Telling It All Podcast - NBA Free Agency, Mike and the Mad Dog

Topics Include: Team Building Through The Lens Of The Boston Celtics And Houston Rockets (1:50). Gordon Hayward Signing With The Celtics (13:35). NBA Teams Dealing With The Salary Cap (19:45). Paul George Going To The Oklahoma City Thunder (25:45). Paul Millsap Signing With The Denver Nuggets (28:12). Mike and the Mad Dog Stories (29:50).

Mike Francesca's rant in 2012 after the New York Mets were swept by the Colorado Rockies in a 4-game series in August.

SoundCloud Podcast Homepage: https://soundcloud.com/ctellallsports

The Sporting Body: Jack Johnson and Helen Wills to Odell Beckham and Brittney Griner - Part 3

This is the third part of a three part article on the evolution of masculinity, femininity, gender, and sexuality in sports.

Societal norms and behaviors are refracted through the sporting body, and athletics often act as a reflection of socially constructed representational politics. While sports can reproduce pre-existing gendered ideologies, external perceptions of the athletic body and its effect on gender specific self-consciousness also actively shapes discursive understandings of self-identity and transverse, or deepen, constructions of gendered athletic spheres. 

Sports act as a representative medium for the formation of individual manhood, and the valorization of the heroic ethos allows for the construction of a glorification of the masculine body. Throughout history, sporting discourse has explored the sexualized classification of sporting figures, and how the gendered body of male athletes negotiates within, or functions against, underlying social understandings and pre-conceived perceptions of masculinity and sexuality. By constructing separate athletic spheres, males have inherently marginalized the self-identity of women through their sexualized objectification and their dissociation from masculine-defined sporting glorification and social agency. 

Over time, individuals have gone from explicitly exploiting the sporting body in a systematic embrace of cultural manifestations of a gender specific self-identity to more implicitly policing any representations of a feminized sporting body that is not aligned with socially accepted heteronormative masculinity. While not beholden to a monolithic gendered classification, the culturally contrived and dictated formulation of the male sporting body has been used to codify masculinity and male dominance, while also being composed as a dichotomous construction to feminine sexualization and objectification.

In the contemporary sporting world, gender specific identity concerns have constructed a hetero-normative social order. During interviews at the NFL Combine, Atlanta Falcons assistant coach Marquand Manuel asked Ohio State cornerback prospect Eli Apple in an interview, “Do you like men?” The fundamental perverseness of the inquiry was the underlying connotation that it took a specific type of “manhood” to make it to the top in “manly sports.” The Falcons were attempting to ensure Apple’s compliance to a self-prescribed league dictum of the specific internal male testosterone needed to compete at the highest level. The question also implied that the basis of male sports was an attachment to a very specific type of sporting sphere, detached from any remnants of effeminacy or perceptions of physical or sexual weakness. It confirmed a sporting standard of thinking based upon the culturally constructed concept of patriarchal “hegemonic masculinity.” 

Before NBA player Jason Collins came out as gay in 2013, he was recognized as one of the toughest players in the league, but after his announcement, he had to prove that his sexuality did not make him soft. Travis Waldron said Jason Collins had "to affirm that there isn’t a relationship between his sexuality and other signs of masculinity” because the league assumed that homosexuality was antagonistic to physical success.

The image of a specific type of manhood is so well imbedded into the fabric of the sporting culture that Odell Beckham lost his self-control after opposing players on the Carolina Panthers reportedly hurled gay slurs at him. In an attempt to defend his aggressive black masculinity from the stigma of any feminized traits, Odell reinforced an embodiment of strength and toughness by acting recklessly on the field. Michael Irvin defended Beckham, saying, “Everybody goes after him with gay slurs. He's a different kind of dude. He has the hairdo out, he's not the big muscular kind of dude... I can’t promise you that [I would have handle it correctly.] That is why they give you leniency for crimes for passion.” Irving justified Beckham’s actions through the notion that he had to conspicuously protect his manhood when he felt like the victim of an assault on his identity. 

Carolina Panthers players taunted Odell Beckham before the game with a bat and possibly homophobic comments.

Beckham is a threat to conceptions of forceful black masculinity because he has dominated the league for two years (see: one-handed catch against the Cowboys), but he does not conform to masculine standards of athleticism off the field. Beckham is in videos all over the internet dancing with former LSU teammate Kavahra Holmes, he dyes his hair, and he had a moment when he was caught looking at teammate Landon Collins's butt. Rafi D’Angelo claimed in the magazine Slate, “We need more black men who aren’t afraid to live outside of the box of black masculinity built for us by society.” The Panthers players assumed that Beckham had to have a compromised sexuality because sports understanding of heterosexuality limits any expression beyond established norms. While Beckham's reckless actions during the game cannot be justified by what the Panthers players may have said to him before it, the bipolar masculine construct of not being able to "live outside the box" while still reproducing individual manhood was one of the reasons why Odell lashed out during the game.

Odell Beckham was suspended for a game after his misconduct against the Panthers.

