Athletes don't need to be vocal activists

Nation sports editor Dave Zirin does a fantastic job of chronicling the nexus of sport and politics in his documentary “Not Just a Game”.

The movie adroitly highlights the manifestation of dominant ideologies in American society and how they are reflected in sport. However, I must take issue with Zirin’s implied assertion that prominent athletes should be activists for change. More specifically, my criticism is with the way Michael Jordan is portrayed.

Zirin bashes Jordan for not loudly agitating for social progress; Jordan instead chooses to maintain a financially vibrant corporate image. One of the documentary’s main examples for Jordan’s perceived indifference is his refusal to endorse “African-American” Harvey Gantt, a Democratic Senate candidate, who ran against Republican incumbent and “opponent of civil rights” Jesse Helms.

The answer Jordan gave was “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” As cynical as that answer sounds, it cannot mask the bigger question that needs to be posed to Zirin: Why should Jordan endorse Gantt or anybody else? It is implied since Gantt is black and Helms is an “opponent of civil rights” that Jordan naturally should back Gantt.

This sort of commentary is highly problematic. Why do commentators assume that certain (read: black) issues should automatically determine how blacks should vote? For all women, should issues on reproductive rights automatically dictate how they should vote?

As for Jordan’s nonendorsal of Jesse Helms, what would Zirin say about James Meredith? Meredith, whom The Clarion Ledger says is the "first known black" to attend the University of Mississippi, worked for Helms in 1989. Is he less of an icon because his politics do not comport to Zirin’s views of what activists should be?

It is also not fair to compare Jordan to that of Muhammad Ali, John Carlos or Tommie Smith. The world they lived in during their athletic primes and the world Jordan lived in during his are radically different. Ali, Carlos and Smith were competing in the throes of both the civil rights and anti-war movements. Lots of blood was shed and many lives were lost in the battle to transform U.S. society.

This is not to say the 1980s and 1990s were a halcyon for civil rights, but societal attitudes were certainly different. The fervor from the previous generation had calmed considerably. There is no doubt the courage displayed by Ali, Carlos and Smith is legendary and paved the way for Jordan and others today, but why should Jordan, LeBron James or Tiger Woods be compared to them?

Athletes are placed in prominent positions in American society, right or wrong. Wanting them to effect positive change is a noble effort, but who gets to define what is “positive?” Issues are contentious because passions run strong along all (not just both) sides.

Maybe some notable individuals would rather work through charities or some other means to improve society. One need not have the podium or the loudest voice to help people.

-- Steve Bien-Aime

Not Just a Game

Although many would argue that politics and sports don’t mix, Dave Zirin thinks that argument couldn’t be further from the truth.

From military spectacles at sporting events to the challenges faced by homosexual athletes, Zirin argues that sport practically revolves around politics. He concisely drives this point home in his new documentary, Not Just a Game.

In Not Just a Game, renowned sportswriter Zirin brings his compelling history of sports and politics to the big screen. He cites well-known political turning points in sports history to suggest that not only are sports full of politics, but also these two seemingly competing public arenas should be mixed.

Zirin begins his documentary by challenging the most overt joining of politics and sport: The militarization of professional sports. American sports fans don’t think twice about the political displays they see at major events. We see themed event nights aimed at supporting or honoring the military, and we talk about sports in terms of war and sacrifice.

But how far can this militarization be taken? Apparently all the way to the battlefield.

Arguably, Pat Tillman represents the point where the militarization of sports goes wrong. The cover-up of the events surrounding his death were all but meant to preserve the aura of Tillman as a sporting and military hero. Even worse is that the sports broadcasting community was willing to gloss over the controversial knowledge that, by the time Tillman passed, he was firmly against the war. Here, sports lore outweighed politics.

Zirin goes on to discuss how sports have allowed issues of gender, race and sexuality to be brought to the forefront of public consciousness. Sports legends such as Billy Jean King and Muhammad Ali used sport as a platform to affect change, but it would be denial to suggest we’ve achieved equality.

King, for example, serves as an early—and sustained—example of intolerance toward homosexuals in sports. Although King was hailed for breaking gender barriers, her coming out as a homosexual practically unraveled her credibility. Players such as John Amaechi still face this challenge, and the only athletes who have confirmed their homosexuality have done so after their playing careers have ended.

