Politics in Sport

[GunnerBill]

Afternoon PPPers. I rarely venture to this area of the board but this thread is prompted by the NYT buy out of the Athletic and the concerns, from some, that it might bring politics into its reporting of sport and "sport should be about sport." 

 

This to me is a clearly nonsensical argument. Politics has been in sport for as long as sport has been played. Hell the ancient Olympic games in ancient Greece were used politically by different religious groups fighting for control of Olympia. The history of the NFL is littered with political maneuvering to create the league it is today from mergers to relocations to draft wars. 

 

Saying "keep politics out of sport" is fighting a battle that was lost over two thousand years ago. I get that some people dislike the fact that sport has begun to engage with a different set of political issues in the last 20 years compared to some of the more traditional issues with which it has engaged, but it is to my mind disingenuous to say "keep politics out of sport" when that is self-evidently impossible and when what you really mean is "keep politics I don't agree with out of sport." There are plenty of political issues where sport engages in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather debate those issues than argue that somehow sport and politics should be kept totally separate. Because that is not just unrealistic. It is impossible. 

 

Discuss. 

 

@HamSandwhich

[HamSandwhich]

The argument that a thing has always been a thing so it's "right" is a very tenuous argument.  

Also, thanks for moving the discussion over here. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by HamSandwhich

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

The argument that a thing has always been a thing so it's "right" is a very tenuous argument.  

Also, thanks for moving the discussion over here. 

 

1. That isn't my argument at all. My argument is simply that you might as well ask for fairies in the bottom of the garden as ask for politics to be kept out of sport. My argument isn't about whether it is right or wrong, just that they are inextricably linked. 

 

2. I moved it to the wrong place. D'oh. @Hapless Bills Fan or @Chandler#81 - don't suppose either of you could stick this in PPP rather than off the wall. I know. I'm an idiot. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by GunnerBill

[HamSandwhich]

Oh no, off the wall, I hope we don't get banned or points for this.  Mods, pleas move to PPP if you see fit.  I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, not the time I would need to rigorously discuss anyway.  

 

If your argument is simply that politics have been part of sports throughout all of athletics as we know it, then of course it is.  My argument in that particular thread was that media constantly portrays and amplifies the politics in sports in today's world.  The sports media outlet that figures out there is a big market for those who wish to make sports a get away from all the 24 hour political news cycle on top of the rest of the stuff we have to deal in our lives, will reap the rewards.  Maybe I'll start it, it's not a bad idea thinking about it.  

 

The point I was making in that thread is that someone can be genuinely concerned that NYT may interject something they do not like into the sports reporting that will make the Athletic unreadable to them, and that's a valid concern.  That's their personal opinion and does not need to be sassed and made fun of and made to feel beneath the likes of Jauronimo (sp?) because he clearly does not like their politics.  This is the problem with our discourse, there is an underlying "gotcha" type of attitude that he was personifying and I just felt like pointing it out this morning, as I could not sleep and wanted to banter.  

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Oh no, off the wall, I hope we don't get banned or points for this.  Mods, pleas move to PPP if you see fit.  I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, not the time I would need to rigorously discuss anyway.  

 

If your argument is simply that politics have been part of sports throughout all of athletics as we know it, then of course it is.  My argument in that particular thread was that media constantly portrays and amplifies the politics in sports in today's world.  The sports media outlet that figures out there is a big market for those who wish to make sports a get away from all the 24 hour political news cycle on top of the rest of the stuff we have to deal in our lives, will reap the rewards.  Maybe I'll start it, it's not a bad idea thinking about it.  

 

The point I was making in that thread is that someone can be genuinely concerned that NYT may interject something they do not like into the sports reporting that will make the Athletic unreadable to them, and that's a valid concern.  That's their personal opinion and does not need to be sassed and made fun of and made to feel beneath the likes of Jauronimo (sp?) because he clearly does not like their politics.  This is the problem with our discourse, there is an underlying "gotcha" type of attitude that he was personifying and I just felt like pointing it out this morning, as I could not sleep and wanted to banter.  