Men have constructed a social attitude towards the femininity of female athletes in such a way as to reconstruct their own gendered self-understanding. Similar to how the NCAA created a construct of "student first, athlete second" to maintain their claims of amateurism, the sexualization of female athletes has asserted “woman first, athlete second,” and marginalized their place in the sports world relative to men. The dichotomous construct between males and females in athletics has been challenged by the dominance of women in sports who are perceived to be symbolic of masculinity. However, Kate Fagan mentioned, “Women's basketball is maligned for not being as athletic as the men's game, but as women become more athletic, these players are often labeled as unfeminine, and therefore unwatchable.”

Brittany Griner is constantly referred to as a “man” or a “gorilla” because it gives the public a way to justify how her athleticism in a masculine space displaces her femininity and womanhood. Unlike how American tennis player Helen Wills was constructed as maintaining her “girlish beauty” in tennis because she ostensibly accepted her different sporting sphere, women like Griner have carved out a space in a masculine realm. Sporting discourse has had to aggressively assert her basketball ability as a product of a divergent feminine defect in her nature to reinforce perceptions of hegemonic masculinity. 

Baylor University was happy to exploit Griner’s feats on the basketball court, but she could not discuss her homosexuality because the school wanted to maintain an image that did not transcend normative lines of sexuality. Waldron said that when Griner came out as gay, “it confirms the idea that a woman who succeeds in athletics does so because she’s breaking with expectations for women, both physically and sexually.” The reaction to Griner’s sexuality was muted because the public assumes female homosexuality in male sporting spheres, and that their success is a product of that masculinization. The connotation was that women could not conform to a gendered self-identity because of their sexuality, and that they could not maintain their athletic prowess and stay within the norm of femininity.

In 2013, hockey broadcaster Don Cherry said, "I don’t believe women should be in the male dressing room.... I don't feel women are equal. I feel they’re above us. I think they're on a pedestal and they should not be walking in when naked guys are walking in. And some guys take advantage of it.” Cherry showed the subconscious male need to concretely separate the masculine athletic sphere from any female involvement. He reinforced the public’s conception of a possible female obstruction to manhood, and argued for unequal access to the male sporting body between the genders, even though excluding female media members from male locker rooms would subvert their ability to carry out their job. Cherry represented the way in which men trivialized the female role in the sporting community to reinforce sports as a “men’s game,” and propagated protectionism over the locker room as an impenetrable masculinized domain of power for a gendered superiority. 

Don Cherry commenting on women in the NHL locker room, which just made Ron MacLean cringe.

Men are not always comfortable with women who exceed their sporting knowledge because it acts as an affront to their masculine identification within the athletic arena. For example, on a Fox Sports Radio morning show, Mike North said, "Jessica Mendoza is the worst baseball announcer who has ever announced the game of baseball. Now, if you want to call me a sexist, go ahead. But I'm an observer." While North should not be precluded from judging Mendoza's performance just as he critiqued Dennis Miller and Tony Kornheiser's jobs on Monday Night Football, he gave no actual evidence as to why Mendoza was so terrible at her job. North implied that Miller and Kornheiser were not good analysts because of the content of their message to the audience, but his dislike of Mendoza came off as a mere function of her gender without further explanation of his point.

All sports media members, but specifically women, are subjected to abuse from people on social media. Sarah Spain, a columnist for ESPN, reflected how she receives tweets every day like “Why don’t you take your top off and just make me lunch,” showing that women are not welcomed into masculine spaces and athletic spheres.

The online video campaign "More Than Mean" highlighted the harassment of women in the sports world on social media.

Through the prism of sports, external perceptions of the athletic body and its symbolic effect on a gender specific self-consciousness can be acutely examined. Sports act as a representative medium for the formation of masculinity, and to reproduce understandings of self-identity. Gender concretizations have constructed separate athletic spheres for males and females to avoid a pluralistic understanding of sexuality. The male sporting body has been used as a symbolic codification of masculinity, and male dominance is portrayed as a conspicuous foil to feminine sexualization and objectification.

The Sporting Body: Jack Johnson and Helen Wills to Odell Beckham and Brittney Griner - Part 1

This is the first part of a three part article on the evolution of masculinity, femininity, gender, and sexuality in sports.

Societal norms and behaviors are refracted through the sporting body, and athletics often act as a reflection of socially constructed representational politics. While sports can reproduce pre-existing gendered ideologies, external perceptions of the athletic body and its effect on gender specific self-consciousness also actively shapes discursive understandings of self-identity and transverse, or deepen, constructions of gendered athletic spheres. 

Sports act as a representative medium for the formation of individual manhood, and the valorization of the heroic ethos allows for the construction of a glorification of the masculine body. Throughout history, sporting discourse has explored the sexualized classification of sporting figures, and how the gendered body of male athletes negotiates within, or functions against, underlying social understandings and pre-conceived perceptions of masculinity and sexuality. By constructing separate athletic spheres, males have inherently marginalized the self-identity of women through their sexualized objectification and their dissociation from masculine-defined sporting glorification and social agency. 

