Class Reflection

Overall, I am pretty satisfied with everything I have learned in this class this semester. I appreciated everyone who spoke up in class and shared their opinions during discussion, because comments made by others often sparked new ideas and thoughts that I would want to share. 

The topic that stood out the most to me this semester wasn't a particular topic that we covered in only one lecture, but the topic of fairness in sports in general. For me, I noticed this was a recurring issue in many of our discussions, including the discussions about sexuality, sex testing, and performance enhancing drugs. I came into this class thinking that I had solid opinions (eg. taking steroids to enhance performance is totally wrong, that sport is an avenue where everything is set up fairly so that people can compete together, that sport is inherently good, etc.), but they were slowly broken down as we had deeper and deeper discussions. For example, on Tuesday I realized that for issues like steroid use, I don't really know what my opinion is anymore, and I'm just kind of confused as to what is the best option (legalizing performance enhancing drugs or not). And even if there was a "best" option, is regulation even possible in the reality of sport in US society today? Even if there is a "Jedi" side of sports, does the "dark side" prevent what seems good in theory from every being practically applied? I feel like my perception of sports now is not a fair competition of who has worked the hardest or has been blessed with the best talent: It seems to be more of a competition of who has the most access to resources. Athletes with the best access to performance enhancing processes (legal or legal, acceptable or unacceptable), the best coaches, the best fanbase, the best of everything, seem to be winners most of the time. Society does influence sport, but it seems like sports is also a reflection of society at the same time. The problems found in sports are also found in other aspects of society: People with access to more resources, money, and power, "win," even though it isn't the same kind of winning as in sports.

Another thing this class has taught me is that for every issue that may seem black and white, there is a whole other complex situation behind the issue. For example, sex testing may seem like a black and white issue, but behind the idea of sex testing is the ideology that has been present in society for a long time: that women cannot be as successful or athletic as men, so there is a fear of the unknown.

Something that surprised me about this class (probably because I have never taken a class with Killick before) was that the Vegas rule was actually real in our discussions. I've had many professors claim that nothing we say will be used personally against us or leave the room, but I've seen that rule violated. In this class, I felt like we were allowed to talk openly and express our opinions regarding many "taboo" topics. 

Something that I appreciated about this class was how it challenged me as a writer and helped me learn to better express myself with words. I would recommend this class to any friend who is willing to work hard to learn more and stretch themselves in the area of critical thinking.

Bigger, Stronger, Faster

Common arguments used to support the ban on steroid use in sport is that it gives certain athletes unfair advantages (creating an playing field that isn't level for everyone) and that they have negative side effects that are detrimental the health of athletes who use them (Mazzeo, 2009).  The men interviewed in Bell's documentary, including his two brothers, use steroids to get bigger and perform better. For Mad Dog, taking steroids while playing D1 football "wasn't even a decision at all," because he "couldn't compete here" and "everyone who succeeded was using them." Bell's younger brother, Smelly, took them because he "just needed to get bigger," saying that as an athlete there is "no excuse for not being as strong as you possibly can be." 

This documentary was eye-opening in many ways, and it showed me that steroid use, like many other issues involved in sports, is not as black and white as it may seem. While Bell personally decided not to take steroids because he felt like he was cheating when he was taking them, the film presents the arguments for and against steroids in a way that does not seem to support or attack athlete steroid use. Bell analyzes how when people of power (eg. Olympic Americans, Arnold) use steroids and are caught, it doesn't seem as bad. I found it really interesting that steroids were the reason why the USA's olympic lifting team finally beat Russia, but in that case, their success was applauded because "ass kicking" is what we do here in America. I also found it very interesting that a lot of the negative talk surrounding steroids and its "detrimental health effects" might not even be true or research-based. One part that stuck out to me was the father whose son committed suicide, and the father blamed the death on his son's use of anabolic steroids. The statistics that Bell presented were surprising: The number of deaths caused by alcohol each year is much greater than the deaths caused by steroids (3 per year). 

Something else that stood out to me was that the man's reasoning for combating steroid use so adamantly was that "steroid use is illegal!" However, Bell showed that Congress did not listen to experts from the FDA or AMA when analyzing steroids as a drug, and Bell's interview with the Congressman who advocated the ban on steroids showed that the man was not very knowledgeable when it came to this area. 

Personally, I believe that before detrimental side effects on health can be used as a core argument against the use of steroids, more research has to be done. My position on performance enhancing drug use in sport is that it does give athletes an advantage over others. If steroids didn't have a performance enhancing effect, athletes wouldn't be taking them. Many athletes justify their use of steroids because they know that many other athletes are using them as well. In theory I believe that athletes should not cheat in any way, but I know that when it comes to regulating steroid use not cheating, it is difficult to find a practical system in doing so. 

Bell's discussion regarding sleeping in an altitude chamber as a possible unfair advantage reminded me of the research I came across when writing my paper about sex testing. Bell asks why the use of drugs in fields like music and war is acceptable, but in sports it is seen as cheating. I think it is because sports is a realm that is so public and deeply rooted in American culture, and we feel such a strong connection to it that when people cheat during competitions, we seem to take it personally, like something wrong has been done against us.

References:
Mazzeo, F., & Ascione, A. (2013). Anabolic androgenic steroids and doping in sport. Sports Medicine Journal / Medicina Sportivâ,9(1), 2009-2020

Crime and Punishment

After reading the articles of all the links included in this blog, I realized that the issue of crime in sport is a lot more complicated than I thought. Each of the links seemed to focus on something different: how the NFL deals with crimes and how the punishment wasn’t harsh enough, how the public should respect the privacy of women and how the Janay Rice video shouldn’t have been publicized, and how the public reacts more harshly towards crimes committed by black athletes than white athletes. There’s so many factors involved in the discussion of Ray Rice’s particular incident and how it is talked about in media.