Finally, Zirin wraps up his documentary questioning the lack of politics in sports today. He turns to commercialization as the culprit, pointing to Michael Jordan as one of the reasons we no longer want a side of politics with our meal of sports.

In 1992, Jordan arrived for the “Dream Team’s” gold medal ceremony with the American flag draped over his right shoulder. While many would like to believe this was an act of patriotism, Zirin points out it was an act of commercialism; Jordan was covering up the Reebok logo on his jacket. This stands in stark contrast to the political statement made by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics.

Ultimately, Zirin believes what is wrong with sports today is that it doesn’t embrace politics. Athletes rarely use their platform to create awareness and change, and they generally avoid discussing controversial issues for fear of alienating fans and sponsors. The commercialization of sport glorifies rebellion, but does not actually embrace it, and Not Just a Game presents a compelling argument to suggest we might be better off believing politics have a place in sports.

- Melanie Formentin

Twitter users compare men's basketball to the women's game

Although Butler left the floor feeling low after the men’s basketball national championship, it was women’s basketball that took a beating Monday night. In describing just how bad and boring the men’s final was, users of the site repeatedly compared it to the women’s game, implicitly discounting the sport in the process.

CBS analyst Roland S. Martin wrote “It is not a stretch to say that the women’s national championship game will be far more interesting.” Another blogger tweeted “I’d rather watch the #WNBA than this #NationalTitleGame.” ESPN.com’s “The sports guy” tweeted: April 2011: The month that women’s college basketball caught up to men’s college basketball. A

Make no mistake: The men’s national final was painful to watch. The two teams set a new record for lowest combined first half points total and Butler shot a horrid 18.8 percent from the field – the lowest mark ever in a national final game. And although UConn took home the trophy, they won by scoring just 53 points on 35 percent shooting.

The game was boring. Illustrating just how boring it was by comparing it to women’s basketball denies the women’s game the legitimacy it deserves. As Dave Zirin wrote, also on twitter. “I hope every last person hating on this game, watches the NCAA women's finals tomorrow. See two teams actually make shots.”

--Erin Whiteside

Mega-events offer outlet for against-the-grain analysis & critique

Sports mega-events like the Super Bowl, the World Cup, and the Olympics offer grand stages for the participants (athletes & others), organizations, and institutions associated with each; these mega-events also provide an opportune stage for analysis and critique of the relationships between -- on the one hand -- these very participants, organizations, and institutions, and -- on the other hand -- culture, society, politics, and economics. That is, of course, if those offering the analysis and critique can manage to be heard over the cheerleading.

Several articles have caught my eye recently as intriguing analysis and criticism concerning the NFL and society. Each are, in my opinion, definitely worth a read:

NPR's Michele Martin looks at concerns about football-related long-term brain injury from the NFL down to pee wee. Further, she goes on to point out the social toll our exuberant emphasis on youth sports may have: "this might be particularly insidious in sports dominated by poor kids, especially poor black kids, because the people involved are so busy congratulating themselves on how they are saving the kids from ruin."

The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins considers whether "Jerry World" -- referring to Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones' new $1.15 billion stadium -- is the direction the league should be going in. While Jenkins acknowledges that the Super Bowl can be a valuable source for civic pride, this Super Bowl highlighted for her that "luxury can be debasing." She points out that everyday fans have been priced out of the spectacle, while the taxpayers in most of the NFL's U.S. metropolitan areas have been asked to pick up much of the tab for stadium and luxury box construction over the past 15 years.

Finally, progressive sportswriter Dave Zirin has been on a tear of late (see here, here, and here), highlighting the non-profit, public ownership of the Green Bay Packers by the citizens of Green Bay -- a unique arrangement in U.S. professional sports (NFL bylaws, interestingly, say that no other NFL franchise is allowed to employ a similar ownership structure).

Zirin has been busy of late...

** He's got a new book out, "Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games We Love."
** His new documentary "Not Just a Game: Power, Politics, and American Sports" (produced by the good folks over at the Media Education Foundation) is getting attention within academic circles and in major sports media outlets.

-T.C.

As posted in "Mega-events offer outlet for against-the-grain analysis & critique"