Over time, individuals have gone from explicitly exploiting the sporting body in a systematic embrace of cultural manifestations of a gender specific self-identity to more implicitly policing any representations of a feminized sporting body that is not aligned with socially accepted heteronormative masculinity. While not beholden to a monolithic gendered classification, the culturally contrived and dictated formulation of the male sporting body has been used to codify masculinity and male dominance, while also being composed as a dichotomous construction to feminine sexualization and objectification.

During the early 1900s, as the country began to urbanize and technological innovations proliferated throughout a modernizing society (think Wright brothers and Henry Ford), men used sports as an emblematic re-affirmation and restoration of their dominancy over an ever-changing world. Ty Cobb’s rugged individualism and assertiveness acted as a conspicuous representation of the maintenance of American masculinity, despite external attempts to protract societal emasculation. In his journal article "The Most Popular Unpopular Man in Baseball," Steve Tripp said, “Fans needed fiery players like Cobb to test raw definitions of manhood; Cobb needed the active engagement of fans to goad him to further exploits of nerve and masculinity. Neither side was ever completely satisfied. Both sides recognized that manhood something needed to be continuously reestablished.”

Charles Leerhsen - author of Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty - discussing Cobb's complex sense of self.

As a player that on the field slid into bases with his cleats up and constantly got into heated exchanges with opposing pitchers, and off the field was notoriously disgruntled with those around him and had quite a morose personality to say the least, Cobb acted as the archetypical symbol of the persistency of masculine aggression and toxicity. Cobb fought in War World I and he treated baseball like a battlefield, as if it was a constant test of his internal will. Since sports function as a public spectacle, Cobb’s relentlessness and dominance on the baseball field (the guy won 12 batting titles in 13 years if you include the disputed one he won over Nap Lajole in 1910) acted as a perpetual pageant-like performance of his masculinity.

Ty Cobb "sliding into home plate," in line with the Chase Utley school of sliding.

However, an article in the old Chicago Eagle newspaper in 1918 said, "A star player is easiest to handle. Ty Cobb, fiery and aggressive though he is, has caused the umpires less trouble than almost any man that wears a big league uniform today.” The newspaper reflected a sporting discourse of how Cobb could paradoxically project his masculinity and primordial impulses within the sporting sphere, while still maintaining a semblance of his bodily self-discipline. Funny enough, three years later in September of 1921, Cobb actually got into a fight with umpire Billy Evans under the grandstand of a stadium after some in-game disagreements (and we thought Blake Griffin acted out of line punching Clippers equipment staffer Matias Testi).

Phil Deloria added in Indians in Unexpected Places, “Upper-crust American manhood, the games suggested, could survive the taming of the frontier, the threat of effeminating urbanism, and the challenges of reorganized family relationships and politically and economically active women." Individual males needed to embody virile athletic tropes to certify their dominance over a hierarchically gendered power structure. Men, like Cobb, embraced the physicality of sports to fortify their collective identity and to maintain their place in an ever-changing society during the Progressive Era.

Steven Riess added in the journal article "Race and Ethnicity in American Baseball: 1900-1919," “Fans often took their sons to the ballpark as a kind of ritual passage into manhood.” As Riess noted, sports acted as a sacred passage into adulthood, so consecrations of the fully formed male identity could only be awaken through masculine sporting activities. The symbolic sanctification of personal development was defined by masculine sporting characteristics, and assimilation into society became based on embodying normative masculine behaviors. Through a conceptualization of the sporting experience as a ritualistic passage into manhood, the male dominated ballpark not only affirmed individual masculinity, but also encompassed a sense of masculine self within a larger communal feeling of reassured male identity.

Beginning during the early 20^th century, sporting institutions and individuals quickly conformed to the culturally constructed concept of patriarchal “hegemonic masculinity,” which sociologist R.W. Connell purported as the dominancy of athletes based upon externally defined standards of physical manhood and aggressiveness. 

However, masculinity did not form in a gendered vacuum independent of wider social structures, as masculinity specifically cut across class and race as ethnic groups began to conjugate together during the turn of the century. Sports offered a platform for the formation of a collective male identity, but only if individuals prescribed to their specific “manly” sporting orientation. 

Deloria wrote about Native Americans, “Becoming manly meant, in many ways, becoming white. Indian players could beat white men, Pratt [founder of Carlisle Indian Industrial School] told his teams, not because they were Indian, but because they were becoming more like white people.” Deloria’s statement was that sporting discourse created a narrative where any Indian display of manliness was claimed as being a representation of whiteness. Indians being forced into assimilation was merely a manifestation of white domination to reassert a racialized masculinity. By denying a distinct Indian manhood, white men eliminated an independent Indian space for self-expressionism. Indians were dissociated from their own heritage, and their masculine identity was merely a conceptualization to reinforce white masculinity. Indians were part of the sporting community, but only based upon their orientation along “Americanized” ethnic standards.

Pop Warner (third from the right in the top row) coached at Carlisle from 1899-1903 and again from 1907-1914, and Jim Thorpe (third from the right in the seated row) was a two-time consensus All-American for the school.

