Entry #10 - Gender and Sport

Link to article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hope-solos-revealing-moment-its-more-than-skin-deep/2011/10/17/gIQALwkXsL_story.html



On November 17, the topic of gender in sport was discussed and the obviously when discussing gender differences in sport, one can't help but think of the idea of whether or not female athletes are viewed as sex symbols over female athletes.  The answer to that question is a bit complicated. 

When thinking of female athletes we tend to associate them not by their accomplishments, but instead of how they look.  Not to say that everyone views it that way, but society tends to make us believe that a female athlete is more likely to receive endorsements or magazine covers depending on how attractive they are.  Take Hope Solo for example.  During the USA's World Cup run this past summer, the team received massive amounts of media coverage.  With that media coverage, the spotlight was shined on Hope not just because of her athletic ability, but unfortunately because of her looks as well. 

Coakley uses the example of Anna Kournikova turning her looks and not her tennis skills to bring her fame and fortune.  While that is a legit argument for the idea of female athletes being looked in a sexual way, Kournikova chose to use her looks to her advantage.  Solo has repeatedly stated that she doesn't consider herself a sex symbol, but more of a role model for women.  Solo's opinion is that she is proving that female athletes can be looked at in a classy way but she also points out that it's her accomplishments that gave her all this attention. 

So is Hope Solo a sex symbol?  Depends on who you ask.  If it's Hope herself you're asking, don't expect a yes answer. 

Entry #9 - Race & Ethnicity

Link to articles: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/Racist+incident+shows+hockey+culture+adapting+Former+coach/5450477/story.html?id=5450477

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/7007219/fan-throws-banana-philadelphia-flyers-winger-wayne-simmonds



On November 10, the topic of race and ethnicity in sport was discussed.  When takling about race in sports, obviously the first thought to come into a person's head is Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier.  That was truly one of the greatest events in not just baseball history but in the history of sports.

While we like to remember how great of a moment it was from a history stand point, we mustn't forget how at the time, Robinson went through much scrutiny as blacks and whites were still seperated from many things such as hotels and restaurants.  However, through the years, racism had slowly diminished in sports.  Unfortunately, just because racism had diminished, it doesn't mean racism is entirely gone. 

During a preseason game against the Detroit Red Wings, Philadelphia Flyers winger Wayne Simmonds had a banana thrown at him as he was rushing to the goalie during his turn in a shootout.  Throwing of a banana at an African American is considered by many to be a prejudicial act and this was no different.  NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman apologized publicly for the incident as he should have but the fact that this is still a problem in society today is a real eye opener. 

Coakley discusses the notion of how we as individuals inherit race ideology from the people we interact with such as family members, friends, neighbors, and others.  The question should then be asked, who exactly is this fan spending time with that would give him the idea it's perfectly okay to do something as prejudicial as this? 

Entry #8 - Deviance

Link to articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/penn-state-scandal-provides-lessons-to-university-presidents/2011/11/15/gIQALElGYN_story.html

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xy0L8MUsOE



It's amazing what can happen when deviance occurs in sport.

Whenever sports and deviance are put together, we tend to automatically think of the usual suspects.  We think of players taking some sort of performance enhancing drugs.  We think of athletes committing a crime whether it'd be drunk driving or carrying a loaded, non registered gun.  We think of academic cheating amongst college athletes who don't want their elligibility taken away.  We even think of a domestic disturbance some times between an athlete and their spouse.  However there are the rare occassions where one deviant act can occur, and it will change the entire viewpoint you have when it comes to sports.

If you've been living under a rock for the last month or so, you might not have heard about the Penn State scandal that has literally shocked the world and made us question one of the greatest legacies in college athletics.  Former Penn State assistant coach and defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky has been charged wtih 40 counts of child molestation.  The facts of this case have been considered absolutely disguisting in so many ways.  Reports of sexual abuse, molestation, and even "pimping" children to other donors through his organization have caused Sandusky to be viewed as a face of evil.  And because of that view, questions about the allegations became to much to handle for the Penn State board of governers and actions were needed. 

When discussing Deviance, Coakley brings up the idea that those in power can somehow manage to "stretch" the rules for their own personal gain and may not consider themselves as a criminal.  Coakley may not have thought about this horrible event to take place but it does bring a valid notion that too much power can lead to deviance becoming a norm in many coaches daily lives.  Although I wonder Coakley would have to say about something like this?

Entry #7 - Sport and The Mass Media

Link to articles: http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/7123494/us-networks-bid-2018-2022-world-cup-media-rights

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/04/11/Media/NHL-TV.aspx

   

On October 27, the topic of sport and mass media was discussed and there was one topic that became a reocurring thought.  As professional leagues and events have grown in importantce and popularity, so has the demand to televise and broadcast all of these different games and events. 

Sport and media match hand in hand together.  Without media, sport has no way for the games to be viewed, analyzed, discussed, or reported on for everyone whos interested to see.  Without sport, the media loses one of their more popular followings and a large percentage of their business would disappear because of it.  So in order for these games to be televised and distributed nationally or in some cases internationally, networks have to bid on the rights to broadcast these leagues and events.  And in some cases, the bidding can grow to quite a large fee. 

Take the National Hockey League for example.  Their contract with NBC Comcast was set to expire after this season and thus a bidding war began in order for networks to exclusively televise hockey.  Hockey had grown in popularity ever since the NHL Lockout ended in 2004, so the NHL was in a position they had never truly been in before as networks were throwing out lucrative sums of money and distribution perks in order to gain their rights.  It eventually came down to the NHL either re-signing with NBC Comcast or signing with ESPN.  While many critics felt that ESPN would've created an even larger amount of exposure, the NHL instead decided to re-sign with NBC Comcast on a 10 year, 2 billion dollar contract. 