I think Ray Rice’s incident is reflective of broader trends in US sport, but I think it received a great amount of attention than previous cases of domestic violence. According to the New York Times, domestic violence is actually the most common reason for arrest among NFL athletes, even though the rate of committing this crime is less than the national average (Irwin, 2014). Despite it being lower than the national average, NFL players, as famous athletes that we watch on tv and look up to, should be held to a higher standard anyway. Other NFL players that have been convicted of murder or assault are Josh Brent, and Dwayne Goodrich, and these are only the big name ones that received long periods of probation. As one of authors of the link mentioned, there was visual and graphic evidence of Ray Rice’s crime, and his ethnicity might have had something to do with the heightened discussion of his actions. Also, the NFL’s punishment that many believe wasn’t harsh enough brought the issue even more attention, and it brought negative attention to the NFL as an industry as well.

Right now, it seems like there is media that both downplays Ray Rice’s actions as well as media that criticizes his actions. (I don’t know if it’s because the media that I’m exposed to has changed since the start of taking this class). For the most part though, I think both the NFL and media have downplayed the situation and have made it seem like it is not a big deal for good NFL players to be committing these kinds of crimes. Through this, the media reinforces that it is acceptable for these types of actions to be done if the offender is an athlete or someone of value to the NFL industry. It is promoting the notion that if you are talented in the way of what society values (you are good at making touchdowns or throwing the football), then you won’t get punished as harshly for committing domestic violence offenses.

These trends in criminal activity that are broadcasted about more often than these crimes committed by “regular” people (non-athletes) might be a result of the common nature of the background of these athletes. One of the links had an article that lightly touched on this, and it discussed how an upbringing of athletic success is coupled with a sense of entitlement, and the notion that one matters more than others and is valued more because of one’s athletic ability.

IRWIN, N. (2014, September 13). The Numbers Game. New York Times. p. D1.C

Is Sport a safe space for LGBT athletes?

According to Nation's author Sherry Wolf, sport culture does not just reflect the sexual biases of the time, but it also helps to shape those sexual biases. I think the "Jedi" side of sports and how it should be, is fair and inclusive. However, as of now, sports doesn't seem to be a space space for LGBT athletes. This might be the masculine nature of sport itself (relating to our discussion regarding gender). An example of sport's masculine emphasis is when players are told they should not "throw like a girl" or that they should "man up." At the time Wolf wrote her article "America's Deepest Closet" in 2011, it was noted that "not a single player in the NFL, NHL, NBA, or MLB" had declared himself to be LGBT, even though survey data indicated that a "degree of acceptance" existed in those leagues toward LGBT athletes (Wolf, 2011).

Now in 2014, Jason Collins and other professional athletes have come out and have discussed their sexual orientation publicly. The fact that it has taken so long just for one person to feel comfortable to come out shows that sports may not be as accepting and "safe" as it should be. Collins does discuss how he is blessed with family and friends that not only accept but also support his homosexuality, However, he also discusses things that kept him from coming out sooner, like being "loyal to the team" (Collins, 2013).  He did not want it to be a distraction to himself or the team. Some other barriers that may exist are the possible skewed perceptions that people around an LGBT athlete may have. For example, Collins mentions how he might have to be more "physical to prove that being gay doesn't make you soft." (However, based on his play in the NBA he clearly proves that he can compete just as aggressively as all the other heterosexual players out there.)

Based on our discussions that we have already had in class, it seems like many issues we discuss (race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic biases) are a result from differences between people, which then exist in a hierarchy that separates the different characteristics of people. Regarding LGBT athletes, it seems like sports that are "safer" for them to play or are more "accepting" are sports like dance, figure skating, cross country/track, badminton, volleyball, and tennis. Many of these sports share characteristics with sports that the class discussion decided were what society deemed "good" sports for women to play. This shows that being LGBT seems to equate to being less manly or more feminine. More "feminine" sports are typically individual or judged subjectively (gymnastics, dance, etc.). This is obviously not true, because LGBT athletes can be just as good at any sport as a "normal" heterosexual athlete. Judging someone's athletic ability by their sexual orientation is just as ridiculous as judging someone's athletic ability by their skin color.

I've never been afraid of or mean to the LGBT community, but I have to admit that before I came to college I was as aware of the issues that the community faced. It was not until after I became a student advisor that I learned that certain things we say or phrases we throw around are microaggressions that can be unsupportive towards the LGBT community (eg. calling someone a fag, not providing a unisex bathroom at events, etc.) I think being educated as part of my job forced me to think about what I say and be conscious of possible alternatives to use in my daily language (eg. unisex pronouns like "ze"). It is not guaranteed, but personally it helped when I was educated by the LGBT community.

Collins, Jason. (2013). Why NBA Center Jason Collins is Coming Out Now. Sports Illustrated.

Updated 2014. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/04/29/jason-collins-gay-nba-player

Wolf, S. (2011). America's Deepest Closet. Nation, 293(7/8), 29-31.

Hoop Dreams: Is sport a viable passport out of poverty?