Similarly, Jack Johnson’s conspicuous domination of the white male body threatened an inversion of the power relationship between the two races. If white men could not assert their masculinity within the ring, Johnson had to be symbolically disemboweled because by dating white women, he was removing the purity of what white men perceived to be as “their women,” or their sexualized objects. 

Johnson was arrested under the Mann Act in 1912 to prevent further subversion of white masculinity, and to reinforce white control of a gendered and racial social hierarchy. Jack London said before Johnson's fight against the "Great White Hope" James Jeffries in the "Fight of the Century" (although I would say that the first Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier bout in 1971 could contest that title), “It is the moment, the everlasting fantasizing, and Jack Johnson succumbs.” Unlike the masculine respectability that was placed upon Ty Cobb, who was the classical figure of racist white manhood, Johnson was a similar forceful and self-dictated figure. However, whites justified his place outside of a masculine-defined hierarchical society through an ideology that he lacked any self-control.

Jack Johnson may have had his way on the boxing canvas, but racial power hierarchies dominated outside of the ring. 

Sports allow individuals to project their own self-conceptions and anxieties onto the actions of others, so men quickly challenged newfound understandings of womanhood to re-affirm their own self-prescribed masculinity. During the early 1900s, there was widespread male unease as women began to embody masculine qualities in athletic activities, showcasing strength and quickness. Men described their manliness in opposition to womanliness, so as women embraced the bodily composition of men and eliminated their female sporting “otherness,” it challenged how men defined themselves. 

Males often maintained a gendered differentiation through separate athletic spheres by getting women educators to comply with female separatism. Susan Cahn said in her book Coming on-Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women's Sport, there was "a separate realm of play in which women could gain the traditional benefits of sport - health, fun, 'sportsmanship,' and a cooperative ethos - without fear of sexual harm or taint of masculinity.” By maintaining an emphasis on the different physical and social behavior of women, individual men were still able to hold onto their separated existence, and re-affirm their perception of internal superiority. Women were forced into playing certain seemingly more refined and “ladylike” sports to prevent the masculinization of the female body, creating a gendered separation. Women were not allowed to occupy the same space as their male counterparts.

Only upper class white women that could maintain their refinement and “womanliness” were allowed to participate in sports without being denigrated by the public, as Cahn said, “Calls for self-restrain, refinement, and efficiency celebrated a “womanliness” rooted in the privileged position of the lady.” Men could affirm their masculinity by restricting the sporting spheres that women occupied, and confined them to sports like equestrian, tennis, and golf. Any fears of female empowerment were subverted by a rationalization of their “womanliness” in sports. 

In her examination of women's basketball at Bennett College in North Carolina, Rita Liberti mentioned how sportswriter Ivora King reflected the pervasive belief amongst many men in the 1930's that, “in denying her femininity, the athletic woman threatened to corrupt her gendered and sexual identities, and in doing so, forfeited her existence as a real woman.” By creating a tangible tension between womanhood and athleticism, sports actively questioned women’s own gendered self-identity and sexuality, while acting as a vehicle to confirm the male identity.

Over time, in a society that glorified extravagance and social amusement during the 1920s (think Zelda Fitzgerald), wider cultural acceptance of leisure and entertainment for the masses allowed for a more public female sporting sphere. Women personified a “fit femininity” outside of Victorian ideals, and despite masculine attempts to create a monolithic female gendered ideology, women dramatized their social struggle for a new womanhood through the avenue of sports. However, since men cultivated their self-identity by orienting the self against contrasting social groups, women were still forced to accept more traditionally defined virtues of womanhood to not challenge notions of a hegemonic masculine agency. 

Helen Wills, a 19-time grand slam singles champion (only Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, and Serena Williams have more major titles), was accepted as a dominant force in women sports because she embodied an externally acceptable femininity that did not complicate gender specific conceptualizations of self-identity. Cahn reflected, "In her 1920s heyday, she [Helen Wills] offered a nonthreatening portrait of refined, well-bred, and charming womanhood that blended modern athleticism with aspects of conventional femininity.” Wills was given a sporting place as the ideal “American Girl,” rather than the more indomitable Molla Mallory (whose altercations with Suzanne Lenglen overshadowed her 7 US Open victories in 8 years), because men saw Wills’s femininity as conforming to traditional standards of womanhood. Willis's grace was often misconstrued as an act of implicitly accepting feminine fragility in a subservient gendered identity to men. Thus, only the non-radicalized, non-masculine fixated women were accepted in the context of wider sporting narratives.

Helen Wills was accepted by the male sporting community because of the narrative that she embraced her feminine, upper class "womanliness."

Sometimes It's Just A Game - Sports Diplomacy In The 21st Century

In 1959, during the height of the Cold War, the Harlem Globetrotters took a trip to the USSR to entertain Soviet basketball spectators. The goodwill tour was representative of how international sporting events can paradoxically bring nations together, while at the same time still driving them apart through nationalistic self-promotion. While the Globetrotters went to the USSR to dissipate the tension between the superpowers through the entertainment and levity of sports, their trip still reproduced American hypersensitivity to Soviet propaganda of US race relations, and showed the desire of the United States to assert its cultural and sporting superiority abroad. The trip reflected a politically conscious effort by the US to present the black players on the squad, like Wilt Chamberlain, as contributing to American exceptionalism, rather than as figures subject to the nation’s racial abuse. 

