by Zach Price

In the world of professional sports—and business—there’s a fine line between operating efficiently and underinvesting to the point of mediocrity. Unfortunately, this is evident with one of my rooting interests, the Washington Nationals. I took an interest about fifteen years ago, a few years after the Expos franchise was relocated to DC.  A once-competitive MLB franchise from 2012-2019, the Nats are now defined by an apparent lack of strategic investment.

The parallels are evident to middling industrial businesses and manufacturing companies that refuse to offer competitive salaries or reinvest in its future.

Teams and Companies on Hold

Since their 2019 World Series victory, the Nationals have been shedding payroll, offloading top-tier talent, and avoiding big-ticket free-agent signings. This was a championship-caliber team and over the past several years has devolved into a rebuilding franchise.  The large, guaranteed contract given to Stephen Strasburg has had a mixed impact on the organization, considering his career was derailed by injuries after signing the contract.

The club feels stuck in neutral, even with several rising young stars on the roster.  While fans wait for ownership clarity or a renewed commitment to winning, the current trajectory is one of deferred ambition.

The organization seems to be in a waiting game. Key players have been let go or not replaced, minor league development feels stalled, and the overall product on the field reflects an ownership group unwilling to spend to compete. Ownership has money. It simply refuses to behave like a contender.

In the world of recruitment and talent acquisition, similarities can be found with a variety of companies across many industries.

Imagine a mid-sized manufacturing company with solid infrastructure, capable personnel, and a proven product line. It’s been profitable in the past and has even held market leadership in a few niche categories. But now, it has hit a plateau.

Instead of reinvesting in technology upgrades, production capacity, or workforce development, leadership chooses to “hold the line” on costs. There are various reasons that lead to this decision;  Ownership change, potential sale, global supply chain turmoil, etc.

They avoid hiring top engineering talent because the salary range is $15K above their budget. They give reasons that sound convincing, such as lack of culture fit or that the “role is not the right match for our team”.  Yet, they lose seasoned managers to competitors offering better compensation and benefits. They stick with outdated machinery because the capital expense feels risky, and they ignore market trends for fear of short-term losses.

The result? Predictable, average output. Just good enough to stay afloat, but never good enough to surge ahead.

Indecisiveness has an Opportunity Cost

Whether it’s professional sports or business, the cost of underinvestment is rarely immediate. In the short term, a company (or a team) might save money. Profit margins might even look attractive on paper. But the long-term consequences can be dire, lost talent, deterioration of the company brand, decline in culture and missed opportunities.   The mindset becomes, if we sell more tickets, we will spend more on contracts or when we sell more product, we can reinvest in new machines.

A manufacturing company will lose its top talent to competitors who are willing to pay market rates and make capital investments.  The excitement around the company declines and candidates no longer see them as a first choice.  Employees, just like fans, notice when leadership is not all in and lacks ambition.  This leads to lower productivity and apathy.  Plus, you miss opportunities to grow and to build your bench strength with young talent.  Growth opportunity is wasted without leadership’s willingness to seize the moment.

The Difference Between Efficiency and Restriction

It’s one thing to be lean and strategic with spending. It’s another to use financial caution as a cover for disengagement. Winning teams and competitive companies alike know when to invest—whether that’s in payroll, infrastructure, or innovation. When leadership chooses to sit out they send a clear message: It is okay to be average.

Sustained success requires more than patience—it requires action, investment, and belief in the future.

Final Thought

Whether it is on the field or the production floor, competitive environments reward those who take calculated risks and invest in operational excellence. Choosing not to compete becomes the real loss.