Overall, I enjoyed the documentary very much, and I found it interesting that although William was the one who was favored to succeed from the start, Arthur ended up getting closer to being a state champion than William did. I felt like Hoop Dreams captured a lot of the culture in West Garfield as well as St. Joseph’s. I don’t know how natural the behaviors on film were, but the presentations of the socioeconomic status of the two environments were very different. Not only was West Garfield a mostly black neighborhood, but it reflected a low socioeconomic status. The scene that stood out to me the most was the when the Arthur and Shannon were in summer school together for a remedial English class. The class was for freshmen, sophomores, AND juniors because there weren’t enough English teachers during the school year, which reflects the school’s poor public funding. Also, the way that the African American students in the English class speak and disrespect their teacher portrays them as uneducated and immature. This kind of environment is contrasted with St. Joe’s, where all the boys wear ties to school and William gets individual attention from teachers to help him succeed. Both William and Arthur discuss how the school is predominantly white and people are “different from back home.” The discipline is stronger at St. Joe’s, with detention and policies that “suspend you quick.” The gym was well-furnished compared to the netless and unpainted courts in the West Garfield neighborhood. Overall, the film captured the more wealthy and powerful class identity of the St. Joseph community compared to the underfunded community of West Garfield.

For both William and Arthur, getting recruited to St. Joe’s gave them the opportunity to play “better” basketball, and Arthur’s family said he matured after going. William had bad grades in grammar school but greatly improved his grades during his freshman year, mostly motivated by basketball. Because William was good enough to play varsity as a freshman, he was a hot commodity and that got the attention of people with power. For example, part of his tuition was paid for by an organization called Cycle, and because he was so good at basketball, he got his entire education paid for through connections of powerful people (like the head of Encyclopedia Britannica). He was also given a job opportunity over the summer through these connections. St. Joe’s viewed him as a valuable asset and therefore made efforts to keep him around. For Arthur on the other hand, his family had to pay for half of the tuition, and when the tuition rose, St. Joe’s made zero efforts to keep him there or help him with financial aid, although he was a starter on the freshman team. I forgot who in the film said it, but a fan or teacher explained simply that Arthur “wasn’t as good as they had hoped he would be, so they let him go.” He was required to leave mid-semester, which meant that he was behind in credits when he transferred to a public school near his home. Not only that, but St. Joe’s made it extremely hard for his family to access his transcripts to find his graduation status because Arthur’s family owed the school money. In the end, Arthur’s mom claimed that she almost wished that Arthur had never gone to St. Joe’s. Other people who were interviewed for the film felt that if he was good enough, arrangements would have been made to keep him at St. Joe’s.

Basketball played an extremely important role in the lives of the two boys as well as their families. William discussed how during the time after his injury when he could not play basketball, his grades slipped because he had become unmotivated. Many decisions were made revolving around basketball, beginning with transferring to St. Joe’s, going to a summer Nike All-American camp, and doing well in school. To William, it was his “ticket out of the ghetto.” For Arthur, successes that he achieves through basketball are celebrated by the entire family. The same goes for William’s family, and his brother kind of lives vicariously through him. Curtis Gates never got a college degree, so even though he was good at basketball, he ended up becoming a security guard with low pay. The parents of the two boys know the boys love basketball and there are several scenes of Arthur playing with his father, and William’s family watching basketball together.

Because basketball was so important to the boys, sometimes other priorities were not put at the top. For example, William and his girlfriend get into a slight argument about how he was not present in the delivery room when she gave birth to Alicia. William responds that there was no way that he could leave during ‘that time of the season.’ Also, because basketball was the number one thing for him, when basketball was not a present part of his life (after his knee surgery), academics also sank for him.

This documentary reminded me of many of the topics we discussed in class. One was the way the NCAA or universities exploit their athletes. It felt like the same thing was being done with both William and Arthur. With Arthur, it seemed like St. Joe’s used him, realized they didn’t need him, so they let him go. With William, St. Joe’s gave him many opportunities, but so that they could possibly obtain a state championship. The St. Joe’s head coach says at the end of the documentary “one walks out the door and another comes in.” I think this reflects the exploitive nature of the program and emphasizes the way athletes are used for their skills. William claims that basketball became more of a “job than a sport to play.”

This documentary also reminded me of the discussion we had in class about how retired pro athletes don’t have many options after their athletic careers are over. However, William and Arthur both received education because of basketball (even though a certain amount of effort and potential in education was required to get there – eg. William’s ACT score situation). I looked up what happened to the two of them after college – one got a seminary degree and the other created a charity foundation. Both of these opportunities were probably enhanced by the education both men received. Neither of them ended up making it big in the NBA, and education ended up being an equally important way out of the environments they had previously been in. In both their cases, basketball was not the guaranteed one way ticket out of poverty. If sports were the “passport” out of poverty, education would be the actual airplane. Sports allowed them to get an opportunity, but an education was required for them to pursue any of the opportunities that were presented.

References:

 Hoop Dreams [Motion picture]. (1994). USA: Public Broadcasting Service.

Interrogating the Presentation of Gender in Sports Advertising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcq_jvmXDo


This is Nike's "Just Do It" 25th Anniversary commercial that aired last year, kind of for all Nike products in general. It features both male and female athletes, and it also includes famous athletes as well as everyday athletes. After watching the commercial, I felt like the messages about gendered identities, roles, and relations were present but extremely subtle. I've seen many commercials that were extremely obvious in their use of stereotypical depictions of male and female athletes. I can see that Nike made a conscious effort to include a female athletes, both famous and not famous. Also, the commercial included a variety of sports, including running,  bullriding, dancing, BMX, soccer, wrestling, football, boxing, basketball, table tennis, dancing, and tennis. Famous athletes featured included Lebron James, Andre Ward, Gerard Pique, and Serena Williams.

Of all the sports featured in the commercial, all the athletes featured fell into the stereotypical "male" or "female" sports we discussed in class: the men were featured bullriding, participating in BMX, playing soccer, throwing a football, wrestling, and boxing. The female athletes were either running, playing table tennis, or dancing/cheerleading (Serena Williams is the exception). This implies that there was no female athlete that was good enough or famous enough to be featured for one of these male-dominated sports (even though there are many professional female soccer and basketball players).

