Gendered Sports Commercial

I've selected a series of commercials aired to promote Reebok and increased participation for Fantasy Football. The commercial can be seen here: Pick Me

The commercials are incredibly entertaining, while sending the message that if you are to wear Reebok shoes, you will be able to perform at the same level as the featured athletes. The "Pick Me" commercial is meant to be taken lightly, as it is clear that the various stunts performed are not entirely possible. Regardless, the "Pick Me" commercials clearly communicate gendered messages and ideals of what it means to be an athlete and a man. The messages sent through the commercials are straightforward. Chris Cooley punches through drywall in order to catch a football he cannot even see. This demonstrates that real male athletes have the physical strength and pain tolerance break the physical and metaphoric barriers faced in sport activity. Along with promoting any of the ads feature physical quickness and agility. The men are all physically fit and clearly fit the hegemonic model of masculinity. Professional athletes are expected to deliver outstanding performances during their games, and the men featured in the advertisements perform nearly impossible feats. This creates an intangible standard for aspiring athletes and men alike. They are professionals, but their athleticism is clearly superior as portrayed in the commercials. Jacquelyn Cuneen and M. Joy Sidewell write, "Gender-defining messages in advertising photographs may have an especially profound impact on children because children understand meanings in pictures before they understand meanings in text" (39). If this is true, then advertising on television cannot deviate too far from causing the same impact on youth's perception of gender norms. The "Pick Me" advertisements are entertaining and meant to be light-hearted. To an adult these messages are clear, and it is understood that the athletes featured in the commercials are not actually performing the seemingly impossible activities shown. However, to a younger viewer, these men are role models, and they may strive to be in their shoes one day.

Source:
Cuneen, Jacquelyn and M. Joy Sidewell. 2012. "Research and Reviews Gender Portrayals in Sports Illustrated for Kids Advertisements: A Content Analysis of Prominent and Supporting Models." Journal of Sports Management 12(1):39-50

Interrogating inequalities in Sports Media: Examining gender/race representation in ESPN

I've decided to investigate the presence of gender inequalities in ESPN's sport coverage. I looked at the website and investigated the different top stories for each sport, paying close attention to sports where women have a greater presence.

To begin with, the homepage of ESPN has a sidebar with breaking news/headlines. Each and every single headline had to do with professional sports, all involving men. There was no coverage on women's sports or women athletes. There are different sections that cover sports of all kinds, but they are not immediately available on the home page. You have to click on the option "more sports", which directs you to a wider selection of sports. There you can find the WNBA, women's tennis, and other sports where women are professional athletes.

From my findings, ESPN's coverage of women's sports is far from lacking. The sport pages where women are featured presents a great deal of information and articles examining players and games/matches. It is clear that women's sports have not been pushed to the sideline for ESPN. The only critique I have is that there is no mention of women's sports on the homepage. This demonstrates that ESPN's viewers/readers are more interested in sports such as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and the MLB. They readily offer links to the sports, and feature headline articles about players pertaining to the aforementioned sports. This conveys that what is most popular to ESPN's viewers is what is proudly displayed on the home website. My findings support current academic research that claims that females are underrepresented in sports. Women's sport does not claim the same amount of followers and support as men's professional sport. It is clear that women are underrepresented in sport, but ESPN's website does at least make some sort of effort to provide coverage on women's sport. It is a small victory, but the current coverage of women's sport is nowhere near where it should be. Readers should be wary of this coverage, and understand that while we are making some headway in gaining support for women's sport, the battle has not been won yet.

Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports: Should NCAA Div 1 Basketball and Football players get paid?

There are two separate sides to the argument on whether or not D1 college athletes should be paid. Both sides provide compelling arguments and should be considered equally, as this is a hot topic of debate currently.

For those who support paying college athletes, they argue that NCAA's current treatment of players is a form of indentured servitude. College athletes generate a significant amount of revenue for the colleges they play for, yet do not see any of that money themselves. It is argued that the athletes should be compensated for their hard work and dedication to their school and sport, and that it is unfair to withhold the wages earned by them. Another argument is that college athletes do not have the time to work a job, considering that school and their sport consume nearly all of their time. Since so much is being asked of them, college athletes should at least have some sort of allowance so that they are able to feed themselves and live comfortably. Some argue that college athletes' health and safety is put at risk during their participation in sports, so they should receive compensation for engaging in a sport that is high risk. That way, if they are injured, they are able to pay for the medical bills that occur with their injury.

For those against paying college athletes, they argue that the students are already given scholarships that pay for their tuition and part of their housing and food, so they do not need further compensation. The school is giving them opportunities that they would not otherwise be able to have had they not decided to play for the school. Those against paying college athletes argue that receiving free education and support from the school is payment for their participation in college sports. Another argument is that students voluntarily choose to play for their college team, and therefore their time and energy spent playing for their team is in a sense like volunteer work, and therefore they should not expect to be paid for something they are electing to do themselves.

