The Commercialization of Sport

After reading the blog by The John Curley Center for Sports Journalism, titled Emmert on student athletes and commercialization (Sports, Media & Society), I was reminded of the reading assigned for class regarding the Battle of the Sexes tennis match that was so highly commercialized. In the blog, the author describes the commercialization of college athletics. The blogger quotes the new NCAA President Mark Emmert stating "Student athletes will never be paid as long as I'm president of the NCAA. Fewer than 20 schools break even on collegiate sports,” he added. "It is grossly inappropriate for universities to even talk about paying student athletes." The author goes on to suggest it is the perception of wealth at big-time programs that leads the discussion in the “pay-to-play” debate. Emmert believes there are larger issues at hand than the idea of paying college athletes and that we must address those more significant issues. I believe we must keep the amateurism in collegiate sport. There is no need to make every sport profitable.

Sport is constantly becoming more and more commercialized. The Battle of the Sexes article, written by Charles Maher, discusses the tennis match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King which was televised in 36 foreign countries. The match was sponsored and promoted by multiple products including men’s toiletries while numerous celebrities attended the event. Maher states “the match got nearly as much exposure on the sports page as Watergate did on the front page” (Maher 43). Riggs was making commercials and TV appearances to promote the event and make money. ABC televised the match but created a battle with CBS in return. The Battle of the Sexes took place in 1973. The sports world has become far more commercialized since then.

Paying collegiate athletes or giving them deals with brand names is just another way to commercialize sport even further. I believe the “pay-to-play” concept is ridiculous and should never come into effect. Collegiate athletes are already given free college tuition and numerous other benefits through the university. Sport has become extremely commercialized over the years and we need to draw the line somewhere.

Brendan Burke's Legacy

Brendan Burke, the 21-year-old son of Toronto Maple Leafs manager Brian Burke, died in a two-car accident in Indiana on February 5. Brendan Burke was a courageous young man. He was a pioneer to the sport of hockey by coming out and declaring his homosexuality. He was the first ever to come out in the macho manly sport of hockey and admit he was gay. There will be a day that makes history, when there will be an openly gay player in the National Hockey League, and it will all be traced back to Brendan Burke.

Brendan was twenty years old when he came out and announced to the world that he was gay, and the support came pouring in too. His family was by his side and so was the entire NHL. Brendan didn't want it to make it change the way people thought about him, he just wanted to know that he could live the way he wanted to and peacefully. "Brendan and his father looked forward to the day when a person's sexual orientation would not be worth a headline," NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said. "I do, too." Patrick Burke said that he hope someday if somebody does come out that they are gay that it is not for Brendan, but that they do it for themselves.

Brendan Burke will always be remembered not for being gay, but for what he stood for and accepting who he was.

Opportunity Cuts and Re-adds

As I was reading the Title IX Blog titled “Cal Berkeley Could Restore Women's Teams”, a lot of questions came to my mind about the intentions of organizations, such as those at Berkeley, that are in charge of cutting and adding program opportunities for women and men. When I read that the University was considering re-adding five teams that were cut last year, it made me question their true reasons for considering doing this. In the reading ,“Olympic Women” from our book, “Women and Sports in the United States”, it discusses women’s progressiveness from the start of the Olympic games to modern day. It talks about how in the first Olympic games of 1896, that women were completely out of the picture and excluded from the games. As time went on, women were slowly added to the program and as the years progressed more women were allowed to compete in more of a variety of sports at the Olympics. But what were the IOC’s intentions in allowing women into the games? Was it done because they, themselves truly agreed that women should have just as much of a right as men to compete in these games? Or, was it done to make them look good and to make everyone happy? This is a question that, to me, pertains to many situations in today’s society, aside from the Olympics. In the blog about the situation at Berkeley, it stated that one of the reasons for the consideration of reinstating some of the teams that were previously cut, came from pledges of financial support. Shouldn’t the reason for these teams being re-added come from people’s moral thoughts and beliefs that they should be instead of done for financial reasons? Another issue at University of California-Berkeley comes from the matter of them cutting the gymnastics and lacrosse programs. It states in this blog that Berkeley would have to cut 30 more men’s opportunities than women’s, in order to achieve proportionality at their school. If there is such a drastic difference in the number of women’s vs. men’s opportunities, then why go and cut two more women’s sports and make that gap even larger? As a woman, I think it would be great if we lived in a society where women were given as many opportunities as men. But, I think it would be even greater if the reason this was achieved, was because everyone truly believed that women should have these rights, and not just done for reasons such as looking good to the media, financial support, and more.

