Nine-year-old female football player becomes an inspiration

This year’s Super Bowl will probably not be remembered for the Sam Gordon’s appearance, but NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell hopes that the 9-year-old girl will serve as an inspiration for many—including other young girls. 

Gordon became an internet sensation with a YouTube video her father posted that shows her outrunning the boys in a football game. Since November, when the video was posted, Gordon has been receiving a plethora of media attention, including a feature on Good Morning America’s “Play of the Day.” She also became the first female football player to appear Wheaties box.

Sam Gordon’s story is fascinating for a number of reasons.  For one, there is the Justin Bieber-ish resemblance: young talent, YouTube video leading to commercial success… Minus the perfume line, she’s got it all.

On a more serious note, the celebration of Sam Gordon is remarkable, but should be consumed with caution. Let’s go over the positives first. She is a girl playing in a sport that is notorious for excluding women. The coverage focuses on her athletic accomplishments. The media cite her stats (1,911 Rush yds, 35 TD, 65 tackles), highlight her pace and agility and even offer a commentary of her plays. In a perfect world, all female athletes would be covered the way Sam Gordon is. 

Her confidence also provides a positive example for young girls who strive to succeed on boys’ teams and/or in sports that do not provide equitable opportunities for girls. In fact, Abby Wambach from the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team, who invited Gordon to training and a game, considered meeting the young double-sport athlete an honor. 

Jane McManus, from espnW, quoted Wambach saying, "Sam is the bi-product of a powerful movement in women's sports. Her family provided her the opportunity to play whatever sport she loved and her story [is] one that I hope will influence many girls to follow their dreams in all sports. I was honored to treat her to a game as she inspires me to do more and be better. All I can say is, thank you Sam Gordon for your impact on all of us."

McManus also reported that Gordon preferred soccer over football and plans on playing football for only a couple more years. Her travels across the country will also presumably end with the Super Bowl attendance and, as McManus said, Gordon will return to her normal life.

Goodell invited Gordon to attend the Super Bowl as a spectator. Currently, that’s about the closest women can get to the field unless they are, of course, cheerleaders. Or unless the NFL has a referee lockout and a female ref just so happens to be available.  

Although Gordon receives kind questions about her future plans with football, I have yet to see an article that actually acknowledges the systemic exclusion of women from football by the leagues, schools and by courts. Title IX does not help much here either because of the contact sport provision—football does not “count.” Despite the occasional participation of girls and women on football teams on different levels, they remain in a token status.

Considering the alarming findings about injuries in football, particularly concussions—even in pee-wee—perhaps Gordon is also smart to plan on a soccer career. (On a concussion note, rising rates for girls in soccer has also received some attention.) But before we get carried away by Gordon’s potential to become a superstar athlete, let us remember that she is only 9 years old. 

Gordon's media exposure, however, is worthy of mention because provides an interesting glimpse into the U.S. sporting culture. On the one hand, the celebratory coverage communicates that girls and women in sport “can” do it. On the other hand, the she can do whatever she wants to rhetoric in a sport like football is close to an illusion. 

I am not sure if advocating for increased opportunities for women in football is be the best idea in light of the rising justified panic about head injuries. But when it comes to contact sports, girls and women are far from inclusion. So, if the strategy is to celebrate girls and women in football, the prevailing structural barriers need more attention. 

--- Dunja Antunovic

Does the government need to protect NFL players?

Perhaps the U.S. government can play a role in protecting NFL players.

This idea was posited Thursday by York University’s Tracy Supruniuk during a session at the annual conference for the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport in New Orleans. The federal government regulates workplace safety through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The rate of injury among football players should potentially put the NFL in OSHA’s sights, Supruniuk said. He cited data that said the NFL players suffer injuries about 15 times more than the average worker.

The concern for players go beyond concussions, Supruniuk said.

“Head injuries are part of a larger problem in football,” he said. Injuries players suffer during their playing careers often have debilitating effects later in their lives, he said.

Whether OSHA has jurisdiction over the NFL is a murky issue, Supruniuk said. One of the questions is whether NFL players are employees or independent contractors, complicating who is responsible for player injuries, he said.

-- Steve Bien-Aimé

Female NFL Ref Receives Online Attention

When Shannon Eastin steps on the field during the Green Bay Packers versus the San Diego Chargers game, she will become the first woman to ref an NFL game. 

A couple of weeks ago, the NFL hinted that the referee lockout could lead to opening opportunities for replacement referees. Eastin was among them. On Monday, The Los Angeles Times  reported that Eastin is officially going to be a part of the ref crew. The online conversation is worth examining. 

A number of news outlets insinuated that this could be an important moment in gender equity. For instance, The Huffington Post called it a “barrier-breaking opportunity,” CBS called it an “interesting opportunity,” SB Nation, a prominent sports blog network, reported that Eastin is “poised to break a long-time barrier.”