 

 

I am certainly not trying to make fun of anyone. I think the line I have bolded is the critical line. Yes, that is a possibility (I'd consider it a relatively remote possibility, but sure, it exists and as you said in one of your earlier posts it could certainly happen in a salami slice way over the longer term). But that wouldn't be because politics and sport are entangled. Because they already are in so much of the Athletic's excellent reporting. Part of the reason I enjoy it so much is because it doesn't just have Joe B's breakdowns of the all22 for the Bills, or a report on Arsenal's last game but because it does delve deep into the story behind the story. It puts sport in its proper context and examines the way outside influences affect the game. Whether that is covid, or the Bills stadium situation, or the rise in social media hate etc. 

 

If people are concerned in the way you describe in your bolded it is because they worry that the Athletic will start to talk more about political or quasi political issues around which they themselves are uncomfortable. And they have a right to be uncomfortable. I am a huge Sean McDermott fan but every time he comes to the podium post game and starts thanking God I cringe a bit. It makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather my favourite sports team wasn't throwing religion at me weekly as an avowed atheist. It is perfectly legitimate to be uncomfortable when subjects on which you have a strong opinion are raised in a sporting context. If someone feels equally strongly around Black Lives Matter or whatever it might be I don't think they shouldn't be ridiculed for feeling that way even if I disagree with them. But they shouldn't confuse that with being uncomfortable about politics and sport mixing together. They always have. They always do. They always will. And there will be times in each of our lives as sports fans when they do so in a way that makes us feel uncomfortable. Pretending that there is a way of totally divorcing the two, however, is not a reasonable or realistic response. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by GunnerBill

[SoTier]

Just now, HamSandwhich said:

Oh no, off the wall, I hope we don't get banned or points for this.  Mods, pleas move to PPP if you see fit.  I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, not the time I would need to rigorously discuss anyway.  

 

If your argument is simply that politics have been part of sports throughout all of athletics as we know it, then of course it is.  My argument in that particular thread was that media constantly portrays and amplifies the politics in sports in today's world.  The sports media outlet that figures out there is a big market for those who wish to make sports a get away from all the 24 hour political news cycle on top of the rest of the stuff we have to deal in our lives, will reap the rewards.  Maybe I'll start it, it's not a bad idea thinking about it.  

 

The point I was making in that thread is that someone can be genuinely concerned that NYT may interject something they do not like into the sports reporting that will make the Athletic unreadable to them, and that's a valid concern.  That's their personal opinion and does not need to be sassed and made fun of and made to feel beneath the likes of Jauronimo (sp?) because he clearly does not like their politics.  This is the problem with our discourse, there is an underlying "gotcha" type of attitude that he was personifying and I just felt like pointing it out this morning, as I could not sleep and wanted to banter.  

 

 

 

 

IMO, this is like worrying about a giant asteroid is going to hit the Earth.  It could happen but not very realistic.  Media companies are like other companies, they exist to make profits, and they don't make money by unnecessarily alienating fans of their sports products.  FOX SPORTS broadcasts three sports I watch frequently: NFL football, NASCAR, and Racing Across America (horse racing).  Whatever FOX's political views, their politics don't bleed into their sports programming.

 

I'm totally with Gunner Bill.  Politics bleeds into sports through society not through media ownership.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

1. That isn't my argument at all. My argument is simply that you might as well ask for fairies in the bottom of the garden as ask for politics to be kept out of sport. My argument isn't about whether it is right or wrong, just that they are inextricably linked. 

 

2. I moved it to the wrong place. D'oh. @Hapless Bills Fan or @Chandler#81 - don't suppose either of you could stick this in PPP rather than off the wall. I know. I'm an idiot. 

I think it’s ok here, you have all been very careful keeping it general about whether politics is in sport or not.  If you want to discuss specific politics maybe start a ppp thread or if you do really want I’ll move it there- we try not to do that with existing threads for (reasons)

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I think it’s ok here, you have all been very careful keeping it general about whether politics is in sport or not.  If you want to discuss specific politics maybe start a ppp thread or if you do really want I’ll move it there- we try not to do that with existing threads for (reasons)

 

Cheers Hapless. I definitely don't want to debate specific politics. 

[Nextmanup]

Insofar as "sports" is a cultural creation of human society, other aspects of human society such as politics are bound to blend in to to some degree.