Uniqueness in Green Bay

“Green Bay is truly a special, special situation.” Most would think that this phrase said by Rick Chernick, would be regarding Green Bay’s recent win in the Super Bowl against the Pittsburgh Steelers, instead this statement isn’t about Green Bay’s success during a season plagued with key injuries. Rather, the uniqueness of the ownership of the Green Bay Packers is what Chernick is referring to. Unlike any other team in the United States, the Packers are publically owned by the fans. In the article “Those Non-Profit Packers” by Dave Zirin, he discusses the history of the Packers and how they became a publically owned team, along with outlining how the National Football League is making sure it doesn’t occur with any other teams.

Like many other teams in the early 1920s, the Packers were pushing towards bankruptcy. Unlike many of the teams that disbanded during this early era, the Packers decided to sell shares to their community, relying on fan donations to keep the operation running smoothly. These shares still exist today, although no shareholder is allowing to exceed two hundred thousand shares making no one able to gain control of the organization. One would think being a stockholder in a NFL team would provide some sort of benefits, but Zirin states that “Shareholders receive no dividend check and no free tickets to Lambeau Field. They don’t even get a foam cheesehead. All they get is a piece of paper that says they are part-owners of the Green Bay Packers. They don’t even get a green and gold frame for display purposes.” This further deepens the uniqueness of the situation the Packers have with their fan base. Not only is the fan base the ownership of the team, volunteers through the communities work concessions during games (with 60% of their commission going towards charity!) and help shovel the stadium after snow storms.

Although this situation is great for Green Bay, that’s the only place you’ll be seeing this sort of ownership. Former N.F.L. commissioner Pete Rozelle had Article V, Section 4 written into the league constitution in 1960 stating that, “charitable organization and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.” With this article in place, it’s impossible for any current or expansion team to be owned by their fan base.

Personally, I understand that the N.F.L. would rather have rich billionaire owns running their teams rather than multiple owners and board of directors. Things are a lot simpler with owners and would result in less confusion and more revenue. Overall, I think Green Bay is a very unique situation that’ll never be replicated by another United States professional sports team, and maybe it’s better that way or maybe it’s not.

A Cut For Equality

An interesting post by Erin Buzuvis about Bemidji State University explains its newest idea to gain equity in their universities athletics program in terms of mens and womens opportunites. Their big move was to eliminate their mens indoor and outdoor track team from their sports department to meet the ten percent cut that the entire university is undergoing. Before this cut had became finalized an interesting number was posted. At the university, their was a 63 percent for males to have an opportunity to play sports. However, for women it was just 37 percent. There were two hundred and twenty one mens opportunities and only one hundred and twenty nine opportunites for women. Now, after the cut has been made, it lowers the percentage for men to fifty four percent and raises the womens to forty six percent. Still though, the amount of men compared to women who attend this university is split right down the middle at fifty percent each. Bemidji was even told by officials that they were "well out of alignment, as far as Title IX." When i was reading this post it made me think back to class when we were talking about feminism as a theory. We came across a word that relates to this article really well. That word is patriarchy. Patriarchy is a structured or ideological system of relationships that legitimate male power over women. This is clearly shown by many other colleges around the United States, but with this university in particular and the numbers shown that you can see that mens sports at colleges have power over the womens. Patriarchy also expresses a hegemonic male world view and the same could be said for this universities sports programs over the womens before the cut was made. I dont think that Bemidji has any room for explanations when it comes to the big gaps in the opportunities offered to play sports because the amount of male and female students who attend that university is even and without discriminating against women they have no other excuse. When it comes to my opinion I think that every university should have the same number or mens and womens sports teams. Whether their all the same or some schools offer different opportunities than others it doesnt matter, but every school should have the same number of opportunities for men and women to play sports. Its a whole different topic to try to even out who desides to watch which sport and how to close that gap, however I dont think it is fair to deny women opportunities to play sports especially when the number of women coming into your school is the same number as men.

High School Sports Are Supposed To Be Fun. For Everyone.