The Globetrotters met with Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev during their trip to the USSR.

Sports diplomacy in the 21^st century can be understood as an emblematic prefiguration of international cohesion, but a force that cannot bring tangible changes to global politics. National rebranding through international sporting events, like the Olympics and World Cup, mirror how sports paradoxically transcend, and yet also further national stereotypes. While sports diplomacy and international sporting events can act as a symbolic pretense of the breakdown of political barriers and as re-defining a national image and identity, sports in and of themselves cannot create substantive international harmony, or improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

Sports diplomacy can act as a symptomatic representation of common ground between nations, and athletic events can manifest themselves as a symbolic forum for the beginning of international understanding. The love of sports can universalize the human experience, as Sharon Robinson noted her gratitude for “the unifying game of baseball” because it highlights the common interests of nations. By bringing teams together in a sporting venue, countries intrinsically recognize the legitimacy of the other country on the field, and simultaneously acknowledge their national identity while still reproducing international commonalities. 

When the Tampa Bay Rays played the Cuban National Team with Barack Obama and Raul Castro in attendance, the willingness of the United States team and the President to take the field with the Cubans implicitly symbolized American attempts to normalize relations with Cuba. Obama's deputy national security advisor for strategic communication and speechwriting, Ben Rhodes, said, “Baseball is part of both of our heritages, and part of the type of exchanges we are pursuing in business, in culture, in the arts, in sports.” The nations' love for baseball acted as a symbolic illustration of political attempts to reconcile the countries. Sharon Robinson reflected how the fan’s sense of hope, because of Obama’s presence at a shared national pastime, “struck [her] as a sign of the beginning of a changing Cuba.” 

Rob Manfred’s desire for a legal path for Cubans to play in the MLB without defecting serves as a representative framework for a new dialogue with Cuba that moves away from a practice where, as Dave Zirin said on TSN Winnipeg 1290 Radio, “Cubans are separated from their families and delinked from their home.” Thus, the US and Cuba used a sport that binds the countries to serve as a representation of political diplomacy.

However, while sports diplomacy can act as an emblematic demonstration of international understanding, athletic events do not irrevocably change the longstanding conflict between national officials. Michael Rubin referenced in his article in the magazine Foreign Policy how “President Franklin Roosevelt had granted Hitler legitimacy by having the U.S. Team participate in his Olympics [in Berlin in 1936].” Even if President Obama's main intention in Cuba was to merely “bury the last remnant of the Cold War” and begin negotiations with the nation, by sitting with Castro at such a public spectacle, Obama legitimized the exceedingly precarious elements of the Cuban regime. Rubin added “Athletic contests can’t bring rogue states in from the cold… when the final whistle blows, the lights dim, and competitors break their final handshakes, it is the same politicians who remain in charge.” 

President Obama was the first US President to visit Cuba while in office since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. 

Although politics and political regimes are reproduced through sporting institutions, sports themselves cannot construct international harmony because they are subject to political structures. Therefore, sports are politicized through symbolic codifications, but can only make social change in conjunction with politics. 

While the baseball game in Cuba may have personified an attempt at international convergence through sports, the athletic event did not change the nature of the Castro political dictatorship. Sports cannot transcend politics because sports are inherently political, as Cuban descendant Dan LeBatard wrote, "I'm not in the mood to play ball with a dictator who still has the blood of our people on his hands.” While sports may not actively bring about political change, the public still paradoxically imbues athletics with symbolic political implications, and the game in Cuba may have also implicitly desensitized the past torment of the Castro regime.

Hosting international sporting events project the conscious effort of a state to disseminate specific images of their nationhood and act as an extension of governmental identity politics. By putting a nation’s capabilities in front of the world, organizing a global athletic competition inherently assigns an immediate mythic grandeur to the host nation. It also re-defines previous external perceptions of the country’s organizational competency, and implicitly effects how other nations perceive them. 

Rook Campbell said about the World Cup in South Africa in 2010, “The World Cup helped outlay a nation branding legacy in which a post-apartheid South Africa could show itself as truly democratic global power.” The value of the World Cup to South Africa was how other nations saw the event as a legitimization of the progress of the state from its internationally unaccepted past. Campbell added that the event “was celebrated as both a national and continental opportunity to correct stereotypes and forge new stature.” The World Cup acted as a symbolic divide between the state and the vestiges of apartheid, and shaped a nationalistic identity apart from racial oppression.

While hosting an international sporting event may act as a symbolic representation of a nation’s re-branding in global politics, it does not ensure actual structural changes to the nation on the ground. In the past, global sporting events have come at the expense of public facilities for the nation’s ordinary citizens. Even the public transportation in South Africa that was developed for the World Cup or received more funding because of the tournament, like the transit railway system Gautrain, are as Andrew Harding said in the BBC, "priced out of the reach of most South Africans, and highly controversial new tolls on the motorways mean drivers are still paying for the renovations.” 

