did Michael Jordan create crime? Did he create the conditions in the Black community? Moreover, did he create the societal ills that exist today? Is it Jordan’s fault that some people would rather buy his shoes than pay their bills? Displaced anger and resentment are the basis for Marbury’s comments in my opinion. Jordan does not need anyone to speak on his behalf. I have several perspectives on the issue between Marbury and Jordan that raise my eyebrows.

First, the media sees yet another snafu’ between two Black males. Here is one way to view this story. If Marbury truly desires for children to wear his shoes free from harm and fear of being robbed, then do so while not at the extent of other people. Do not drag the name of another businessman in the mud for the sake of making a buck. This behavior portrays Marbury as an opportunist to some people while some may view him as a visionary for speaking his mind. Another way to view this issue is that Marbury represents a voice for people are scared to criticize prominent [Black] entrepreneurs. Michael Jordan has a lot of fans, either due to his basketball fame, shoes or both. There are not too many people who publicly criticize him. Marbury symbolizes the opposition to what results from being a mega superstar.

Two, capitalism outdates MJ. I learned something in Econ 10 at UNC back in the 1990s. I do not recall Michael Jordan’s name being mentioned. Instead I heard the names Adam Smith, Robert LeFevre and Milton Friedman. These men are a few of the main theorists for capitalism. Karl Marx represents what Stephon Marbury proclaims in his infamous tweets. Marx [Marxism, Marxist Theory and Marxists] assert that people value things more in terms of their price rather than their usefulness. Jordan’s are known for their colorful designs, trendsetting features and their price. The average price for Jordan’s is $194. Sure, it is easy to make Michael Jordan the reason today’s problems, but what about LeBron James, Kevin Durant and Kobe Bryant? All of these current players have expensive shoes. James has had shoes priced at $315 (LeBron X) and $295 (LeBron 11 Elite “Maision LeBron”).

The point here is that Michael Jordan is small fish in a big pond. Marbury’s approach has a great deal of validity. Someone needs to stand up and say, “Wait! Stop spending your bill money, rent money and grocery money on $200! Live within your means, people!” However, does Michael Jordan’s hefty shoe price correspond to having a lack of compassion for individuals who purchase his shoes although they cannot afford them. Does this mean that Jordan does not care about people who rob others for their Jordan’s? The conversation is long overdue, but Nike is the biggest fish in this pond though Jordan is still a big fish.

With this being said, yes, Jordan Brand sells the same ‘ol shoes from 10, 20 and 30 years ago in different colorways. Their shoes are in high demand. However, is Michael Jordan to blame for how people mismanage their money? Although Nike/Jordan Brand have a target audience, does this mean that they do not care about the well-being of their consumers? People will take sides in this issue and either accuse Stephon Marbury of being jealous or say that Michael Jordan is selfish and cares only about himself. There is no winner in this situation.

I have no doubt that Stephon Marbury has good intentions. He comes across as someone who has a good heart and wants to help today’s youth. Keep in mind, Marbury is trying to get his “Starbury” shoe brand off the ground as well. You could view his attack on Jordan as a marketing scheme to garner attention for his own shoes or you could view him as a sincere businessman who wants to cure black on black crime in poverty-ridden neighborhoods.

In closing, no one questions Apple for their expensive prices on cellphones. No one questions Daimier AG for their expensive prices on Mercedes-Benzes and Maybachs. If you want to promote a good message, do so without slandering another person especially someone who is not breaking the law. You may question another person’s actions, but can you question their motives and integrity? Food for thought and scrape the plate.