In the meantime, Julie Hayes, a Yahoo! Contributor thinks that this “making history” narrative is “a joke” and “just wrong” because the replacement referees, including Eastin, have not been trained properly to be ready for such a high caliber game. To this, a writer on Feministing, a feminist blog, said that regardless of whether Eastin is ready or not, this is “still progress.” 

Cindy Boren from The Washington Post is also worried about the replacement, not because of gender issues, but because of the lack of experience these refs have.

And then there is ESPN. 

In this short video, the ESPN anchor – with a female symbol graphic behind him -- recites Eastin’s accomplishments in judo and telling us that “this is meant as a warning to any of the Packers or Chargers who may feel empowered to question one of her calls on Thursday night; they might wanna think twice about that.” 

Because she is going to take them out?

On a positive note, Kevin Seifert, who reported the news for ESPN.com, wrote the following:

“This is an important moment, and Eastin's assignment will generate relevant discussion on a number of levels. Hopefully there were no barriers for qualified women to reach the top of the football officiating ladder, but if there were, you would hope that Eastin's accomplishment would negate them.”

So it seems that we are witnessing a productive conversation about what it means for the NFL and for U.S. professional sports to have a woman on the field in this capacity.

What we can really learn from, though, are the comments to these articles. ESPN is monitoring (and removing them) every hour, but there are still more than 2000 comments, and counting, to Seifert’s article. Bill Williamson’s article got a few too.

Here are some themes that I detected at first glance, with an example for each:

-          Women belong to the kitchen, not the football field

“This is totally unfair. How can she be expected to referee an NFL game and make sandwiches at the same time?” and “Weird... how is she going to ref from the kitchen?”

-          Women are emotional (and generally unfit to make important decisions)

“Come on. First time a coach yells in her ear she's balling. Why you're at it, get the chicks off the field when the game is on. Hasn't been one half way decent women in the NFL, outside of those lovely Cheerleaders.”

-          Women have no idea about football

“ALRIGHT!!! JUST WHAT WE NEED!!! WOMEN OFFICIATING THE GAMES NOW!!

YOU THOUGHT THEY DIDNT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL BEFORE?

JUST WAIT...” (Capital letters in original text)

-          This political corrected-ness is ridiculous!

“Now we just need a dude to play in the lingerie football league and then I know the world is collapsing before my eyes” and “This is dumb unless she is the most qualified perosn for the job... sets back women if they gave her the gig just bc she is a woman”

-          It’s ok for her to ref, ONLY IF she is good looking (some of the contributors actually posted links to her picture here to determine if she is, indeed, good-looking enough to be “worthy” of their gaze):

“one question is she hot? if so the nfl is moving in the right direction if not i dont care” and “As long as she is attractive I'm cool with it.”

-          Even if she is a decent ref, the players are rude and uncivilized, hence we should protect her from harm

“I think it is a bad idea. You have immature players, who get DUI's, etc. They will have no sympathy for her. She will get called names, and sexist things thrown at her way. Also, if she gets caught in a pileup, it will look really bad. I give Ms. Eastin major props for being able to make it this far, but she may want to stop before something bad happens to her.”

-          Whatever. Just do a good job!

“I dont care if a woman, a man, or a man/pretending to be a woman Refs the game...just get the calls right.”

-          Finally!

“I'm a male and I'm thrilled that there will be a female ref, we are slowly overcoming societies barriers.”

One comment that also caught my eye was this one: “Hell yeah, good to see title IX coming to fruition!” After an overwhelming number of articles, documentaries and statements that were issued in celebration of Title IX’s 40^th anniversary over the summer, I am particularly sad to see that Title IX is still horribly misinterpreted as the law pertains to federally funded educational institutions and has no implications to professional football.

What we learn from this online discourse is that news media outlets seem to be offering a balanced account of NFL’s decisions. We can also find strong opinions on gender issues that Eastin’s situation raised. And, the same old sexist (and homophobic) arguments that we are used to seeing whenever women enter a male-dominated field are also present.

The moment when Eastin steps on the field might be historic and, perhaps, even promising. For the NFL to “allow” women to officiate a football game is the right thing to do as there can hardly be a good reason as to why a female ref would be less competent than a male ref.  

But, clearly, we need to keep engaging in conversations about women’s role in sports. The internet is a great place for that. However, the internet is also a place where – regardless of how hard ESPN tries to monitor comments –  sexism and homophobia survive.  

So, let’s keep talking. Let’s do so with a particular attention to fan cultures and the relationship between gender and sports consumption. 