I am caught in the middle of the debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid. I think that since so much money is being made off of the students, that there should be some compensation for their hard work since they are the ones out on the field/court putting in the work. On the other hand, I do believe that receiving a full-ride scholarship in exchange for playing on the college's team is an incredibly generous trade-off. Not only are the athletes gaining recognition for their athletic abilities, but they are also receiving a quality education that will help them for the rest of their lives. I am curious to see how this situation plays out in the future.

High School Sport

High school sports emerged in the early 20th century. Schools believed that physical education would be beneficial to students and that learning should not only involve the mind but the body as well. The social context in which high school sports emerged was peppered with racism and sexism as outlined in the novel Friday Night Lights, a true story based off of a town called Odessa in Texas. The town was completely dedicated to the success of the high school football team, and perpetuated racial and gendered stereotypes. Men were considered "women" and weak if they did not hit hard enough and practice constantly. Blacks and Mexicans were blamed for any and all misfortunes that came to be at the town. Women were expected to attend games and be on the sideline, encouraging the male athletes and catering to their needs.

Objectives of high school sport vary based on who is asked. Men tend to view sports participation as a gateway to achieving a masculine identity, gaining acceptance among their peers, and claiming recognition as an adult. Women tend to view sports as less of an indicator of their identity and more as a part of their larger project to achieving their goals. Parents and teachers believe that participation in high school sports will lead students to become more disciplined and obtain better grades. Some students play sports to gain popularity, others to facilitate sexual experiences. The desired outcome of sport participation is incredibly variable.

High school sport is valued in American culture because there is a widely held belief that participation in sports builds character and the student will benefit greatly from playing. As mentioned above, high school sports can also bring communities together and bring a great sense of pride among not only the students but the parents and fans as well. High school sports brings prestige to those who participate, among parents, administrators, teachers, peers, and the local community. Large events are held in honor of the teams and players, and brings the players a sense of pride and autonomy.

There are, however, many problems associated with high school athletics. Coaches are not held as accountable as teachers, and therefore have more leniency in their coaching methods and the way they treat their players. Unethical practices may be utilized and coaches may not face the same repercussions that teachers and other authority figures would if they were in the same position. Gendered stereotypes are also perpetuated in interscholastic sport. Men are expected to be aggressive, physically fit, and violent. Women are reprimanded for sharing the same characteristics, and are oftentimes bullied by being labeled as masculine or have their sexuality questioned. Finally, socioeconomic differences are highlighted in high school sports. Student athletes in low income areas are identified as good students because sports are seen as a ticket out of poverty. In upper-class areas, sports are often criticized as interfering with students' academic abilities.

One solution may be holding coaches accountable for their actions towards their athletes, and reviewing their conduct seasonally. Coaches can also be asked to limit who plays and how frequently based off of their grades and school participation. Coaching conduct should be very important to school administration and be monitored closely.

Once the Cheering Stops: The Life of a Retired Pro-Athlete

Life after retirement for professional athletes looks significantly different than those retiring outside of pro sports. Many professional athletes retire during their late twenties or early thirties while the rest of the nation is retiring at their mid-fifties or sixties. The amount of money they were guaranteed during their games is no more, and they are now forced to enter the real world with only what they have saved to last the rest of their lives. Professional athletes have a limited skill set, because they have dedicated the majority of their lives pursuing their dreams in their sport. The majority of professional athletes go bankrupt because they lived a lifestyle of luxury and excessive spending during their careers rather than saving money for their future retirement. The life of a retired pro athlete looks like living a life struggling to keep afloat financially and avoiding bankruptcy. Many retirees look for another career to supplement their lacking income. Some return to college to earn a degree, others search for jobs involving sports (newscasting, reporting, commentating, etc.), some invest in endorsements, and the very unfortunate are homeless.

Transitioning from life as a professional athlete to a life of retirement is incredibly difficult. Athletes are accustomed to spending exorbitant amounts of money on cars, houses, dinners, and other luxuries. Many athletes live from paycheck to paycheck, and when they retire they no longer have any source of income. The frivolous lifestyle they once led isn't possible any longer. Athletes face an identity crisis as well. They were known for their performance on the field, yet when they stop playing they have to accept another life and reality they never needed to embrace before. Going from the top running back to a retiree is incredibly difficult, and many athletes feel lost or forgotten once they stop playing.

I think athletes struggle so much with their money because we live in a society where outward appearance is considered extremely important. People feel pressure to have the newest gear, the most expensive luxuries, and spend more money than the next man. Athletes are signed at an incredibly young age and lack the forward thinking to plan for their retirement. We as a society do not teach kids in high school how to manage finances, how to save money, invest, or plan for the future. When we have so many young athletes given millions of dollars, of course they are going to do a poor job at spending it wisely. They lack the information on how to take care of their money wisely and are pressured by their peers to flaunt what they have.

