Reply #4: I think it's more insidious than that [View All]

[fishwax]

I think there has been an organized effort by elites, including owners, corporate sponsors and partners, and media organizations, to make sports an avowedly "non-political" space. Of course, sports remain every bit as political as ever, but only approved political messages--those that support the elites and their interests--are allowed to be expressed without censure. When athletes try to make statements that challenge the status quo, they are shouted down by media and fans alike who say that sports and politics should be separate (as though that were really possible). For example, NBA Player and peace activist Etan Thomas has spoken about how, when he decided to come out publicly against the Iraq War, he had trouble finding a major media organization that was willing to provide an outlet.

Part of it is not wanting to interfere with endorsement contracts, as you said--the whole "republicans buy shoes too" defense; but there are also structures in place to discourage athletes from becoming politically vocal, including censure from both the media and governing bodies. I remember media frenzy when, for instance, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem, and was suspended by the NBA as a result. During the first year of the Iraq War there was a college basketball player who took similar action in protest of the war, and she too caught a ton of flack; moreover, when the media discussed her story it was almost always in a context of opposition to the war and president bush, which was an oversimplification (interview with her here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0316-02.htm).

Beyond censure for those who do speak out, there are institutional measures in place to deter those who might be tempted. Many teams, for instance, expect their players to sign statements of team unity, which include agreements not to talk politics in the locker room. These don't have the force of law, and players may not be required to do so, but failure to do so brings the accusation that one is selfish, not a team player, disruptive to team chemistry, etc. Superstars, perhaps, can get away that, but for those who don't have guaranteed contracts worth millions and who may have few marketable skills and only an abbreviated education to fall back on, the threat of being labeled a locker room cancer is a powerful disincentive.

And, of course, racism plays a huge role in all this, because a controversial athlete might threaten Nike's bottom line, but an outspoken black athlete threatens the system itself. There were some great African American writers, musicians, and intellectuals around in the first 20 years of the 1900s, but none of them struck the kind of fear into white America that heavyweight champion Jack Johnson did. So too with Jim Brown, who was beamed into white living rooms and emulated by white kids playing football in the back yard.

I suppose the reason is that an outspoken black athlete couples the practical with the theoretical. Black athletes from Jack Johnson to Jim Brown have provided living and irrefutable proof to cherished myths of white racial superiority. In playing golf and playing quarterback, folks like Tiger Woods and Donovan McNabb have penetrated some of the relatively few remaining such illusions in the sporting world.

Now, it's one thing to provide a practical demonstration of the falsity of those myths--that's something white Americans have gotten somewhat used to.

And it's a separate thing to articulate an intellectual critique of the system's flaws--that's something which white Americans, as far too many debates in GD capably demonstrate, find all-too-easy to ignore.

But merging the practical demonstration with the theoretical critique, as guys like Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali did--that combination could be a pretty powerful threat to the ptb, so I think they've made no small effort to reduce the chances of such a combination coming around again.

I'm rambling a bit, I guess, and making it sound a bit more conspiratorial than I really mean to. And I don't mean to excuse the general apoliticism of athletes today, nor to discount the challenges that faced athletes in earlier generations who were outspoken. But I do think that the illusion of sports as a non-political space is part of a concerted effort to sterilize a potentially very fertile ground for powerful voices against the status quo, so while cold hard cash may certainly be a big factor (for both the athletes and the owners), there are bigger considerations at work as well.