Let’s say you just finished your contract with a company, and you want to find another job. Eventually, you find a job that you would like to work at more, and you sign a contract with the employer. Your former employer proceeds to label you “a traitor,” “narcissistic” and “disloyal” even though you fulfilled the terms of the contract and filled his or her coffers. Is that fair?

If you don’t think so, and you’re complaining about LeBron James leaving the Cleveland Cavaliers to join the Miami Heat, you probably hold athletes to a different standard to the rest of us. Judging by negative fan reaction to LeBron’s move and positive reaction to Cavs owner Dan Gilbert’s scathing letter, you’re also probably far from alone in doing so. But why do so many people hold athletes, particularly the famous and rich ones, to a higher standard? Here’s my personal take:

To most fans, sports represents Fun. A childhood pastime untainted by the realities and uncertainties of real life. Sports is supposed to be a realm where fans can escape from the pressures of daily life and, for two to four hours, wholeheartedly root for their team. Sports is simple in that they instantly know the score and who wins and loses, as opposed to real life where the fruits of labor often go unacknowledged and unappreciated. Most of all, sports to the fan is about loyalty: when an athlete on a team, they are supposed to always be a part of the team, subjugating their individual goals to that of the team. For many of us, sports represents a more innocent world: an escape, an arena with clear-cut rules, and one where seemingly outdated concepts like loyalty and sacrifice shine forth in the spotlight.

However, the players playing the game are not property of the teams they work for, but independent professionals that, with some exceptions, seek to maximize their salary, value, and image for their own benefit. In other words, despite their large salaries, their incentives work much like ours. One way to do so is to play well so they command more value in the open market and get better name recognition- not very controversial. However, when a player changes teams to maximize his or her benefit, their incentives run counter to the fans’ idealistic image of what sports should be. Especially if he announces his decision on a totally unnecessary, overly melodramatic one-hour ESPN special that seems to be all business, no loyalty. While criticizing an athlete for lack of loyalty, consider this: if you got an offer to work someplace else that’s more attractive to you, would you turn it down for the sake of loyalty for your company? Especially if you’ve been stuck in the same position (in LeBron’s case, championship-less) for the last seven years?

This is why although I sympathize with Mr. Gilbert’s plight, I think his way of expressing it was over-the-line and irresponsible for a owner. He is obviously a big fan of the Cavs team that he owns, which is why he was so upset with LeBron’s decision to leave. At the same time, as an owner, he must realize what LeBron has done for him over the course of his two contracts- revitalize a dormant sports team, earn about $300 million in added revenue, and serve as the superstar employee and face of the company for 7 years. Hardly the work of a narcissistic, disloyal traitor. As an owner, Mr. Gilbert should have graciously thanked him for his services and moved on, not subject his former employee to a double standard that we unfortunately often apply to star athletes.