"Soccer City" in Johannesburg is one of many World Cup Stadiums in South Africa that cannot cover its operating costs.

Sporting events may temporarily act as a shrine to national identity, but once the glow of the event is over, ordinary citizens are left with the brunt of the event’s cost. The protests in Brazil against the World Cup showed how the commercialization of a sporting event as national rebranding, regardless of the costs, removes it from being the “people’s cup.” Sporting events further the marginalization of a nation’s democratic masses, and often act as a symbol of national progress rather than actually helping to bring it about.

Telling It All Podcast - MLB Trade Deadline, Russell Westbrook, The Night Of, Mr. Robot, Jason Bourne, Nerve

Topics Include: Trades By The Cleveland Indians and Texas Rangers/American League Pennant Favorites (1:20). Trades By The New York Mets, Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, Washington Nationals/National League Pennant Favorites (6:40). Russell Westbrook's Contract Extension (9:30). The Night Of/American Criminal Justice System (16:10). Mr. Robot's Second Season Struggles (24:15). "Oh my God... It's Jason Bourne" (28:35). Rory's Trip To Watch Nerve (31:45).

SoundCloud Podcast Homepage: https://soundcloud.com/ctellallsports

Telling It All Podcast - Leicester City's Title Run, Clayton Kershaw, Warriors-Thunder Western Conference Finals, ESports, Game of Thrones

Topics Include: An Ode To Leicester City's Championship Run (1:15). Clayton Kershaw's Dominance (10:40). Tim Duncan's Possible Retirement (16:45). Warriors-Thunder Western Conference Finals Preview (19:10). The Growth of ESports (24:20). Game of Thrones Discussion (30:15).

Shaq squares off against Thorin on Inside the NBA.

SoundCloud Podcast Homepage: https://soundcloud.com/ctellallsports

Tell The Truth - 42 and Race Movie Review

As such a widely consumed vehicle of entertainment, the film industry can encapsulate collective norms, and shape how people look at race relations. Movies like 42 and Race explored established societal hierarchies and Hollywood’s construction and reproduction of power relationships through character’s race. Some film critics condemned the movies for their historical inaccuracies, dramatization of the facts, and historical omissions, such as the fact that 42 completely ignored that Robinson was not the only black player on the Dodgers roster in 1947 (pitcher Dan Bankhead was also on the team in Brooklyn). 

Films that attempt to rigorously portray circumstances accurately can still obscure reality with a general untruthful representation of racial opinions. On the other hand, dramatized and fictionalized scenes in 42 and Race removed the independent identity of Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens, and embraced the role of the white savior coming to the aid of the black athlete. Fictionalized creations of reality in these films also tended to imply a heroic democratization of sports due to the actions of the athletes, which obscured the maintained prevalence of systematic racism in society. 

42 and Race became problematic pieces of cinema, not from their factual inaccuracies, but when their stories unsettled a truthful representation of structural racism and removed the independent agency of the black athlete to instill their own place in society

42 Movie Trailer

Race Movie Trailer

In 42, Jackie Robinson was turned into a stoic, human myth rather than a complex figure that had to deal with the difficulties of baseball integration. The film failed to contextualize black discrimination in the majors by implying that Robinson’s heroic story could obscure the racial injustices of the past. Dave Zirin complained in the The Nation, “To tell his tale as one of individual triumph through his singular greatness is to not tell the story at all” because the film untruthfully conflated Robinson’s eventual baseball acceptance with overall black social integration. 

Despite accurately portraying the racist vitriol that Phillies manager Ben Chapman shouted at Robinson, the film failed to deftly show the subtle mechanisms of racial discrimination in the 1940s. By creating one of the film’s climatic scenes around teammate Eddie Stanky confronting Chapman, the manager seemed like the singular focus of white hatred against Robinson. In the New York Times, A.O. Scott mentioned how Chapman’s actions were “not an exception to the rule, but an especially ugly instance of it." The film underemphasized the systematic racism that black athletes faced by implicitly creating a sole representative image of that racism. 

Ben Chapman (played by Alan Tudyk) subjected Robinson to extreme racist vitriol.

Some of the film’s dramatizations did reinforce truthful characterizations of Jackie’s independent agency. Although the scene where Robinson was chased by a mob in Wendell Smith’s car was not strictly accurate, he told him “I don’t like needing someone to be there for me.” Jackie’s expressionism was not sullied by a need to show himself as the archetypical heroic figure that suppressed his black rage at the urgency of society. Unlike the rest of the film, Jackie was able to show his raw emotions. The truthfulness of Jackie’s complex humanism was shown through artificial manifestation of reality to symbolize that message.

Nonetheless, the movie largely fictionalized Robinson as a manifestation of Branch Rickey, a player that embodied Rickey’s sentiment of having “the guts not to fight back,” rather than espousing his own identity. As Robinson melted down in the clubhouse after hearing Chapman’s verbal abuse, it was only when Rickey came as the white savior to restore order did the seemingly helpless Robinson return to the field. By portraying Robinson’s emotional breakdown away from the public spectacle, and returning him to silent, individual suffering on the field, the film removed the truthfulness of Robinson’s active attempts to challenge and subvert systematic American racism as a black activist. 