Besides Serena Williams, the females in the commercial were marathon running, cheerleading, or dancing on the beach. Traditionally these are "accepted" forms of physical activity for females.
The main point of the commercial is that if you "just do it," you can beat a famous athlete at his or her own sport (which might be kind of a stretch). All of the famous male athletes are unnamed, with Bradley Cooper's narration simply stating: "pick on him," or "beat that guy." It's assumed that if you have Nike products you probably already know who Lebron James is when you see his face. When the narration is talking about the female amateur table tennis player, he says, "beat Serena" just in case you don't know who the famous female athlete is, but Serena Williams doesn't even play the same sport. Table tennis and tennis are different sports, but they're equated as the same in this commercial, which is weird. Also, when the female runner is being featured, the narrator tells her to run faster than a movie star (Chris Pine). This doesn't even make sense to me, because for all the male amateur athletes featured, they were set up against famous athletes doing the sport that the amateurs did. For the female athletes featured, it felt like Serena Williams was just chosen because she was the most famous female athlete they could find. Also, she's featured wearing a full pink outfit, including skirt and pink headband (as if we have to be reminded that even though she's very muscular and a great athlete, she's female).

 The stereotypical depiction of men and women in advertisements is problematic because studies have shown that "repeated exposure to selective portrayals" of gender groups can lead to viewers adopting distorted beliefs about those groups (Rubie-Davies, 2013). Although subtle, the commercial highlighted that if you're a female athlete, there are certain acceptable forms of athletics that are acceptable, including running, cheer/dance, and maybe table tennis. Also, you probably aren't good enough to face other athletes, but you might be more athletic than other "regular" people. Not seeing any females portrayed in media playing "big" male sports like bullriding, soccer, wrestling, and boxing discourages amateur athletes from participating or even thinking about participating in a traditionally male sport. Also, by not even mentioning the names of the famous male athletes reflects that if you follow sports or buy Nike products, you should be able to identify the most famous male athletes in sports, but it's acceptable if you don't know champion female athletes like Serena.


References:
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Liu, S., & Lee, K. K. (2013). Watching Each Other: Portrayals of Gender and Ethnicity in Television Advertisements. Journal Of Social Psychology, 153(2), 175-195.

Exploring the Hegemonic Gendering process

Suits is one of my favorite television shows, and I think Harvey Specter's character on the show captures the dominant US societal norms of what an "ideal man" is supposed to look like. On Suits, Harvey is a young, well-established, good-looking, high class, expensively-dressed lawyer working at a big time firm. Not only is he rich, but he also has no problem getting laid or getting a beautiful girlfriend. While the show sometimes portrays him as a hard worker, he often effortlessly wins, in not only legal cases but also relational arguments. Harvey has a respected and thriving career after graduating from Harvard, and he also possesses a lot of power over his clients and other people in his office. He also sometimes chooses to blackmail or take advantage of others if it benefits himself or people he cares about. I think Harvey's character embodies what many young men in America strive to be and achieve.

The way I learned what a real man is supposed to look and behave is mostly from forms of entertainment like tv shows and movies. On shows like Suits, the white, good looking, well-dressed man is typically the good guy that the audience roots for when they watch the show. They are portrayed as successful, in regards to career and sexual conquests. Characteristics like physical and emotional strength, a good body and face, and being witty are rewarded and portrayed as ideal in US society.



My perception of a "real" man is heavily influenced by the culture that I grew up in. My parents both capture my perception of "real" men and women. My parents both immigrated from Asia and obtained their citizenship through studying in America and getting employed. They both left their families back in Hong Kong and the Philippines and traveled alone to a new place where they couldn't speak the common language. While they both are both at an age where they could choose to retire, and while they aren't exceptionally good looking or fit or well-dressed by society's standards, I still believe that their choices and actions reflect what "real men" and "real women" are. They value my future and family over buying material things that don't matter. They have so-called "average" careers but they both work really hard, and they are in a committed marriage. I think both of these are admirable.  My version of "real" men and women does not match what is commonly portrayed in movies and tv shows that reflect societal norms.I think this is because the influence of my parents and other family members has been greater than what is shown to me through forms of entertainment.

Interrogating Inequalities in Sports Media: Examining Gender Representation in ESPN Magazine Covers

I examined ESPN Magazine's covers for the year of 2012. I chose this year because this was the year my dad and I had free subscriptions to the magazine, and I definitely did not notice or care about the gender representation on the covers whenever we received them in the mail. During the 2012 year, ESPN Magazine had 29 different covers total. I went through all of them and counted how many men and women were deemed worthy of being on the cover of the magazine. Some covers featured more than one person, with one cover featuring eight people total. After going through all the covers, this is what I found:

- A combined total of 40 men were featured on ESPN Magazine covers in 2012.
- 10 women were on the cover.

Also:

- Most men were photographed with the no-smile intense game face, and if they did not have the intense look, they were featured with another man and both were smiling.
- Three of the women featured were on the cover basically naked, for ESPN Magazine's "The Body Issue"
- All women except one were on the covers with big smiles on their faces.

Just by looking at these simple observations, it already seems like the ESPN Magazine covers reflect what we value in American society. We value male athletes much more than female athletes. The men on the covers of 2012 were mostly portrayed with intense, masculine looks on their faces. Men were featured as individuals and as well as with members of their own team or other teams (there was one cover that had eight members of a football team, and various covers featuring pairs of athletes: Jeremy Lin and James Harden, Lebron and Carmelo). Many of the females that made it onto the cover were placed in "supporting" athletic roles. Five of the women featured were cheerleaders surrounding a basketball player, and one woman was on the cover not as an athlete, but she had on a cleavage-baring shirt and her arms were wrapped around a baseball player. Not only does American society promote a higher value on male athletes, but it also places and portrays females as only worthy of being "support" to male-dominated sports and male athletes.

