Michael, Tiger, and the Sport Machine

   The image of Michael Jordan with his arms and legs outstretched, the ball high in his hand, flying toward the rim is forever ingrained in my mind.  But the thing is, I never actually saw him do that (well, unless you count Space Jam). The image I have of Michael Jordan comes from an athletic shoe.  This represents the ultimate commercialization of sport as discussed by Kellner.  When a man or woman’s image and persona is used to sell a product, you can say that he or she has effectively been commercialized.  Michael Jordan was the first, but he certainly wasn’t be the last.  Other titans of sport such as Roger Federer and Tiger Woods have built their undoubtedly stellar careers on their image along with their game.  The problem with this is that it can all come crashing down in an instant, as Tiger Woods found out.  Tiger’s carefully crafted public persona was shattered with the crunch of an Escalade against a fire hydrant and he has yet to recover.  With the loss of his “image”, Tiger lost a great number of endorsement deals, fans, donations to his foundation, a marriage, and a whole lot of golf tournaments.  While I do believe that the commercialization of sport is just part of the natural progression of sport and the economy in general, those with a vested interest in that commercialization would do well to remember that “what is given can be taken away.”  As Tiger Woods has proven, investing in a product is a risky business.  And when that product has thoughts, feelings, and is capable of producing actions, there is a lot more risk involved.  Because when you invest in Tiger Woods the product you also get Tiger Woods, the man. But as the saying goes, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. As long as this holds true, commercialization of sport is here to stay.

Violence in Football

Violence in football has long been considered to be “just part of the game.” However in recent years, violence in sport has received more and more attention.  Is this because the violence is somehow getting worse? I don’t think so.  While violent play has stayed pretty constant over the last century and in some cases has gotten better, we are just now beginning to hear about the long term health consequences that playing violent sports can cause.  I personally believe that football is just incidentally violent.  In most cases, the players are not out to fight or injure their opponents, as in the case in boxing or hockey.  Bodily collisions are just part of a game in which the object is to get the football in the end zone.  But now that we know the damage that these “incidental” collisions cause, doctors have started to wonder if anyone should be playing the game at all.  While there is still much research to be done, scientists have generally concluded that the head trauma experienced while playing the game of football can severely impact the lives of the players, even years after they have played their last down.  Some may see this as a reason to significantly change the game of football to reduce the number of head injuries.  However, I don’t think this is necessary.  Elite level football players are grown men who are capable of analyzing the situations and determining if they want risk their health. This is the key distinction between dogfighting and football.  Dogs can’t analyze a situation and say “hmm…that looks really dangerous, I don’t think I want to be a dogfighter.” But men can. In the world of football, Tre Newton decided that he did not want to take that risk.  But for every Tre Newton, there are ten Kyle Turleys.  Men like Turley decided that their love of the game was reason enough to keep playing, even if he is now paying for it.  However, the NFL has a responsibility to men like Turley.  If they are wiling to risk the health and sanity of the players for the purpose of turning a profit, the league owes it to them to make sure that the football players are making educated decisions about their lives. In addition, the league should certainly do what they can to prevent needless injuries.  Whether this comes in the form of new helmets, new rules, or better treatments after concussions, the NFL owes it to the players to make football as safe as it can be while maintaining the game itself. 

College Athletes...

Myles Brand’s article on the value of sport was very thought provoking.  I had never thought to compare the athletics program at colleges and universities with their respective music programs.  This comparison really makes sense on a lot of levels.  However for some reason, studying music seems to be held in higher esteem in academic circles.  As Brand pointed out, “classical” areas of study generally take precedence over other areas, specifically physical.  The belief that classical areas of study are somehow more admirable things to study has caused problems for those in the field of kinesiology for years.  As we learned at the beginning of the year, it was not until recently that the field of kinesiology was recognized as a valid field and one that was worth spending time and research dollars on.  This struggle took place through the better part of a century and still goes on in some areas today.  In my personal life, when I tell older people that I’m majoring in kinesiology, they generally assume that I’m just taking PE classes and that I have it pretty easy.  So even though kinesiology is now held in relatively higher esteem in academic circles, the general public has not yet adjusted to this line of reasoning. While great strides have been made toward academic acceptence of kinesiology, or study of the physical, Brand points out that we still have a long way to go.  While study of the phyiscial is deemed “proper” learning material, actually performing it is still not.  Even though university musicians can major in their field, athletes cannot.  I personally think that this is not fair.  Even if athletes can’t “major” in football, they should at least be able to get some sort of academic credit for their participation on the university sports teams.  As with musicians, athletes do so much beyond what is strictly academically required of them in the form of countless hours of practice, film/performance study, conditioning.  Keeping in mind that talented musicians are often on scholarship as well, it hardly seems right that the musicians are able to use this time to also further their degree while athletes can’t.  Unfortunately, I think that the path to academic acceptance of collegiate sport will take at least as long as it took the field of kinesiology.  However, if men and women who share Brand’s vision take charge, real change just might happen, first among academic circles and then in the general public.

Should We Pay College Athletes?