 

Would the NY Times exert some level of bias into how they report or what they say?  Maybe, but they are one of the best media outlets left in a dying industry, and papers like the Times (or WSJ if you lean to the right) serve an absolutely vital function in this country going forward into the 21st century.

When the NY Times dies, and the other handful of big-time papers like them of any political persuasion, we're officially screwed as a country.

 

 

[Jauronimo]

3 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

Oh no, off the wall, I hope we don't get banned or points for this.  Mods, pleas move to PPP if you see fit.  I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, not the time I would need to rigorously discuss anyway.  

 

If your argument is simply that politics have been part of sports throughout all of athletics as we know it, then of course it is.  My argument in that particular thread was that media constantly portrays and amplifies the politics in sports in today's world.  The sports media outlet that figures out there is a big market for those who wish to make sports a get away from all the 24 hour political news cycle on top of the rest of the stuff we have to deal in our lives, will reap the rewards.  Maybe I'll start it, it's not a bad idea thinking about it.  

 

The point I was making in that thread is that someone can be genuinely concerned that NYT may interject something they do not like into the sports reporting that will make the Athletic unreadable to them, and that's a valid concern.  That's their personal opinion and does not need to be sassed and made fun of and made to feel beneath the likes of Jauronimo (sp?) because he clearly does not like their politics.  This is the problem with our discourse, there is an underlying "gotcha" type of attitude that he was personifying and I just felt like pointing it out this morning, as I could not sleep and wanted to banter.  

 

 

 

If you are going to keep making this personal across several threads, at least have the stones to tag me in your posts.

 

The satire you have taken such umbrage with was directed at the people who think the NYT, against all common sense, intend to turn The Athletic into a megaphone for "woke politics".  That notion is laughable to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of M&A and for reasons which can be quantified in millions of dollars and cents.  It has nothing to do with the political beliefs of those sharing bad opinions no matter how many times you insist it does.

 

Again, the sheer irony of people who claim not to want any politics in their sports once again proving they cannot help themselves but to inject politics into absolutely everything, as they launch into their tirades about NYT on the main page of a Buffalo Bills board, was plainly obvious to most of us.  You likely didn't even recognize those posts as political because they validate your worldview, which is my point.  

Edited January 7, 2022 by Jauronimo

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Afternoon PPPers. I rarely venture to this area of the board but this thread is prompted by the NYT buy out of the Athletic and the concerns, from some, that it might bring politics into its reporting of sport and "sport should be about sport." 

 

This to me is a clearly nonsensical argument. Politics has been in sport for as long as sport has been played. Hell the ancient Olympic games in ancient Greece were used politically by different religious groups fighting for control of Olympia. The history of the NFL is littered with political maneuvering to create the league it is today from mergers to relocations to draft wars. 

 

Saying "keep politics out of sport" is fighting a battle that was lost over two thousand years ago. I get that some people dislike the fact that sport has begun to engage with a different set of political issues in the last 20 years compared to some of the more traditional issues with which it has engaged, but it is to my mind disingenuous to say "keep politics out of sport" when that is self-evidently impossible and when what you really mean is "keep politics I don't agree with out of sport." There are plenty of political issues where sport engages in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather debate those issues than argue that somehow sport and politics should be kept totally separate. Because that is not just unrealistic. It is impossible. 

 

Discuss. 

 

@HamSandwhich

In the original thread, you mentioned the political aspects of an anti-knife fight initiative  (words I honestly never thought I would hear affiliated with a sports league), the new combine guidelines, and one other. 
 

Having done absolutely  no research on my own, I’m wondering why you would see these as political?  Were they initiatives started at the legislative level, championed by political leaders etc?   
 

I’m personally struggling with the political aspects of “don’t stab yer neighbors, men”. 
 

I do not disagree with your fundamental premise of the intersection of politics v sports, btw.  I do think that some folks tend to conflate social issues with political issues where sports are concerned.  

[Mark Vader]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Afternoon PPPers. I rarely venture to this area of the board but this thread is prompted by the NYT buy out of the Athletic and the concerns, from some, that it might bring politics into its reporting of sport and "sport should be about sport." 