-- Dunja Antunovic

 

Fifth Summit on Communication and Sport: Recap and Research Review

The latest rumor, the latest fumbled play, the latest major trade; when it happens in sports, it’s likely to happen via social media. As fans become professional bloggers and Twitter becomes a source for receiving to-the-minute news, sports organizations quickly have to adapt to changing pressures in sports communication. These and other topics were explored at this weekend’s Fifth Summit on Communication and Sport, hosted by Bradley University.

Penn State doctoral students Brett Sherrick and Melanie Formentin were among the presenters discussing everything from uses of social media, to framing of athletes and league, to critical analysis of sport cultures.

On behalf of the Curley Center and co-authors Steve Bien-Aime and Marie Hardin, Sherrick presented the results of the study “High school athletes: How are they covered?” As part of an ongoing series of projects examining the extent and impact of social media-based and traditional coverage of high school athletes, this study found that high school sports reporters frame these athletes as recruits. In general, reporters remove athletes from the academic setting, are reluctant to describe athletes in negative terms, and rarely include the athletes’ voices through direct questions.

Formentin, a second-year doctoral student, presented her work about the NFL lockout: “For all our fans who dig this game: Communication strategies during the NFL lockout.” Using critical discourse analysis and crisis communication theories to guide her analysis, she found that fans were the dominant theme of league and player association messages at the height of the lockout. Of particular interest was the consistent use of “empty” messages that were intended to appease fans while simultaneously avoiding significant discussion about the critical issues associated with a lockout.

Among the findings were that the league altered the availability of lockout-related information in the months following the dispute. Although data collection began during the lockout, it was not completed until a few months after the crisis had abated. At the time of the lockout, numerous articles and press releases were available examining a variety of issues related to the ongoing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations. Following the lockout, an “NFL Lockout” topic page was made available, but an analysis of articles revealed that negative coverage had been excluded from the list of stories. Instead, headlines featured news such as Ochocino playing soccer, travel directors preparing for no season, and players receiving permission to attend Kenny Chesney concerts. Very few articles remained detailing actual negotiation or bargaining news that occurred during the lockout. On the other hand, a search for “NFLPA” returned articles that highlighted some of the more negative aspects of the lockout such as the PA’s decertification and the crisis’ ongoing progress: players “save money and prepare for lockout”; “Union brings different in tone, opinion to CBA discussions”; “agents don’t expect immediate progress on negotiations.”

These changes were telling because they spoke directly to the crisis communication strategies used by the NFL during the lockout. Particularly, they exemplified how the league made attempts to downplay negative information while pointing blame toward the players—blame being a crisis response strategy typically reserved for victims in a crisis. More telling was that these strategies were framed within “empty” messages directed toward fans.

Early in the lockout, NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash was quoted saying: “We want the fans to know that we’re trying… and if we don’t get it done, we know what we’ll have let them down.” A statement from the NFL also stated: “Our message to the fans is this: We know that you are not interested in any disruption to your enjoyment of the NFL. … We have great respect for the fans.” Quotes such as these exemplified how the league maintained consistent communication with fans, but did so in a detached and hollow way.

Critical discourse analysis suggests reading these quotes not only to understand which voice is privileged in a situation, but also to understand what messages are not being delivered. Here, league attempts to control the mood about the lockout were based on accommodative messages—a crisis response strategy that focuses on accepting some level of responsibility without outright apologizing. Further, the quotes show how the league avoided addressing negative issues about the lockout. Instead of drawing attention to the topics being debated (revenue sharing, player safety) or discussing the trickle-down effects (employee layoffs, financial impacts on cities), the NFL spoke about getting “it” done and preventing “disruptions to [fan] enjoyment."

By addressing the lockout in nominalized terms and focusing on fan consumption of sport, the severity and impact of the crisis is turned into something harmless and the discussion of actual stakes are avoided. Fans were never represented via direct quotes, showing the league exercised power through a one-way relationship designed to build a sense of consensus about lockout related issues: The lockout was bad and would negatively impact fans, but the league was intent on making efforts to do what was best for fans. This strategy bucks suggestions made in crisis communication literature, which suggest organizations should take responsibility when they have caused a crisis, and should make genuine attempts to provide stakeholders with relevant and critical information as it becomes available. Instead, the NFL attempted to deflect blame for the crisis by avoiding discussions about primary issues and appeasing fans through one-way messages void of information.- Melanie Formentin

NFLPA lawyer backs revenue sharing

The key to labor peace in sports resides with the owners, the NFL Players Association longtime general counsel said Tuesday evening.

A “lack of revenue sharing” likely is the reason there was a lockout in the NFL and why there’s currently one in place for NBA, Richard Berthelsen told about three dozen people at a Penn State Dickinson School of Law event in University Park, Pa., where he was the featured speaker.

He said every team should have relatively equal resources, estimating that there is a 2.5 to 1 ratio in revenue for the largest-market teams to smallest-market clubs in the NFL. By improving revenue sharing, the more cash-strapped teams can better compete and be on sounder financial footing.