The time where ESPN Magazine put the most women on their covers was during their "The Body Issue" series, where they had covers with naked athletes on them. They did feature naked male athletes, but 30% of the women featured on covers during 2012 were featured during these issues. For two of these shots, the sport that the female athlete played was not even mentioned or pictured on the cover (for the other one, she was shown holding a basketball). Even when female athletes were selected to be on the covers, they were selected for their bodies, not for their great athletic ability. For a male to land a spot on the cover, he just has to be a great athlete. But for the females, it seems like they have to be aesthetically pleasing as well.

Not only is the coverage between athletes of both genders unequal, but the reasons and ways the females were portrayed on the covers of 2012 convey that women have greater value in society when they are beautiful and have great bodies, and that seems to be worth more than their athletic ability. There was one cover that stood out however: ESPN featured NASCAR racer Danika Patrick, fully clothed, with an intense game-face look on. She is the only female portrayed this way that year. I read the cover, and the main idea discussed in this issue of the magazine was "what we talk about when we talk about women in sports," and in this issue of ESPN Magazine, the "underpaid, second class" status of female athletes is discussed. The cover labels Danika as "strong, sexy, smart, fierce." An article explains the phenomenon that we talk about women in sports in an unequal way when compared to male athletes, but I find this ironic because the cover choices that ESPN had that year definitely do not reflect their efforts to be more inclusive towards female athletes. Even the magazine that discusses this issue falls into the trap of being a participant.

I believe that when male athletes are portrayed as intense-looking, with their game face on and their sporting equipment in their hands (whether it's a football, baseball bat, a basketball, etc), it conveys a serious atmosphere: these athletes look very serious and look like they take their sports very seriously, so therefore we should also take them seriously. The women however, were on the covers naked, or scandalously clothed, and always smiling and laughing. This reflects the less serious nature of how we see women in sports. The only woman not featured in this way was on the cover because this was the exact issue being discussed. This shows that society definitely acknowledges that there is some disconnect and equality in regards to gender, but we do not feel the need to change this.

ESPN The Magazine 2012 Covers. (2012, May 19). http://espn.go.com/espn/photos/gallery/_/id/9170047/image/5/espn-magazine-2012-covers-espn. magazine-2012-covers Retrieved October 9, 2014.

Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports

According to the NCAA website, the NCAA claims that they commit to a high level of integrity and respect for institutional autonomy, among other ideals (NCAA). These are pretty vague, but they are generally all positive ideals and make the NCAA seem like a great organization, especially with claimed values like “inclusive culture” and “pursuit of excellence.” However, specific examples of scandals the NCAA has been involved in reflect the dichotomy between their claims and reality.

The NCAA has been involved in so many lawsuits and scandals recently, including sanctioning universities for players who “receive improper benefits,” basketball point-shaving and gambling, exploiting the “student-athlete” label, and absorbing all the profits made from revenue athletes generate (Branch, 2011). In light of all these scandals, the NCAA portrays itself as a money-hungry organization that is good at faking high ideals.

One of the reasons this dichotomy might exist is that the NCAA has become a powerful organization that has established ways out of the limelight when litigations and scandals arise. For example, the organization is a registered charity, even though it generates enormous profits for the people involved. Also, people who have been taken advantage of or treated unjustly by the NCAA, like Joseph Agnew for example, are college athletes who clearly do not have as many resources as the NCAA. The NCAA had a rule that prevented Agnew’s scholarship from being renewed for his senior year at Rice University, resulting in Agnew having to pay an enormous sum of money if he wanted to continue getting his degree (Branch, 2011). Many former athletes did not even agree with Agnew because they identified so strongly with the NCAA. NCAA is like Goliath.

Having college athletes become “professional” by paying them may improve some conditions athletes have to deal with (like being taken advantage of by their universities), but I’m not fond of the idea because of the NCAA’s proposed label of “student-athlete.” Making athletes “professionals” kind of devalues the idea of going to college for an education, or an alternate way to live life after one’s sports career is over. By paying athletes in college, we would be promoting the sport ethic by supporting the option of sports as one’s full identity, and we would be worsening the problems athletes deal with post-career. Last week we discussed problems athletes face after retiring, like lack of financial literacy and work competence. These problems would be further reinforced because students would be paid professionals beginning their freshman year if the NCAA paid its athletes.

BRANCH, T. (October 2011). The shame of college sports. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

NCAA core values. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/ncaa-core-purpose-and-values

Once the cheering stops: The life of a retired pro-athlete

Based on the documentary Broke, ESPN's "Life After NFL," and the New York Times' "Help for Pro Athletes When the Cheers Stop," it seemed like professional athletes deal with a whole mess of problems when they retire. The documentary presented many statistics that I was not previously aware of. For example, I never knew that the average career of a professional football player was 3.5 years, or that 65% of them end their careers with serious injuries that sometimes consume their money (ESPN, 2012). 30 for 30 also featured many former NBA and NFL players who faced hardships during and after their career, like getting taken advantage of by financial advisors, being pressured to assist with family expenses, and facing bankruptcy during retirement. Athletes often struggle to find something else they are good at after their time in the professional sports world has been exhausted. One reason why athletes have such a hard time transitioning from an exciting career to retirement is that many athletes have the "I'll make it happen" mentality, especially when it comes to post-career investment options (Wallis, 2012). Athletes may also suffer from having egos that "make them great athletes, but also is a downfall in areas they don't know" (ESPN, 2012).

