Athletes refuse to play politics
Press Action
Friday, December 27, 2002
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/hand12282002/
Scores of actors and musicians are voicing their opinion about the Bush administration’s threats of military violence against Iraq. Why aren’t their colleagues in the sports entertainment industry doing the same?
Hollywood is well known for the political activism of its members. From Susan Sarandon to Charlton Heston, actors typically are not afraid to use their celebrity to highlight a cause in which they strongly believe. In recent months, a large number of Hollywood insiders have signed Win Without War and Not In Our Name statements against the U.S. government unilaterally waging war against Iraq.
Where do the athletes stand on these issues? Do they feel it’s not their place to speak their mind on political issues?
Actually, athletes do tend to be outspoken in their politics, but their politics are conservative, says Jules Tygiel, a professor of history at San Francisco State University.
“This may have to do with the nature of athletic discipline,” Tygiel tells Press Action. “Unlike entertainment, in which there seems to be a great deal of luck and serendipity in who succeeds — I’m talking about perceptions here, not reality — athletics is a more pure meritocracy. This leads to conservative assumptions.”
The most successful athletes also have spent almost their entire lives in deferential relationships with a coach or teacher. “The coach-player relationship encourages uniformity and conformism, rather than protest,” he explains.
Tygiel, author of the 1983 book, The Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and His Legacy, notes that with the exception of Bill Bradley, almost all of the professional athletes who have entered politics after retirement are very conservative Republicans. Consider Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning, who ranked behind only Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond as the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate in 2001. Both Helms and Thurmond are retiring.
Hall of Fame wide receiver and evangelical Steve Largent and college football star J.C. Watts also were both far-right Republicans while in Congress. Tygiel explains that athletics is a much more heavily Christian environment, “which leads to a more conservative world view.”
But what about athletes taking a political stand during their sports careers? Look at how Muhammad Ali was criticized in the late sixties for opting out of military service because he had embraced the Nation of Islam (of course, he survived the attacks to become history’s most celebrated boxer). Look at how John Carlos and Tommie Smith were vilified for their black power protest at the Mexico City Olympics in 1968, and how NBA star Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was castigated for not standing during the national anthem in 1996 and left the sport a couple years later while still in his prime.
“My guess is that players feel they are more subject to employer discipline than other entertainers, many of whose employers are sympathetic with liberal political views,” Tygiel says.
Still, active athletes generally refuse to get involved in any form of traditional politics, even activities as tame as contributing to a political candidate. During the 2000 presidential primary season, National Football League rosters had the most presidential-campaign donors in major team sports, with just five, according to analysis by USA Today using data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. Major League Baseball had three from active athletes and the National Hockey League had two.
“To me, that’s shocking,” former NBA star and current ABC sports commentator Bill Walton told USA Today in 2000. “I think it’s very important for everyone to be involved. This is what shapes the future of our society. When I hear sad stories like that, I just get the feeling that people don’t care. And you have to care.”
“The fact is they [athletes] aren’t players — political players, that is,” Dwight Morris, president of the Campaign Study Group, told USA Today.
-- Mark Hand