Branch Rickey (played by Harrison Ford) coming to "rescue" Jackie Robinson (played by Chadwick Boseman) and return him to the field for the Dodgers. 

Zirin suggested that the movie followed “the classical Hollywood formula of heroic individual seeds obstacle… obstacle is overcome… the end.” By starting the film with Rickey’s dramatized proclamation, “I’m going to do it,” 42 ensured that the audience would not see Robinson’s identity and heroism as independent from Rickey’s own self-proclaimed courage.

Similarly, when Pee Wee Reese put his arm around Jackie during a ballgame in Cincinnati, a historically contested moment, the dramatized scene showed Reese giving Robinson the courage to continue to play and the transference of agency to Jackie only through the white athlete. 

Pee Wee Reese (played by Lucas Black) putting his arm around Jackie Robinson in Cincinnati.

Even if the film accurately reflected Robinson’s devotion to Ricky and his promise that, “I won’t let you down,” it still created an untruthful narrative of Robinson lacking his own independent agency. For example, years later, Robinson exalted the black power salute of track athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics, saying that he took delight in the fact that they were proud to be black. Ultimately, the movie dissociated Robinson from a collective black experience, implying that his internal emotions were an external construction, and making him, as A.O. Scott argued, “the least interesting character” in the film.

In the movie Race, director Stephen Hopkins did a commendable job of establishing Owens’s self-defined identity. The movie gave considerable thought to depicting Owens not merely as a product of the projections of his external environment, but based upon how he decided to present himself. 

When contemplating the request from the NAACP to boycott the Olympics, Owens told Coach Snyder, “Let me make the decision on my own.” Although the relationship between the athlete and the coach was clearly sentimentalized, Owens showed his desire to dictate his own actions and athletic body. Ella Taylor reiterated that idea in NPR as she said, “The point of view belongs not to Coach, but to Owens.” Unlike the mythic glorification of Robinson in 42, Race did not shy away from divulging Owens’s failures to stay faithful to Ruth Solomon, as Stephen Holden recognized in The New York Times when he said, “Owens, although usually well-behaved, can at times also be defiant, willful, and immature.”

Jesse Owens (played by Stephan James) won the 100-meter dash, 220-meter dash, the 220-yard low hurdlers, and the long jump at the NCAA Championships in both 1935 and 1936 under Coach Snyder (played Jason Sudeikis).

Race still lacked a truthful representation of the violent strand of racism present in the 1930s. As Race conspicuously displayed, a film can tell a factually correct story, and yet, still be devoid of an overall truthful illustration of the black experience. Although the movie accurately showed Owens being forced into the back of a bus, and showering only after white athletes, the film treated the racist behavior towards the black community as a mere inconvenience, rather than as a systematic repression. As the crowds wildly cheered for Owens during the movie, it obscured the "unforgivable blackness" of Owens.

Moreover, the film made it seem as though the ideology of white supremacy in Germany was isolated to what Carl Luz called the “insane Nazi government,” and its attempts to depict both domestic and foreign subjugation made it seem as though it was comparing forms of oppression. Race dissociated the German public from their racist dogma, as film director Leni Riefenstahl reinforced to Owens “The world can never forget what you did.” 

At the end of the movie, when a young white boy asked Owens for his autograph, the film implied that the future of race relations was changing simply because of Owens’s victory, although his own future was later constrained by a segregated American society.

Trigger Fingers Turn To Twitter Fingers: Sports In The Digital Age

On June 30, 1962, Sandy Koufax threw the first of his four career no-hitters for the Los Angeles Dodgers against the New York Mets. Recorded baseball was so primitive at the time that only a single radio version of the game remains today for fans to relive the experience. More than 30 years later, when NBC cut away from game 5 of the Rockets-Knicks NBA Finals to follow the O.J. Simpson car chase in 1994, nobody outside of the arena knew what was happening on the court.

However, the technological revolution of the 21st century has created a more accessible viewing experience for fans at the game, and for those watching at home. The availability of sports data has allowed for more inclusive online sports fandom, and social media and massage boards have contributed to the continual reproduction of the sporting spectacle.

Despite individuals increasingly feeling associated with an online sporting community through social media, sports in the digital age remain reliant on the construction of heroic sporting narratives. While social media does not ostensibly exclude fans from the sporting sphere as much as it did in the past, it upholds a groupthink ideology that marginalizes opinions outside of the collective norm. Overall, social media and new sporting technology have allowed fans to establish a connection with each other and better understand the game, and for the players, new data has emphasized certain sporting techniques to perform at a higher level, but created ambiguity over who controls, and releases, technological data.

The data revolution has allowed sports teams to use wearable technologies to track player movement and apply health standards to regulate their physical activity. Teams have attempted to use data analysis to improve performance and keep players healthy, and biometrics have allowed players to use the data as a reference point for their physical activity. Player Position Tracking is penetrating all the professional sports, especially basketball and soccer, because the technology has given athletes a way to monitor themselves. 