30 for 30 mentioned that one of the reasons why professional athletes struggle with budgeting is that they often receive their large sums of money at a young age. One athlete interviewed claimed they he was a "21 year old college freshman making 2 million dollars a year with no accountability" (ESPN, 2012). Many athletes in the documentary claimed to have the urge to purchase expensive jewelry and unnecessary cars. The irony is that even though the athletes want to be in charge of where and what they spend their money on, but they are not willing to personally take responsibility for their own finances and don't bother to educate themselves to be financially literate, at least to the point where you know you don't need two cars and 50 cell phones. Although they make the decisions with the money regarding what to purchase, many of the athletes left the budget managing to their financial advisors, who were sometimes corrupt.

These struggles that athletes deal with (post-career repair surgeries, bankruptcy, unemployment) are aspects of the issue that media rarely portrays. Newspapers and magazines like Sports Illustrated report top athlete salaries, but rarely do we see a story regarding the post-career social downfall of athletes. In the US, we don't like hearing about the financial struggles of people who were once powerhouses in sports. Also, America values the outward expression of wealth. It is considered cool to have the most expensive "bling" and to make yourself seem rich even if you are not. People are not praised for investing well or having good savings. People are given attention when they drive nice cars and make big purchases.

While the articles and documentary kind of presented the athletes in a way that made me feel sorry for them, I am still skeptical. While I agree that the financial advisors who scammed their clients should be punished and that physical injuries are very serious, I feel like professional athletes should be held to the same standard of expectations that most people their age are held to (especially if they have received a college education). While I do understand that it may be difficult to budget and it is tempting to make big purchases when you have so much money to use, I believe that it is not too high of an expectation to expect people to be financially literate. I can sympathize with the athletes that felt pressured to cover all of their families' expenses and that I can see how it can be difficult to spread the money you make in a few years to last you a life time. However, I believe that there is an overcommitment to the sports ethic here. Some of the professional athletes didn't invest any part of themselves into anything else besides the sport they were best at, and that has consequences after retirement because employment options are limited.






30 for 30: Broke. Dir. Billy Corben. Perf. Homer Bush & others. ESPN, 2012. Film.

Chadiha, Jeff. (2012). Life after the NFL is a struggle for many former players. ESPN. p. 1-7.

Wallis, D. (2012). Help for Pro Athletes When the Cheering Stops. The New York Times. p. 1-5.

Sports, Politics, and the Olympics

The 1968 Olympics in Mexico City occurred around the time of the Civil Rights movement in the United States. In the Civil Rights Act of 1968, legislation was passed to give African Americans equal housing. African Americans in the United States were still fighting for equality, whether it was in regards to gaining legal rights or combating the discriminatory culture of America at the time. (There was also a student massacre in Mexico right before the Olympics, which resulted in the death of numerous students that were gathered to peacefully protest the violent decisions of the government. I’m going to focus on the issues that were occurring in the United States at the time). The most famous picture from this Olympics is when Tommie Smith, John Carlos, and Peter Norman (from Australia) win the 200m race. Smith and Carlos do the “black power salute” while the US national anthem plays, and Norman wears human rights badges in his jacket to show that he supports the movement (Osmond, 2010). Many other athletes engaged in different forms of protest that year, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who did a silent protest by not even trying out for the 1968 Olympics (Abdul-Jabbar, 1983). The International Olympic Committee was not happy with the response of the African American athletes, and the committee claimed that it was a domestic political statement inappropriately made at an international affair (Osmond, 2010). Smith and Carlos were expelled from the Olympic Games that year, and when they returned to the United States they were criticized and threatened for their actions, with their families even receiving death threats. Peter Norman was also unwelcomed when he returned to Australia, where he was ostracized by social media for his decision to sympathize with the protest of his competitors.

Sage and Eitzen identify the 1968 Olympics as the “most dramatic” example of using sport as a vehicle of change in society (Eitzen, 2009). While the three athletes previously mentioned were met with ostracization and criticism, the demonstration at the medaling of the 200m race as well as the silent protests of numerous athletes who refused to participate in the Olympics that year raised awareness of human rights. The statement Peter Norman made by wearing human rights badges even though he was not an African American reflected the widespread reach of  the 1968 protests. Although Australia did not give Norman another chance to participate in the Olympics again, there were those who sympathized with African Americans and supported the human rights movement. The efforts of Abdul-Jabbar and other athletes who refused to participate in the Olympics reflected the magnitude and importance of this issue. The Olympics were such a great opportunity to represent one’s country, and they were also an opportunity for fame and fortune. The athletes’ willingness to give that up for this movement reflected just how important it was to them.

Society cannot help but have its values reflected in sports, and controversies in politics are often a result of people in power having different values (eg. Hitler valuing a “perfect race” over human lives). Eitzen and Sage give many examples of how sport is used positively or negatively to further a political viewpoint or how it is used as a vehicle for political advancement. Not only does sport unite people and somewhat “distract” them from their own economic woes, but it is also a propaganda vehicle (Eitzen, 2009). One of the reasons why it is such a good medium for spreading awareness or change is because it is so universal. In my opinion, sport is like a universal language that facilitates communication between many nations. In 1968, sport was used in a way similar to workers in a union striking for better rights. Because the Olympics and sports are something that we as humanity seem to value, it serves as a vehicle for politics to use. Also, because it is now intertwined so closely with economics, and so much of politics involves money, sports will always be influenced by politics.

Abdul-Jabbar. (1983). In Peter Knobler (Ed.), Giant steps Bantam Books.