After reading "Why Sports Are Important For Young LGBT People" by Pat Griffin, I couldn't help but to think about my experience as a high school athlete. It was by far the best experience of my life. Then I thought of how that experience would have been if I were gay or bisexual. All of the relationships that I had with teammates, friends, and coaches would probably have been completely different. It would have most likely been a terrible feeling.

But why does this have to be the case? Why can't high school athletics be a great experience for everyone who loves sports? Before reading "Out Of The Locker Room Closet" by Roger Brigham, I had never heard of any LGBT athlete having a great experience in high school athletics. Most of the stories I have heard or seen are about the prejudice and discrimination that LGBT athletes deal with about their sexual orientation. The story of Jamie Loo, a high school wrestler in San Francisco, is about an athlete who has had a great experience in high school athletics despite coming out to his teammates and coaches. Jaime struggled with the decision to come out, but is happy he did. All of his coaches and teammates, and even people outside of his high school wrestling team, have accepted Jaime for the way he is.

So why can't all young LGBT athletes have experiences like Jaime? I think it starts with support from coaches and teachers, like Griffin suggested. But support from their peers is just as important. Understanding and empathy from coaches and teammates can have a dramatic impact on the sporting experiences of these athletes. There are thousands of young LGBT athletes who have struggled with this very issue. Many of them have fallen victim to discrimination, depression, and even suicide. Jaime's story has shown that it is possible to have great success in high school sports. So when will more people have sporting experiences like Jaime?

The Female Apologetic & Marketability

Recently in class we have discussed the idea of the female apologetic. This refers to acts by women such as wearing a lot of makeup or tight-fitting clothing while playing sports, which are performed in an attempt to combat the possible suggestion that they are lesbian or too masculine because of their participation in sport. One can certainly make a case that the female apologetic continues to run rampantly in women’s athletics, although you can’t truly prove if a woman is doing certain things only to dismiss possible speculation that they could be a lesbian — they may truly like to wear make up, etc, while participating in athletics.

The entire chapter — “All-American Girls Professional Baseball League Rules of Conduct, 1943-1954” from our text by Jean O’Reilly and Susan K. Cahn, which, as you would guess from the title, explains, the rules of conduct for women’s professional baseball. The first two rules explicitly fit under the idea of the female apologetic.

“1) Always appear in feminine attire when not actively engaged in practice or playing ball … At no time may a player appear in the stands in her uniform, or wear slacks or shorts in public.

2) Boyish bobs are not permissible and in general your hair should be well groomed at all times with longer hair preferable to short hair cuts. Lip stick should always be on.”

As an example, one of the greatest athletes of all time — Babe Didrikson Zaharias — often had to deal with more questions and whisperings regarding her sexuality rather than her tremendous athletic ability. Didrikson was often referred to with masculine terminology., too; “On she went, clipping the barriers with all the technique of an expert male,” (p. 19, O’Reilly & Kahn, 2007). Accusations of Didrikson being a lesbian continued quite often until her marriage to wrestler George Zaharias in 1938 quelled a lot of that speculation.

In modern day sport, I believe some female athletes may play into the female apologetic for marketing purposes. Not only are these female athletes who display feminine characteristics often persecuted or accused less for possibly being lesbians, it seems they’re infinitely more marketable and popular.

Not only do they have to do this to not be accused, but often it seems to be popular or marketable. In terms of popularity, see this list of the 30 most-googled female athletes in the world: http://www.totalprosports.com/2010/12/08/the-30-most-googled-female-athletes-in-the-world-pics/

Categorizing most of the women listed on that page as sex symbols would be more accurate than categorizing them as athletes. Examples such as Danica Patrick and Anna Kournikova are examples of athletes who have been marginally successful at best, but have certainly cultivated “sexy” public images of themselves. Whether this is wrong or not, I’m not sure if we can say. There’s probably more money to be made and endorsements to be had for female athletes who portray themselves as sexy, so I don’t think we can necessarily fault these women.

And still, there are women like Lindsey Vonn and Jennie Finch — elite athletes in their respective sports — who are successful but also use their sex appeal heavily. These choices have no doubt been profitable for both Vonn and Finch through photo shoots, endorsements, and other opportunities, but probably haven’t been very progressive for women’s athletics.

So whose responsibility is it? Should female athletes be more cognizant of this and try to rely more solely on their athletic ability, and not give in to do photo shoots and commercials like Patrick’s ads for GoDaddy.com? Or should they be encouraged to do whatever is most profitable?