Unless you've been living under a rock recently, no doubt you're aware that the NFL is in a bit of a downward tailspin into the deck of its own collective hubris. The Ray Rice incident (as well as the Adrian Peterson incident, and other high-profile cases of "athletes behaving badly) has done much to undercut the rule of Roger "I will get this right" Goodell, and that's a good thing. I am no fan of uncontested authority, and ole Rog has gotten by with far too much of it over the years. Down with the bastards.
But it brings up something that I think needs more addressing: the worship we afford sports performers, and why that adulation might be (hell, almost always is) misplaced.
Being an athlete is different than being an entertainer for a living (though some atheletes embrace both aspects). Sports are ephemeral, fleeting; a touchdown catch or a home run is over before you can say much of anything about it (nice try, Joe Buck), and no amount of highlights on Sports Center will make up for the obvious "well, that was nice but it's over now" aspect of any game. In art, the comparable examples are live theatrical or musical performances, or "performance art" like the kind Yoko Ono or Andy Kaufman performed: videotape or digital media might record it, but it's always at a degree or two removed from the actual moment of conception and execution.
So when we see Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant dunk a ball or make an amazing shot, we tend to think this tells us something about who they are, and that's not fair to them or to us. Talent does not always mean character (Jordan is notoriously competitive, and rumors about why he really left basketball to play baseball are rife with suggestions that it was to avoid a possible suspension for gambling; Kobe's just a hyper-egotistical dick, in many accounts). Charles Barkley famously said that he didn't want to be a role model. Maybe we should take him and all the others up on that.
This is not to say that we shouldn't admire their work on the field of play. Another corallary to artists: people, individuals, can be incredibly fucked-up and still do great things in their chosen profession. The idea of the artist struggling with his or her demons is fuel for great art, be it Lou Reed or Lord Byron. Art is a way to explore what tortures someone inside, to expose it to the light and connect with others because of it. Athletes, on the other hand, are supposed to be professionally numb to real life: they're told to "leave it off the field" if they're going through incredible emotional pain, to play through it. Sports can and should be informed by artistry, but it doesn't require that someone come from the wrong side of the tracks and have everything in the world against them. Some of the most painful and honest memoirs I've ever read were sports memoirs, which are usually just an attempt to cash in on their well-known names (Jerry West and Dr. J, for instance, write about how their talent and fame *didn't* solve all their problems, not by a long shot). It's not that we can't or shouldn't admire someone for what they do in their chosen profession; I just wonder if we need to keep reminding ourselves that what a person does, no matter how talented they are at it, doesn't mean that's who they *are*.
In the long run, hero worship is too ingrained in our collective DNA to be overturned overnight, or even within a generation or two. We'll always have that need for someone, be they an artist on canvas or with the written word or with a jump shot, that we can look up to, but let's try and make it more about the talent than the person. Because the person might not be someone that we want to emulate, when they're not performing.
I am one of the most passionate Braves and Clemson fans that I know. I have cried at painful losses. I have rejoiced and hugged strangers during joyful ones. I have defended college football fans to those that do not understand why people rush to reserve wedding dates during their team's bye weeks as soon as schedules are released.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most disappointing aspects of sports is when a team's (usually best) player(s) makes a poor judgment or commits a crime in 'real' life. In professional sports we understand when players are traded as it is "just business". We are disappointed when a player is traded to "the enemy" like Babe Ruth but we get over that. My cousin is a sophomore at Auburn so her first real college football experience was an unlikely "miracle" season for them. I see her posts on Facebook, etc. but I do not remind her that Nick Marshall, the "face of the franchise" so to speak, was kicked off the team at UGA for stealing from his teammates. Granted, he is remorseful and worked hard in community college to come back to the SEC. She probably doesn't even know the details as a "new" fan. However, it is easier to put those things behind us and focus on the field. There are countless athletes that I can think of that fit this profile, some more famous than others. Michael Vick being a mainstream example. Winning and time cure nearly all ills, except for maybe Pete Rose's.
I wrote a lot more but hit publish and it all went away. Select your "comment as" name first. Anyway, I am really passionate about this topic. Whose transgressions get forgiven? Daryl Strawberry, Allen Iverson, Dwight Gooden, Cam Newton, etc. Some don't, given their severity and/or how much it has affected others. Michael Vick, OJ Simpson, Ray Rice. Now there is social media. I just read where the Ray Rice elevator video was mailed to the NFL six months ago and someone saw it, but they have all denied knowing about it. Roger Goodell will lose his job before long I believe.