 

This to me is a clearly nonsensical argument. Politics has been in sport for as long as sport has been played. Hell the ancient Olympic games in ancient Greece were used politically by different religious groups fighting for control of Olympia. The history of the NFL is littered with political maneuvering to create the league it is today from mergers to relocations to draft wars. 

 

Saying "keep politics out of sport" is fighting a battle that was lost over two thousand years ago. I get that some people dislike the fact that sport has begun to engage with a different set of political issues in the last 20 years compared to some of the more traditional issues with which it has engaged, but it is to my mind disingenuous to say "keep politics out of sport" when that is self-evidently impossible and when what you really mean is "keep politics I don't agree with out of sport." There are plenty of political issues where sport engages in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather debate those issues than argue that somehow sport and politics should be kept totally separate. Because that is not just unrealistic. It is impossible. 

 

Discuss. 

 

@HamSandwhich

I agree that there is no way to separate sports & politics, it will always be there in some fashion.

It's become far more prominent than in recent years, but maybe that will change.

 

What I do not like is the messaging. It comes off in a very strange and confusing way.

The NFL has the players place all of these slogans on the back of their helmets, or they place in the back of the end zones.

"IT TAKES ALL OF US". What does that mean?

 

Then there are the athletes who want to do better and bring causes to the forefront, which is good, but then the athletes don't do anything to make changes.

Yes, they'll donate to charities, but we all know that not everything going to charity all goes to the cause.

Some athletes will brush it off and put it on all of us to do all the hard work to make the changes.

Their attitude is...."Hey, I brought the message, it's up to you now." Gee, thanks a lot.

 

The one thing I was never clear on was the NBA and their painting "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on the sidelines of the courts.

Was the NBA telling us to support the phrase or the organization?

Two completely different things.

 

Personally I wish there wasn't so much politics in sports, but that's how society goes right now. I'll still find a way to just enjoy sports and do my best to not let the politics bother me.

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

I agree that there is no way to separate sports & politics, it will always be there in some fashion.

It's become far more prominent than in recent years, but maybe that will change.

 

What I do not like is the messaging. It comes off in a very strange and confusing way.

The NFL has the players place all of these slogans on the back of their helmets, or they place in the back of the end zones.

"IT TAKES ALL OF US". What does that mean?

 

Then there are the athletes who want to do better and bring causes to the forefront, which is good, but then the athletes don't do anything to make changes.

Yes, they'll donate to charities, but we all know that not everything going to charity all goes to the cause.

Some athletes will brush it off and put it on all of us to do all the hard work to make the changes.

Their attitude is...."Hey, I brought the message, it's up to you now." Gee, thanks a lot.

 

The one thing I was never clear on was the NBA and their painting "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on the sidelines of the courts.

Was the NBA telling us to support the phrase or the organization?

Two completely different things.

 

Personally I wish there wasn't so much politics in sports, but that's how society goes right now. I'll still find a way to just enjoy sports and do my best to not let the politics bother me.

 

I think the bolded is absolutely the best way to be. 

 

Not sure I agree that it has become more prominent but then that is because the political or quasi political issues within sport tend to be the ones that have been around longer. Whereas it sounds like the ones that most bother you are more recent. 

 

[Mark Vader]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think the bolded is absolutely the best way to be. 

 

Not sure I agree that it has become more prominent but then that is because the political or quasi political issues within sport tend to be the ones that have been around longer. Whereas it sounds like the ones that most bother you are more recent. 

 

I never saw political slogans written on the field when I was a kid.

[GunnerBill]

47 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In the original thread, you mentioned the political aspects of an anti-knife fight initiative  (words I honestly never thought I would hear affiliated with a sports league), the new combine guidelines, and one other. 
 

Having done absolutely  no research on my own, I’m wondering why you would see these as political?  Were they initiatives started at the legislative level, championed by political leaders etc?   
 

I’m personally struggling with the political aspects of “don’t stab yer neighbors, men”. 
 

I do not disagree with your fundamental premise of the intersection of politics v sports, btw.  I do think that some folks tend to conflate social issues with political issues where sports are concerned.  

