Specialization In Adam Smith's The Wealth Of Nations

Adam Smith presents a plethora of ideas in “The Wealth of Nations”. One of the first and most famous ideas presented is that of specialization, or the division of labor. He essentially says, as explained later, that when larger jobs are broken down by “specialty”, production output is overall greater. The premise of Book 1 is revolved around this idea; guided by the questions of “what is wealth and how does specialization occur?”, I apply Smith’s ideas to athletics. If wealth, in term of sports, is defined by success in sports, then someone who specializes in one sport should harvest the most “production output”. However, Smith’s ideas about this are contradicted by the case of athletes who prosper in more than one sport. By looking into this

I researched first what a typically week may look like in the NFL. Essentially, practices are split up by specialization; special teams practices with their respective coaching staffs as do the offensive and defensive teams. A head coach runs over what he expects each team to accomplish by holding meetings with all of the assistant coaches (Glauber). During the two plus hour practices, players split up and practice drills specific to their positions. The organization of this resembles what Smith describes as the division of labor. With players working to perfect their specific “craft”, they come together to play more efficiently and become a stronger force to opponents as a team. According to this article describing the typical week of an NFL player by Glauber, Smith would agree with the need for specialization in order to perform successfully on game day, or in his words, to maximize revenue and output. The common saying that a “team is only as strong as its weakest player” is true in accordance with Smith’s beliefs, because if one part of the football assembly line “falls off” the rest of the team as a whole

Smith would have supported the idea that someone who specializes in one sport should harvest the most “output of talent and team contribution”. While Smith applauds the ideas of people pursuing their own self interests, he essentially is just commending their expertise in a singular trade. What he overlooked here, is the contradiction between that assumption and the fact that people can be equally successful in multiple trades. Take the example of former NFL star, Tim Tebow. According to Ryan Wilson of CBS Sports, Tebow, who was a decorated NFL quarterback for the Broncos and won the Heisman Trophy, has earned multiple invitations to train and possibly play for the New York Mets’ MLB team. In this article, a quote from an interview with Tebow reveals that “[he] can be an effective quarterback in the NFL… But I think at the same time, there are a lot of other things that I’m doing that I love and am blessed to do” (Wilson). The ability to specialize in both of these sports at such a high level dissembles Smith’s proposition that multiple ventures reduces time needed to perfect a singular trade. Skill, or dexterity as defined by Smith, carry over between these two sports. Tebow’s output of production in terms of success on the baseball field is fueled by his multiple talent in two