"Darwin's Athletes": Sports and Ethnicity

Sport has become an integral part of African American culture. Sports provide an opportunity for poor children to go to school and get out of low income areas. Many inner city African American children wouldn't be able to afford to go to school without scholarship funds. Sports are also a way to make copious amounts of money so they can support themselves and give back to their families. Without the structure of sports, many African American children turn to less productive activities due to the confines of poverty.

Hollywood films like The Blind Side, Coach Carter, and Glory Road tell uplifting stories of unprivileged African American young overcoming diversity to be successful in sports. While these movies might be based around true stories, they do not really accurately epitomize the role of sports in African American culture. Hoop Dreams depicts the daily struggle of living in less affluent locations while trying to achieve the ultimate dream of going to the NBA. In reality, the majority of children aren't good enough in their given sport to use it as an outlet. The athletes that are good enough often face pressures from their community and family that are too overwhelming to handle. Pressure of that magnitude can be damaging to a young, fragile mind.

While I believe sport is a great way for unprivileged children to succeed in life, I think too many kids rely on sport. I understand many low income areas don't have the funding for school, but I think their needs to be a bigger emphasis put on education as a means of overcoming adversity. If African American children think the only way out is through sport or music, they have no reason to make education important.

Sports, women, and gender order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhkFcuZcsk0

This Go Daddy commercial begins with an attractive blonde female getting out of a car holding a beaver. Paparazzi are rapidly taking pictures of her saying, "Is that her beaver?" Then Danica Patrick gets out of a car dressed in a long sleeved outfit, showing no skin. The paparazzi quickly stop taking pictures of her because she is not showing her "beaver."

This commercial pretty much sums up how women athletes are sexualized and exploited primarily for their marketability as sex symbols. The fact that the paparazzi didn't think it was worth it to take pictures of Danica Patrick because she wasn't showing skin or being "sexy" epitomizes how female athletes' actual skill or ability hold little esteem in the media. Danica Patrick is an extremely accomplished nascar driver and the only female in her sport, yet photographers don't care because she isn't following the traditional gender role of female athletes as sex symbols. While Danica displays strength in the commercial by not conforming to expected gender roles, the message in the commercial is actually quite dangerous for young female athletes. It suggests that no matter how hard you work or how successful you are in your given sport, the media will not pay attention to you unless you are willing to comply to their sexualized perspectives. That kind of message can not only prevent young people from participating in sports, but it can also cause them to approach sports the wrong way. It saddens me that women don't get the attention or respect they deserve for their abilities and successes in sports.

Interrogating inequalities in Sports Media: Examining gender representation in ESPN the Body Issue

The 2013 ESPN body issue actually did an excellent job diversifying the photographed athletes. Not only did ESPN equally represent both genders, but they also adequately captured almost every race including athletes of all ages, shapes, and sizes. For example, they took pictures of a 77-year-old male golfer and a 50-year-old female golfer. They even photographed a pregnant Kerri Walsh.

ESPN is traditionally associated with many sexist tendencies. The network airs drastically more male sporting events than female sporting events. Also, announcers are typically male while sideline reporters are attractive females, exploited for their looks. Considering the sexist tendencies of the ESPN network, it's quite surprising how diverse the body issue is.

No matter the gender, race, age, sport, or body type the ESPN body issue depicts the athletes in similar fashions. All the athletes had multiple pictures in the magazine. Each had an action shot and also a leisure shot that attempted to make them seem alluring. The one exception to the action shots was Kerri Walsh, which I think can be excused considering how weird it would have been for a pregnant woman to be in an action shot of her sport.

Unfortunately the ESPN body issue is not indicative of the diversity in the rest of the sports media world. Women are constantly underrepresented in the media and when they are represented, they are typically shown in ways to exploit their looks rather than their abilities in sports. If other media outlets follow the body issue's template for diversity, maybe women will finally receive the credit they deserve as exceptional athletes.

Jake Packman

Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports: Should NCAA Div 1 Basketball and Football players get paid?

The debate over whether college athletes should be paid has gone on and will go on for years. There is reasoning supporting both sides of the argument. According to the USNews article "Should NCAA athletes be paid?", the NCAA makes roughly $6 billion annually (http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid). Between ticket sales, merchandise, and television rights, universities generate tens to hundreds of millions of dollars between their football and basketball teams. They exploit the famous players by selling jerseys with their numbers. The athletes are risking possible career ending injuries, yet receive no reward for their risks. If the athletes are the reason people are purchasing tickets and merchandise and why people are watching the games on t.v., why shouldn't the athletes be paid? With the exception of paying the coaches, the schools receive all of the profits from the teams. College is incredibly expensive and even with scholarships, many athletes struggle to afford the expenses associated with college. Receiving a salary for playing would undoubtedly help athletes.

However, some consider scholarships as a form of payment. Division 1 schools are expensive to attend, especially if a player is going to an out-of-state school. So, in a way, players are getting a top notch education for free by receiving an athletic scholarship. Also, paying athletes would give a distinct advantage to bigger schools who generate more money from their teams. For example, according to the "Shame of College Sports" article, big schools like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Penn State generate between $40 million and $80 million per year. Compare that to schools like Kansas and Missouri who generate roughly $15 million annually and the profit gap becomes apparent. If athletes were paid in college, decisions to attend which school would be based on who could pay the most. This would make the level of competition even more lopsided than it already is.