Coakley provides the argument that television revenues are a large means for how teams and leagues generate income.  While Coakley's point is considered to be spot-on, the fact that large networks with plenty of programming to choose from have to give out a large portion of money to televise sports is insane.  The argument was always that sport needs media and media doesn't always need sport.  However if that's the case, then why is the media bidding large numbers of money for something they don't necessarily need?

Entry #6 - Sport and Economics

Link to article: http://www.thenation.com/article/162400/why-do-mayors-love-sports-stadiums



On October 20, the discussion of sport and economics brought out the idea that while money has become the primary foundation for all sports, it is also well known that in order for professional leagues and franchises to obtain that money, they have to be able to co-exist with the surrounding community.  In reality, fans are the whole reason that these players, coaches, and owners have their money.  In order for these individuals to make their money, the exploitation of markets has become an all too common ordeal. 

The article above is a link to a specific market that is being boosted and exploited thanks to the relocation of the National Basketball Association franchise, New Jersey Nets, from Newark, New Jersey, to Brooklyn, New York.  Real Estate Developer Bruce Ratner has been planning the layout for the Nets' brand new home which includes a Pantheon of a sports arena along with the promise of plans for re-development in order to create more jobs in the growing area.  Not to say that Mr. Ratner shouldn't be applauded for his hard work in developing this area, it's just that we've heard this story before with many other different areas being re-developed thanks to a pro franchise and then nothing really happening after it. 

Coakley displays the argument in his text describing that many fans are lead to believe that owners will abandon the city if the they're not given what they want.  It's like holding a city hostage with something they love in order for them to give them what they want.  We've seen it before with the Seattle Sonics moving to Oklahoma City and the Sacramento Kings threatening to relocate to Anaheim.  Owners know that fans love sports and they use them to their advantage.  Sure they may promise that this new arena will create an economic buzz throughout the city and re-development plans around it will create new jobs as well.  However, are we really suppose to believe that owners care about the re-development process?  I mean don't get me wrong, there are some owners who have come through with these promises, but those owners still took alot of public money in order to build these areas. 

Our beloved franchises are controlled by those who want our money.  We could say "forget about you" and just keep our money, but then again, your beloved basketball or hockey or football team is relocating.  It sucks to be a fan sometimes. 

Entry #5: Sport and Politics

Link to article: http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/professional/will-the-nba-become-a-fly-over-league

On October 6th, the discussion of politics in sport became a somewhat intriguing concept.  Until I realized of course that it is far from a concept and instead a reality. 



Politics has always been a factor in professional sport, ever since the idea of sport as a big business came into being.  While it always hasn't been considered the best way to view sport, it has been important for sport to function like a business in order for the game to succeed.  And as we all know, politics and business basically go hand in hand.  With the recent NBA Lockout cancelling the first 2 weeks of the season, it wouldn't be crazy to think that politics is having a big hand in who is gaining the upperhand during the negotiation process of a new collective bargaining agreement.  Not only that, but the NBA has recently gone through many issues within their franchise cities, especially smaller market ones that involve government assistance.

Coakley makes the connection that as sports grow in popularity, government involvement usually increases.  Many sports require sponsorship, organization, and facilities - all of which depend on resources that few individuals possess on their own (Coakley p. 439).  A professional franchise may require some sort of financial assistance every now and then, but once the requirement of government involvement occurs, who exactly is running the franchise? 

Entry #4: Sport and Education

Link to article:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sports-transgressions/201006/collegiate-sports-vs-college-education-why-they-must-be-odds



During class on October 4th, the topic of college athletics abusing their power became a pondering thought to me. Most people will assume the purpose of college is to give your child a furthur means of education and to develop the skills they need to start their life and find a career.  However what exactly is the college's mission?  Sure there may be some that take pride in their alumni's accomplishments in the world but to be honest, colleges need money to stay relevant.  Colleges compete with each other for students through means of academics, campus, environment, and in some cases, athletics. 

Athletics has slowly turned into colleges and universities main source of attention, especially from football and men's basketball.  One of the biggest characteristics of a university is that football and men's basketball are the largest forms of marketability, so it's naturally fitting that universities will try to invest enough money into their athletic program by any means necessary.  The problem though is that the more money you put into your program, the more pressure your creating to be the best, which leads to certain ways to get to the top that may not be the smart thing to do.  Just to give a short history lesson, look what happened to Southern Methodist University's football program.  Rule violations occurring in order to be the best has consequences.  Now while those consequences may not be as severe as they used to be, the point they make is still very loud and clear. 

To give a more recent example, such as the link provides, the University of Southern California was found guility of major rule violations.  Not only was the program forced to give up a large number of scholarships, they were also banned from a future bowl game and Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush was stripped of his title for his role in the violations.  Are these violations really worth it?  Coakley points out in his text that there are about 1900 intercollegiate sport programs in the United States.  Less than 25 of them consistently make more money than they spend (Fulks, 2008), and these programs have football teams that play in major bowl games each year and receive payouts of 18.5 million (Coakley p. 492).  Was USC one of those teams that actually made money that they didn't have to worry about losses?  I'm not sure, but what I do know is that it's not worth losing so much for the purpose of being the best.  Who wants to attend a university that cheats the system to make money?