I have considered the issue of bankruptcy in professional sports. It makes me mad because oftentimes these individuals are made out to be villains. I think it is incredibly sad that pro athletes who were highly respected during their careers are now being looked at as irresponsible and selfish when they struggle financially. I think that society is to blame for this issue. We are not teaching our children how to manage money in the future, and we are teaching one another that it is better to show how much money you have based off of your possessions rather than saving for down the road. These athletes are given millions of dollars at such a young age and lack the resources to make educated decisions with their resources. We are setting them up for failure.

Sport, Politics and the Olympics

1968 Olympics: Mexico City, Mexico

The 1968 Olympics held in Mexico City were surrounded by political unrest and controversy. Two separate groups of people voiced their opposition towards their homeland and were met with swift and relentless backlash. Only ten days before the Olympic games were to take place, over 10,000 students gathered at the Plaza de Tres Culturas to protest against the Mexican government and peacefully listen to speeches. The uprising was viewed as threatening to the soldiers sent to disperse the masses, and shots erupted into the crowd. Dozens of innocent citizens were killed and hundreds were arrested. Later in the Olympic Games, black sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos won gold and bronze medals in the men's 200 meter race. When called to the podium to hear the national anthem, both men wore a black glove on one hand, bowed their heads, and rose their fists as a tribute to black pride. They wanted to bring awareness to the injustices faced by blacks in America during this tumultuous time. Prior to their gesture, they were booed leaving the stage and banned from the Olympics permanently.

The actions taken by the students in Mexico and Tommie Smith and John Carlos best represent Eitzen and Sage's political use of sport as a vehicle of change in society. There is so much media attention and hype surrounding the olympics, and both groups of people used this heightened focus on the event to bring light to the injustices that were taking place in their own country. America was at the peak of the civil rights movement, and both Smith and Carlos believed that bringing awareness to the racism in the U.S. was equally important as their accomplishment of winning olympic medals. I disagree with the statement, "Sport is pure and devoid of political interference", particularly because of the events that took place at the 1968 Olympics as stated above. One of the goals of the Olympics is to remove all political biases from the games in order to hold events that focus primarily on the talents of the athletes. The mere fact that this has to be done shows that politics do interfere with sports. As stated above, the reason why Smith and Carlos were banned from the games was because they violated those terms. Politics undoubtedly affect sports and athletes, through the institutions they have control over or the regulations they enforce; and it is difficult to imagine a world where political interference does not exist.

Eitzen and Sage, Sports and Politics (Provided on the University of Colorado at Boulder D2L website)

1968 Summer Olympics: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Summer_Olympics

1968: Black Athletes Make a Silent Protest: BBC America. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3535000/3535348.stm

London Calling: The Globalization of the NFL

Until recently, the NFL was considered to be strictly an American organization. However now the NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is expanding the organization and London is the target.

The NFL is an American organization, so it may not make sense to expand the sport outside of U.S. boundaries. This may be puzzling to viewers and fans, but to the NFL itself and its investors, expanding the sport gives it more attention and leaves the possibility of it becoming as globally popular as soccer (futbol). Not that the NFL is competing with soccer to be the most popular sport worldwide, but there is a great deal of money spent by fans to attend games. If American football can expand its popularity, the organization can grow and make more money.

So why London? Well, that's where the money is. Back in 2007 the first competitive NFL game to take place outside of the American continent was hosted in London with a great deal of success. The United Kingdom actually does watch American Football, and people from all corners of the continent travelled to watch the game. Bringing attention to the sport outside of its home turf means more TV time, more fans, and more money. Not to mention the cost of living is much higher in London than it is anywhere in the United States.

Great, so we just play more games in London and maybe even set up a new football team that lives in the UK. Then fans will travel from not only Europe but from America to watch games at a unique venue located outside of the country. More money for the NFL and the fan base diversifies, all is well, right?

Wrong. The distance from London to the East coast is roughly the same as from Florida to Washington state. However, if the London team were to play a game anywhere near the West coast, the plane ride would take a significant toll on its players. Changes in time zones can be difficult to adjust to as well. Also, what if NFL players would prefer to live in the U.S? Living outside of the nation you called home for your entire life is a drastic change, even if football careers do not last particularly long.

Incentives can be implemented to level the playing field between those who are on teams in the U.S. and those living in London such as pay raises, increased draft picks, or an extra bye week for the organization. These conditions may ease the strain of the difficulties faced by London athletes, but it definitely does not solve all of the problems.

Creating a new NFL team for London may be appealing at first glance for the league, but in reality it may create more problems than positive outcomes for the sport itself. After all, it is the players and coaches who will be making the time commitment to traveling across seas and living in a foreign country, not the fans.