I'm somewhat torn on this topic. I feel it's wrong that schools get to exploit the talents of college athletes to make millions of dollars. Considering all the hard work players put in and the risk of injury they face, I feel athletes should be compensated. However, for the sake of college athletics, I think paying athletes would be detrimental for many reasons. Firstly, players would start picking schools for the wrong reason. Education level wouldn't matter as much, which is an underrated aspect of choosing a school for athletes in my opinion. Also, big schools who can pay the most would get all the best players, giving small schools basically no chance of winning. One of the reason March Madness is so appealing is that year in and year out a small school underdog makes a cinderella run. If athletes were to be paid, I fear this would be nearly impossible.


Jake Packman

Once the Cheering Stops: The life of a retired pro athlete

During their playing careers, athletes live the life. They play the games many people participate in for fun as a living. Not only are their jobs considered hobbies for most, they receive millions of dollars to play them and obtain unfathomable fame throughout the world. Many of these athletes are younger than I am right now and are easily less mature, as well. I'm not sure what I would do if I were given several million dollars every year, but I know I would make my fair share of immature purchases and be less than conservative with my money. So I don't necessarily blame athletes for the ridiculous spending on cars, homes, and accessories that the majority of athletes make during their playing careers. However, this spending is often detrimental to athletes once they retire.

Upon retiring, athletes typically become so accustomed to the fame and fortune of their playing days that they don't know how to transition. The pay checks stop coming in,  but the expenditures and purchases remain sky high because they don't know any other way to live. Many athletes grew up poor and began spending fruitfully when they received their multimillion dollar salaries as a 20-year-old or so. After retiring, many athletes can't, or won't, go back to spending less, so many eventually go broke. Athletes like Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Tiger Woods will never go broke due to endorsements and the eternal fame associated with being one of the greatest of all time. Standard, less successful athletes aren't as fortunate.

A lot of athletes are undereducated due to going straight to the pros out of high school or leaving college early to join the professional ranks. This lack of education adds to the immense spending because athletes aren't taught how to save or invest their money. Also, the lack of a degree makes it difficult for players to get a job after retiring. I realize it is somewhat unconstitutional to prevent players from playing professionally before graduating college, so I won't suggest that as a solution. However, I feel like if professional sports made it a requirement to hire a financial advisor, players would be better suited to transition into retired life.

Jake Packman

Sport, Politics and the Olympics

The 1936 Olympic games, held in Berlin, Germany, were viewed by Adolf Hitler as an opportunity to express the ideals of the Nazi party to the world. In the attempt to further impose the racial supremacist nature of the Nazi party, Hitler banned Jews and African Americans from the games. However, boycott threats from several nations caused Hitler to remove the ban and allow Jewish and Black people to participate in the games. With the exception of Helene Mayer, a german Jewish woman, Jewish and black athletes were still not allowed to participate on the German team.

The 1936 games clearly fall under the "Sport as a Propaganda Vehicle" in Sage and Eitzen's five political uses of sport. Hitler used the games to show the world the superiority of the german people under the Nazi party's control. In his book The Nazi Olympics, Richard Mandall said, "The festival planned for these games was a shrewdly propagandistic and brilliantly conceived charade that reinforced and mobilized the hysterical patriotism of the German masses." Germany's success and medal count in the games verified Nazi superiority in Hitler's eyes.

The statement "sport is pure and devoid of political interference" is absolutely not true. Politics have played a role in nearly ever olympic games, whether it be the Nazi games, the Black Power games in Mexico City, the Munich Massacre in 1972, and the list goes on. Politics in sport goes beyond the Olympic games, as well. The military uses the NFL as propaganda when it equates football to a battle, or war. Referring to football as war desensitizes the public to the violence and injustice of war and strengthens public support of war through the popularity of the NFL.

Jake Packman

London Calling: The Globalization of the NFL

As with most decisions made by NFL executives, the reasoning behind the desire to move the NFL outside the USA revolves around increasing revenue. Europe provides a new market for ticket sales, but also, more importantly, a new area to sell T.V. rights to view games. London makes sense for the ideal expansion site. For one, it's an English speaking country, so announcers and other small aspects of the game could be easily transferred. London also contains Wembley Stadium, which would be an ideal location for games for both capacity and accessibility reasons.

One of the main factors playing into whether to actually permanently move a team to London is whether the team could obtain a consistent fan base. When the NFL plays their annual game in London, the fans come from all over Europe, not necessarily from London or even England for that matter. Also, most of the fans are already die-hard NFL fans who hold devotion to a particular team already. It's difficult to determine whether moving an NFL team to London would create a new fan base at all. It's also difficult to determine whether fans in England would shift their devotion to a new team just because it was in London or whether they would remain faithful to their previous team.

If a team were to become successful in London in terms of marketing and increased revenue, it would also present several problems within the league. Firstly, traveling that distance is hard on the body and NFL players have a tough time keeping their bodies healthy as it is now. Teams from the west coast would have a particularly hard time dealing with jet lag and time change. Regardless of the effects on the body, the travel circumstances would provide a distinct advantage to the team in London. Between extended travel time and adjustment time, the London team would have considerably more time to prepare for the incoming team.

Jake Packman