This would be a better solution than cutting the salaries of the players he represents, Berthelsen said. The NFL owners likely have a different opinion.

The issue of antitrust laws was brought up by professor of law Steve Ross, who moderated the event. Berthelsen said these laws allowed for great gains to be made in terms of player rights and benefits. The discussion in this topic moved into union decertification, which the NFLPA did during its labor battle with the NFL this spring.

Doug Allen, another panelist and visiting professor in the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, said a union doesn’t go away but becomes an advocacy organization when it decertifies. Berthelsen added that the move does allow for players to take more aggressive court action against the owners, but there are some risks to players, too.

Players lose union assistance with their grievances and may not have a seat at the table when it comes to pension meetings and about disability funds, Berthelsen said.

He also used this opportunity to attack the notion that the NFLPA isn’t maybe as aggressive in getting protections for its players compared to other unions.

“When you bargain, you prioritize,” he said.

Berthelsen said in systematically chipping away at a power structure in existence long before the NFLPA, there have been notable victories for players in terms of pensions, salaries and health insurance.

Allen, a former NFLPA deputy director as well, took issue with the perception that the union doesn’t do enough to get players guaranteed contracts. He said in most collective bargaining agreements for sports don’t provide for guaranteed contracts. Instead the guarantees are between the teams and the individual players.

--Steve Bien-Aime

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"

When Sports Stars Become Authority Figures, Women Lose

By now anyone interested in sports knows about the upcoming Tim Tebow ad set to appear during the Superbowl. Feminists and other activist groups have critiqued the ad for providing unsafe and misleading information to women about their reproductive health (see here, here and here for more on that). But this is more than just an anti-choice ad: it’s the manifestation of a hegemonic system that creates male sports stars who in turn seem perfectly natural choices to sell any product or in this case, speak on any issue from the biggest mediated platform in American sports.

Tebow is a known social conservative, but just as importantly for this message, a star football player. There’s a reason Focus on the Family isn’t simply airing an ad with James Dobson discussing abortion. Rather, it’s because he is a football star that Tebow is the star of the ad. And it is because of his exploits on the football field, combined with a media system that privileges “power” men’s sports, that Tebow is a recognizable star in the first place.

And herein lies the problem for women: As long as sports – and especially football – are culturally understood as a space only appropriate for men, female athletes will simply never earn a comparable type of hero status, and therefore cannot enter the discourse to speak on political issues with the same kind of impact– even those central to women’s lives.
--Erin Whiteside

People Who Use Walkers Need Not Apply

In Denver, taking shots at the Oakland Raiders is as much a pastime as hitting the slopes during the winter. So it came as no surprise that prior to Sunday’s Oakland-Denver game, the Denver Post ran a piece detailing the recent declining success of the Raiders under the leadership of owner Al Davis. And Davis, writes author Jim Armstrong, has lost “it”:

He doesn't look the part these days, but Davis was the driving force behind what once was one of the most successful franchises in sports. No, really, we're not making this up. An 80-year-old man confined to a walker once ran circles around the competition.

Of course, Davis is not a player and doesn’t actually need to “run in circles” to effectively do his job. And it’s not clear how using a walker keeps Davis from success in the front office.
Armstrong’s comments – and a related front-page picture showing Davis using his walker – are part of a bigger cultural narrative that suggests sports are not a place for people with disabilities. It’s especially prevalent in the United States, where images of athletes with disabilities are rarely published or broadcast. The end result is a constant stream of images that define the ideal athletic body: a powerful, heterosexual, able-bodied male. The text and images in the Davis story help normalize this idea, and further suggest that whether it’s on the field or in the front office, sports are reserved for the able-bodied.
--Erin Whiteside

Flagging the NFL's homophobic culture

Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson recently made news when he used a homophobic slur in reference to his coach in several posts to his twitter account. The NFL is hardly considered “gay friendly,” and Johnson’s tweets are indicative of an ongoing homophobic culture in the league. To the NFL and Chiefs’ credit, Johnson was suspended for one game. However, as the Kansas City Star’s Randy Covitz writes, the reprimand is vague and notes only that Johnson was suspended for conduct “detrimental to the team,” leaving it unclear whether he was suspended for the slur or criticism of the coach. The NFL and the Chiefs had the opportunity to bring the problem of homophobia in the NFL to the forefront of public dialogue, but chose not to; their obscure language denied a voice to a persistent and troubling problem within the league. When team and league officials fail to acknowledge even the most overt gay-bashing, the persistent and dangerous homophobic culture remains unchecked . No one thing will change the hostile climate, but until a voice is given to the problem, we wonder if it’s reasonable to expect current gay players to come out of the closet.
-Erin Whiteside