   In his article for ESPN, Rod Gilmore argues that college football players deserve pay for playing for their respective universities.  While I do not necessarily disagree with the fact that the current system of compensating athletes for their services to their school is outdated, I think that Gilmore left a lot out of his argument.  By focusing on traditionally “big-money” football programs, Gilmore made the “solution” to the current problem look a lot easier than it actually is.  For starters, most of the 119 Division I football programs are not “big-money” programs.  These programs are not paying their coaches ludicrously large salaries and are not bringing in the caliber of money that Texas does off of ticket sales and merchandising revenue.  So where do these teams find the money to put in the athletes’ trust funds?  Do only the athletes who attend large, well-funded schools get to reap the benefits of this proposal?  Another issue I have with Gilmore’s proposal is that other athletes are completely ignored.  In many cases, a tennis player for the University will have to work just has hard, will face just as many challenges, and will receive the same amount of scholarship money as football players.  If they are on “equal footing” as the football players in the University’s eyes, why should we pay one group of athletes and not the other?  And yes, while football players help bring more money to the university than tennis players do, this doesn’t make them entitled to sharing in the profits.  In contrast, men’s basketball programs at some universities do bring in money to the university.  Based on Gilmore’s logic, we should pay basketball players as well.  The problem with this is that by paying the players, we will have changed what it means to be a collegiate athlete and certain athletes will be placed on a higher plane than others, largely based on the popularity of their particular sport.  If making a profit is the ultimate goal of collegiate athletics, golfers, tennis players, and women’s basketball players will fail to meet that goal and their sports will then be devalued even further.  The collegiate sports system may be broken, but paying football players is not the answer.  More research must be done and more options must be explored before a solution that benefits all levels of collegiate sport is found.

Politics in Sport and Sport in Politics

   Generally speaking, I think people should stick to talking about subjects in which they are relative experts.  For example, I would certainly not ask my plumber for advice on the stock market.  Conversely, I would not ask my accountant for advice on how to fix a regurgitating toilet.  This is why I cringe a little bit every time a football player is asked for his opinions on the current issues of the day such as foreign policy or the economy.  While I do believe that everyone should have a general knowledge base and be able to present themselves as alert and aware individuals, this does not mean that everyone has to be the ultimate authority on everything.  Therefore, as a general rule, politicians and elite athletes should operate in different spheres. Unfortunately, this is often not the case.  In Dr. Hunt’s article about the Cold War and Sports, we see politicians getting involved in sports in many different areas.  Specifically during this time period, many members of the United States Government pushed for international athletic success so that they could beat the “commies” at something.  While many of the policies enacted by the federal government have undoubtedly had a positive impact on the success of our athletes in competitions at home and abroad, they linked politics and sports in ways that have affected each ever since.  Since the Amateur Sports Act was enacted to beat the “commies”, the US (along with other world nations) has also used the Olympic Games as a platform for politics.  The most obvious example of this was when the US boycotted the 1980 Montreal Games in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  In addition, the government has been intimately involved with various doping issues that have come up over the last 40 years.  As a result of all of this intermingling, I guess that it’s really no surprise that athletes feel that they have the authority to comment on matters of the government.  If a 65 year old Senator from Mississippi can comment on how an NFL running back does his job, then it stands to reason that the running back could comment on how the senator does his job.

Why Can't Adults Play Too?

   Obesity is a huge problem in America.  While a lot of this can certainly be attributed to the fact that Americans generally don’t heat healthy foods and our portion sizes are entirely too large, the fact that many Americans don’t get enough physical activity is also a major contributing factor.  While President Eisenhower and President Kennedy took steps toward implementing a nationwide fitness program for school-aged children, the main purpose was to ensure that young men would be “military ready.”  However, in the following years the focus switched from general fitness to success in international athletic competitions, particularly the Olympics.  After much debate, the Amateur Sports Act was passed in 1978.  While this act was supposed to support “amateur athletics,” the athletes that were supported were only those who would be competing at elite levels.  Since the sports act was enacted, the United States has certainly dominated the medal counts in most of the Summer Olympics.  However, this “elite” segment of athletes is a very small percentage of the adult population in the country.  With all of the focus on elite amateur athletes, the average working-class adult is ignored and is left up to their own devices to find ways to play sports or remain physically active. This is extremely unfair. School aged children are allowed to participate in physical education activities and sports teams through their schools.  In addition, they can participate in various little league teams or club sports teams.  But after children graduate high school and/or college and enter the workforce, the opportunities for physical activity become significantly fewer. In addition, those adults who can afford to join health clubs sometimes do not because they feel that they don’t have enough time to exercise. Because the opportunities to participate in cheap, readily available forms of physical activity, many adults simply do not.  This is a problem that must be rectified if Americans are to start living healthier lives. One potential solution would be for employers to allot time for employees to exercise or pay for a gym membership.  At higher levels of government, perhaps money could be set aside for exercise facilities at local parks. While these changes could be beneficial on a small scale, the focus must be placed back on the general fitness of all Americans if we are to make any lasting changes. 

Doping and the Cold War

  I was genuinely shocked by some of the information presented in Dr. Hunt’s article regarding doping, the Cold War, and the Olympics.  Having been raised in a society where doping is generally considered to be the ultimate form of cheating in sport, I was surprised to learn that the USOC and various other governing bodies turned a blind eye to doping as long as it wasn’t negatively affecting them.  In some cases, the governments basically looked for ways to ensure that their athletes had access to the latest drugs that were technically “legal” under the current rules.  All of this makes me wonder what caused the dramatic shift in the way that athletes, coaches, doctors, the USOC, the IOC, the various governments of the world, and the general public view doping.  But then again, has anything really changed? While today’s athletes and the governing bodies of sport certainly do not condone steroid use in the public arena, no one really knows what happens behind closed doors.  I think that this is because the “win at all costs” attitude has remained constant over the years.  At the highest levels of elite competition, athletes will generally do whatever it takes to win because the stakes are so high and because the pressure to succeed is so great.  While this pressure may not be as politically motivated as it was during the Cold War, political pressure still exists.  In addition, athletes feel the pressure to succeed because of economic reasons.  Further complicating matters is the fact that the line between “doping” and medical treatment has become so blurred that it is almost impossible to discern what is truly “natural.” Because of all this, I think that on some level we don’t really care what athletes do to gain an advantage, as long as it benefits us in some way. We just prefer to be in the dark about exactly what it is that the athletes do to gain it.