Eitzen, D.S & Sage, G.H.  (2009).  Sociology of North American Sport.  Boulder, Paradigm Publishers: Chapter 9: 195-213.

Osmond, G. (2010). Photographs, Materiality and Sport History: Peter Norman and the 1968 Mexico City Black Power Salute. Journal Of Sport History, (1), 119.

China Factor: The Globalization of the NCAA

I thought the article about UCLA representing Pac-12 in its tour of China was especially interesting because of my most recent trip to China this summer. The sports culture of China is very interesting, and as Katz mentioned, it seemed like basketball really is the most popular sport in China (Katz, 2012). While I was visiting Hong Kong, the only free outside sports facilities were basketball courts and maybe one or two concrete soccer "fields." China seems like a good expansion site because not only is basketball the most popular sport, but American basketball specifically already has a wide fan base. During my stay in Hong Kong, I met many university students who knew a lot about the NBA. They had Miami Heat wristbands and Lakers jerseys. This phenomenon is something we don't really experience in America (we only occasionally see people with merchandise of athletes outside of the US, with maybe the World Cup athletes being an exception). The NCAA's interest to expand to China may be because China has one of the "largest and fastest growing markets in the world, with a large potential fan base" (Kaplan, 2012). 

The Bruins felt that the trip to China would benefit them because they had just come off a not-so-great season, and other big name universities had also made a trip to China and seemed to be inspired by it. It would be an opportunity to showcase American collegiate basketball, as well as publicity and promotion of Pac-12. The main purpose of the trip would be to "plant a flag" for the conference, making it an annual trip and therefore a standing relationship with the Chinese national team (Katz, 2012). While all of this sounds really great, I feel like there are other factors that UCLA isn't considering. While this trip to China may be great for bonding and cultural immersion, they expect it to "catapult" them into a successful season. This seems like they are going in with the assumption that it will be a confidence booster, when the truth is the Chinese national team also has a chance at destroying them and starting a bad season. 

A barrier the NCAA might face in China is getting a solid fan base. A survey of Chinese fans showed that while most sports fans in China are fans of American sports, they tend to follow individual athletes instead of teams. This might be because fans in China do not have ties to the location or city a team is from, because geographically China is far from America. For example, a Lakers fan in China would be a Lakers fan because he loves Kobe, but if Kobe ever moved, the fan might become a fan of Kobe's new team. If the basketball fans in China do not find one player who they feel attached to, this whole Pac-12 exchange event might not have as great of a following as expected. 

A possible benefit of doing this would be to boost relations with China through sports, which seems to be a unifying power (eg. the Olympics). However, one consequence of this expansion is that the UCLA team may come to represent the entirety of the United States, especially if they are the only team scheduled to go to China annually to play with the national team. When playing in the Pac-12, the athletes represent their university, but when playing against the Chinese national team, it would be almost divisive, with the "American" team against the Chinese team, even though the team is from one university in one state in America. What was supposed to foster better relations might result in more division. Also, this puts more pressure on the athletes who do travel to China. Most athletes on the UCLA team are probably around 20 years old, but their behavior would be observed by China, including its government and people. The behavior of the athletes would come to reflect Americans in general, especially if they are the only team annually representing the Pac-12. 

References
Kaplan, S., & Langdon, S. (2012). Chinese fandom and potential marketing strategies for expanding the market for American professional sports into China. International Journal Of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 14(1), 7-21.

Katz, Andy. (2012). Trip to China Will Jump-start UCLA's Season. ESPN. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7885804/pac-12-begins-asia-initiative-ucla-bruins-trip-china-college-basketball 

Sport, Society & Me

a) I did not get seriously involved with sports until high school, which seems to be pretty late compared to my other friends who love sports. It has definitely influenced me in many ways and shaped me into the person I am today. My favorite sport is volleyball, and I started playing my freshman year of high school. I transferred to a small private school after 8^th grade, and I honestly only began playing because it was the only extracurricular activity my high school offered. My parents had signed me up for elementary league volleyball when I was younger, so I decided to pursue it in high school. Since I was at a new school and I was extremely shy, volleyball provided the environment I needed to make my first close friends. Making conversation with strangers was so much less awkward when we could talk about the sport and cheer together when someone had a good hit or block. It also gave something to look forward to each day after class, and it provided motivation to study hard and enjoy school. My high school coach and teammates were integral to my socialization process, encouraging me to keep practicing even when I wasn’t the best player on the team.  A big part of my decision to continue pursuing success in the sport was the social aspect of being on a team. I liked being surrounded by people trying to achieve the same goal, and it was fun at the same time. After I began to invest more time into volleyball, my parents became concerned that I was playing too much and not spending enough time studying. This was especially true in regards to my father. He grew up in Hong Kong, where his family defined academics as the only acceptable and valuable avenue for success. I had to convince him that playing volleyball made me a well-rounded person and contributed to my maturity and growth as an individual with a good sense of self-worth and happiness. I also had to make sure I kept my grades up to live up to the expectations he had of me as a daughter. However, I think I got the best of both worlds in the end.  My desire to keep participating in sports provided better motivation for me to study hard than just getting good grades.

b) I think sports (like everything else in life) has both positive and negative effects and roles in US society. I think it is valuable to study sport because it reflects the values of US society and sheds light on issues and controversies that people might not be aware of. According to Eitzen, sport is a paradox because it can unite but divide people, contain heroics but involve violence, and can promote health but cause injury. Depending on where on this spectrum a sporting experience falls, it can be more negative or more positive. Depending on the culture one grows up in, sports can be very important or meaningless. If one grows up with different values (eg. Success rooted in academics or music or a different skill), sport may not play a part in one’s life at all. From personal experience however, I believe sport has a high value in American society. My friends are constantly spending large amounts of money to go to NBA and MLB games, and they do as much as they can to stay involved in the sports world, including watching ESPN and playing fantasy football.