The Seattle Sounders use wearable tracking devices to monitor their players during practice.

The proliferation of tracking technology has caused an ethical dilemma over the right of employers to have too much information about their employees. Teams blood testing their athletes, or tracking their sleeping patterns, can easily be construed as invasive labor practices. Moreover, the ownership and transparency of sports data could inhibit player’s earning power and freedom of mobility if teams use exclusive data gathering capabilities to limit their off-court activity or to manipulate their salaries in contract negotiations (agents are already deeply concerned about this potential).

Wolfram Klug contented in an article in The Guardian, "The wider stakeholders stand to benefit as much, if not more, from analytics than the players themselves.” Player’s privacy, and fairness concerns over how teams use the new sports technology, have been exacerbated by the fact that employers can sell their confidential data material for commercial benefits. Klug noted that teams should partner with “technology providers with a commitment to being transparent and acting ethically,” because of the moral ambiguities over data control. Teams may complicate the situation by distributing information to fans to ostensibly improve their experience, even though the data infringes on player’s rights.

In the pre-digital age, public engagement with sports through the radio or television medium constructed a circumscribed subjectivity of the individual viewer. Without social media to allow for fan expressionism or interaction beyond the sporting venue itself, sports fans were objectified through their subjugation to a narrowly contrived heteronormative, gendered identity of fandom. In Jeffrey Montez's Discipline and Indulgence, in a chapter of the book titled "The Best Seat in the Ballpark: Lifestyle and the Televisual Event," he said, “This [television] genre produced male sports fans as crucial objects of their technical narratives, but objects all the same.” Fans consumed sports through specifically delineated sporting spheres, restricting their access to athletes merely through a controlled and externally constructed media imagery that objectified their experience. 

However, fans over the last decade have directly interacted with athletes, and each other, through new digital technology. Maxwell Neely-Cohen referenced Durga Chew-Bose’s observation in The New Republic that, “Sports for so long were actually not inclusive… but [for] NBA Twitter fans, it’s almost, dare I say, it’s wholesome.” Social media has allowed for the creation of online fan groups that transcribe the traditional sporting spheres into online communities, especially subcultures like NBA twitter. Cohen added that through social media the NBA “promotes itself inevitably, a self-replicating monster.” Since most people have digital technology, Twitter allows the league to reproduce its sporting spectacle for a more democratized fan base. 

Amy Bass said in her book, Not The Triumph But The Struggle, track stars John Carlos and Tommie Smith “needed a space for people to see them represented in the public eye," which was only available to them during the 1968 Summer Olympics. Athletes today have a platform to speak directly to the public whenever they want. Overt political statements, like when the Miami Heat wore hoodies in solidarity with Trayvon Martin, have entered the public consciousness because of the mobility of images through Twitter. Since consumers derive their socially constructed identity from what they consume and follow, sports fans have refracted their sense of self through the accessibility they have to the actions of their favorite players or teams. As such revered figures, athletes can actively shape public discourse over political topics.

In 2012, players on the Miami Heat wore hoodies to show support for Trayvon Martin.

However, social media has allowed fans to interact with others that confirm their opinions, rather than challenge them. Cohen said, “On Twitter, each basketball fan gets to curate their own assemblage of voices.” The ability of an individual to tailor thoughts to a specific audience paradoxically allows them to interact with a specific subculture, and yet, still secludes them from experiencing dissenting opinions through a conscious social media filtering. 

Just as fans were once objectified by the television experience, as Montez said, “There is an objectified status of television sports fandom,” fans have lost their individuality by allowing groupthink on Twitter to formulate their subjectivity. As an argument solidifies itself on Twitter, and a mob mentality justifies the prescribed conventional wisdom, thoughts outside of the collective norm become ostracized. As sports media members tweeted their disdain over Cam Newton’s post-Super Bowl press conference, conformity to that opinion became the standard judgment, rather than an individual appraisal of the situation. Twitter facilitates an arena where the first opinion becomes sanctified as fact, regardless of how individuals conceive of that viewpoint. Sometimes first is not always best.

Moreover, due to the feeling of impunity online, social media has become a vacuum for societal negativity, such as when Michigan punter Blake O'Neill received death threats for his costly fumble against Michigan State.

The growth of sports documentaries in recent years has reflected a demand for stories that create a heroic imagery of the athlete in the digital age. ESPN staffer Connor Schell advised, “Sit people down and tell them a good story.” Documentaries like ESPN’s You Don’t Know Bo have consciously told a story that glorifies the sporting subject to compel the viewer towards classifying athletes as mythic paradigms. The conflation of reality and heroic narrative is not confined to modern day, as Michael Oriard said in his book Brand NFL, the original “NFL Films has sustained a sense of mythic grandeur in decidedly antimythic times." However, television networks today have even more incentive for documentaries that create a mythical athletic identity because they need a compelling story to fill their air time. These stories have reproduced the sporting spectacle to create an athletic pageantry infused with a dramatized, and often masculine, narrative of success.