Ricky Vargas, the chairman of the PBA board, recently made headlines with his remarks dismissing concerns over the league's lack of parity and "unfair" trades as merely "subjective." Frankly, this isn’t just a weak argument—it’s downright belittling to the intelligence of PBA fans. For Vargas to downplay these concerns suggests that he thinks fans aren’t knowledgeable enough to understand what’s happening in their own league.
Let’s unpack this. Vargas claims that parity is subjective, saying, "You cannot fix parity. It’s very subjective eh. Boxing, it’s a very subjective sport. I can complain all I want na mali ang judging and there will be 10 other people na mali ‘yung judging or tama ‘yung judging. At the end, it is the team that you bring and that goes out there." But if it’s all so subjective, why does the league continuously ignore the overwhelming opinion of its fanbase that parity is a significant issue?
He goes on to say, “Parity is a very vague question. Who is judging [who is] a weak team and [who is] a strong team? Is UE a weak team? It’s the best team they put together and it can win. UST, is it a weak team? Maybe for that conference it’s a weak team. Maybe in this UAAP, it’s going to be a strong team. It’s a very subjective point of view.”
Well, Ricky, if you’re confused about who the strong and weak teams are, I suggest you look at the championship record over the past two decades. The names San Miguel, Ginebra, Talk 'N Text, and Magnolia keep popping up again and again. That doesn’t happen in a league with true parity. Now let’s talk about the draft: if there’s such balance, why do the same so-called farm teams keep landing top three picks, only to remain cellar dwellers year after year?
And then there’s the trade situation. Vargas questions, “You are saying [lack of] parity because you question the trades. But who is questioning the trades? Experts? Non-experts? Owners of teams? Non-owners of teams? Who is in a better position to know whether that is the requirement of my team or not?”
Here’s where things get truly insulting. The notion that only team owners or "experts" can properly assess trades is absurd. Fans aren’t oblivious—they see the patterns, and they’ve seen them for years. Take Terrafirma as an example. The team has made a habit of trading with the San Miguel group, often receiving veteran players under the guise of trying to “win now.” But if that’s the case, why do they consistently miss the playoffs? The reality is that these trades have consistently favored the conglomerate teams, leaving the so-called farm teams floundering.
Vargas also adds, "Maybe I’m looking long term, or maybe I’m looking short term. Or maybe I want to win now like some other teams.” But here’s the thing—if you’re truly looking to build a competitive league, wouldn’t you be more concerned with fostering genuine competition rather than dismissing valid criticisms as mere subjectivity?
The PBA’s issues with parity and fairness in trades aren’t just figments of the fans' imagination—they are deeply rooted in the league’s structure and history. For Vargas to brush them off as subjective is not only disingenuous, but it also shows a disturbing lack of respect for the fans who have supported the league through thick and thin.
So, sir Ricky, if you’re still wondering about parity in the PBA, maybe it’s time to step down from the boardroom and listen to the fans who live and breathe this game. The truth is right in front of you—you just have to be willing to see it.
Comments
Post a Comment