 

The knife crime is an example of an uncontroversial political choice by a sports team. But it is still a political choice to take the opportunity of a nationally broadcast soccer game to back a prominent campaign. That is not partisan but it is political. The campaign has the support of both major political parties in the UK so it doesn't divide on party lines but it remains a small p political choice.

3 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

I never saw political slogans written on the field when I was a kid.

 

But there were still military fly overs, right? Singing of the anthem? 

 

That is my point the stuff that grates on you is more prevalent in recent years the other stuff has always been there it is just stuff that doesn't bother you the same way. We all see it through our own prism.

[Mark Vader]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The knife crime is an example of an uncontroversial political choice by a sports team. But it is still a political choice to take the opportunity of a nationally broadcast soccer game to back a prominent campaign. That is not partisan but it is political. The campaign has the support of both major political parties in the UK so it doesn't divide on party lines but it remains a small p political choice.

 

But there were still military fly overs, right? Singing of the anthem? 

 

That is my point the stuff that grates on you is more prevalent in recent years the other stuff has always been there it is just stuff that doesn't bother you the same way. We all see it through our own prism.

I never saw a flyover when I was a kid either. That's a political statement?

 

I don't see how the singing of the Star Spangled Banner is supposed to be a political statement.

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

I never saw a flyover when I was a kid either. That's a political statement?

 

I don't see how the singing of the Star Spangled Banner is supposed to be a political statement.

 

Of course military flyovers and national anthems are political. 

 

An anthem is a exaltation of national pride. That is about the most political statement there is. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by GunnerBill

[HamSandwhich]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The knife crime is an example of an uncontroversial political choice by a sports team. But it is still a political choice to take the opportunity of a nationally broadcast soccer game to back a prominent campaign. That is not partisan but it is political. The campaign has the support of both major political parties in the UK so it doesn't divide on party lines but it remains a small p political choice.

 

But there were still military fly overs, right? Singing of the anthem? 

 

That is my point the stuff that grates on you is more prevalent in recent years the other stuff has always been there it is just stuff that doesn't bother you the same way. We all see it through our own prism.

I would not say the singing of the national anthem is a political statement. We live in the country, it’s anthem is the national anthem, no more or less. It seems strange you point that out as political. Neither do fly overs, it’s been conflated military recruitment. It’s just a show, a cool one at that. 

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Of course military flyovers and national anthems are political. 

 

An anthem is a exaltation of national pride. That is about the most political statement there is. 

Only in todays discourse where if you are for singing the national anthem, you’re a redneck of sorts. That’s silly. Again my point was that politics should not be included in sports and an outlet that figures that out would likely make a lot of money, especially in the NFL. Talk football, leave the rest at the door. This has all gone to the wayside in the last decade or so when silence = complicity has been adopted. 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

I would not say the singing of the national anthem is a political statement. We live in the country, it’s anthem is the national anthem, no more or less. It seems strange you point that out as political. Neither do fly overs, it’s been conflated military recruitment. It’s just a show, a cool one at that. 

Only in todays discourse where if you are for singing the national anthem, you’re a redneck of sorts. That’s silly. Again my point was that politics should not be included in sports and an outlet that figures that out would likely make a lot of money, especially in the NFL. Talk football, leave the rest at the door. This has all gone to the wayside in the last decade or so when silence = complicity has been adopted. 

To clarify- you don't see NFL coaches wearing camo and warplanes flying overhead before kickoff as overtly political, and at the same time you're worried that the NY Times may inject politics into the Athletic's journalism? Do I have that right?

[HamSandwhich]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

To clarify- you don't see NFL coaches wearing camo and warplanes flying overhead before kickoff as overtly political, and at the same time you're worried that the NY Times may inject politics into the Athletic's journalism? Do I have that right?

You must not have read my posts, I am not worried about a thing. I was just pointing out the antagonistic nature of Juronimos posts. There are things to be concerned with if you are a paid subscriber. Why not attach good faith and take them at their word and not make it political. I’m not a subscriber of that publication so I don’t care. For me NYT taking over will make me less likely to ever buy a subscription however. 
 

There were those that are outwardly political about why they wouldn’t but there many that were not. He lumped them all together and acted like they were beneath him.

Edited January 7, 2022 by HamSandwhich