We often determine the importance of something based on the amount of money and time that goes into it. If sports were evaluated the same way, I would say that sport is very important in US society. In Eitzen’s “Duality of Sport,” he mentions that more Americans watched the Superbowl that the number of Americans that voted in the 2004 presidential election. I have no doubt that people care more about the Superbowl than the election.

According to ESPN, professional boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. has a salary of 73.5 million, whereas the president of the United States has a 400,000 dollar salary. I know that Americans don’t always directly choose where our money is allocated, but if money and time spent was an accurate reflection of our values, we definitely view sport as important, and we see athletes worthy of being paid this much to entertain us.

Reference:

Eitzen, D.S  (2006).  Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport (2^nd Ed.).  Oxford,      Rowman & Littlefield: Chapter 1

Sport(s) in the USA

As a college student pursuing a major that will lead me to be a healthcare professional, I have to admit that I don't know too much about sports culture in America, although sports have been a big part of my personal and family life since I was young. I am looking forward to being more aware of the culture of American sports through this class and the discussions we will have.

I appreciate all the new information and ideas that we have learned so far, even though it has only been one day. In an article called "Sport History, Public History, and Popular Culture: A Growing Engagement," Moore discusses how sport history and therefore sport culture is not commonly studied, and people have a hard time relating sport to academics. He advocates that we should be engaged in public sport history and explore is as "a popular cultural practice." I do see that this is true when I evaluate myself. Although I love participating in sports, I do not know much about its history or its culture.

Sports culture in America is extremely diverse, and it seems like there is a difference between what sports are popular to individually participate in versus what sports are popular to watch and discuss. When it comes to sports popular to participate in, Killick mentioned sports like swimming, fishing, and bowling. These are popular to participate in because one can participate as an individual with various numbers of other people or friends. Not only that, but these three do not require a special "playing field" or environment that has to be monitored for fairness. Killick also mentioned that participation in these sports can continue as one ages. These are the characteristics shared by the most popular sports for individuals to participate in.


When it comes to popular sports to watch and events to attend, Americans love watching basketball, ice hockey, baseball, and American football. These four sports are all involved in some kind of commercialized league (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL) that brings in many other factors that influence those who do play professionally. For athletes that participate in these sports professionally, being involved means dealing with trades, lockouts, contracts, and many other factors that affect whether they play or how they play. This professional sports realm allows people to participate in sports culture even if they themselves are unable to play the sport. Events like the Superbowl and World Series provide an opportunity for the general American public to gather in community, providing another reason for a barbecue or party. Killick mentioned that more people watched the Superbowl than Obama's inauguration speech. I personally enjoyed watching the Superbowl more because I had the opportunity to spend time with my family and friends and to get excited about something everyone watches.

After talking to some of my friends who are also in college, it seems like success in US sport is measured in a few ways. First, it can be measured by distinction, like getting chosen to play in the Olympics or being selected for an All-Star team. Another way the public measures success is by the number of wins, championships, and titles won. Last semester I had to do a biography presentation for another class, and I was presenting on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The first thing that comes up on the search engine if you google his name is the following: "Abdul-Jabbar was a record six-time NBA Most Valuable Player, a record 19-time NBA All-Star, a 15-time All-NBA selection...." It is as if he is completely defined by his distinctions and awards. It seems like winning is emphasized in America, which reminds me of the point Killick brought up in class: Americans aren't satisfied with a tie.

The ideas brought up in the sport ethic article contribute to this winning state of mind Americans have.Hughes and Coakley define sport ethic as the ideology that involves "sacrifice for the Game, seeking distinction, taking risks, and challenging limits." These are meant to be positive traits, but they provide an avenue for transformation into "deviant behaviors." Factors that contribute to an athlete's desire to conform to the sport ethic include the exhilaration and thrill of participating, and the possible sponsorship or praise that is reinforced by coaches or media. This is especially true if an athlete has low self-esteem, or if his or her identity is completely rooted in the sport and nothing else. This overcommitment concept that athletes can fall into is important to aspiring health professionals like myself because it is important to understand the psychology of my future patients. Understanding why athletes wants to get back into the game even when it seems obvious it will be detrimental to their physical or mental health will help me be a better practitioner in the future.

The article also discusses how deviance is usually seen by society as straying away from norms, but in sport ethic, deviance is seen as an overcommitment to the norms. This overcommitment occurs sometimes because an athlete views the sport as "an exclusive mobility route." This means the individual believes that the only success he or she can achieve is through athletics (as opposed to academics, relationships, or another skill or hobby). Also, deviant behavior is sometimes reinforced by sports, sponsorship, fame, or approval from other athletes or fans. I remember watching a Lakers game a few years ago where Kobe hurt his right finger in the first quarter, kept playing, sat out for a short while, and then came back in. He would go for layups on his left side and still ended up with maybe 20 points. This dedication is admired by fans, and our culture embraces those who can ignore pain and power through.

I used to play volleyball in high school, and I experienced the "taking risks" dimension of sport ethic. More specifically, I identified with the "keeping cool" aspect of it, and being able to keep my composure even when I was injured or frustrated was something my parents and my coach encouraged. It was bad if you lost by 20 points, but it was even worse if you looked flustered about it.

Reference List:

Hughes, Robert, and Jay Coakley. (1991). Positive Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the Sport Ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 307-12.

Moore, K. Sport History, Public History, and Popular Culture: A Growing Engagement. Journal of Sport History, 40(1), 39-55.