Sports Hypocrisy All Our Own

The hypocrisy of organized sporting institutions (particularly those that were founded as "amateur" associations) is not limited to FIFA, nor to European-based fiefdoms. But one of the elements that enables FIFA's and the Olympic Organizing Committee's, continuing high-handed corruption is the lack of a governing body to, well, govern them.

Not so in the United States, where the NCAA is facing attacks in several judicial bodies by the individuals who have made it and its member schools billions of dollars, the same folks that the NCAA insists on calling scholar-athletes.

The Through the Looking Glass logic of the NCAA is hard to deny, particularly after the recommendation of its football rules committee this month that offensive teams be charged with a delay of game penalty for snapping the ball within the first ten seconds of the play clock. You read that right: delay of game for playing too quickly. The proposed rule has been dubbed the "Saban Rule" after Alabama head coach Nick Saban, who supports the rule apparently because "run and shoot" offences provide opponents with the opportunity to actually compete with a school that routinely has the best recruiting class in the nation. Whether the fact that only one of every five college coaches support the change matters more to the NCAA than what Saban desires remains to be seen.

While court action is unlikely with regard to the Saban Rule, the NCAA does face serious challenges in several other areas which may well force its hand with how it administers college sports. First came former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon's law suit against the NCAA and its corporate partners EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Company seeking compensation for players who either appeared in video games or in televised broadcasts while in college.

O'Bannon's case has slogged its way through the legal system and reached a tipping point in late December 2013 when U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken certified a class of former college players (comprised of O'Bannon and other named plaintiffs including Bill Russell) that sought licensing fees from EA Sports and CLC, but ruled that they could not proceed as a class on their claims against the NCAA for the use of their likenesses in televised broadcasts.

The ruling may appear a victory for the NCAA, but it still faces the claims made by the individual plaintiffs in the case, and it could have to face the daunting prospect of trying to resolve not one but hundreds of individual cases brought in all 50 states instead. Just as importantly, because the certification of the class against EA Sport and CLC would give the former athletes the rights to their own images while in college, the NCAA sought the stay of a ruling regarding a similar class in another class action which was denied by the United States Supreme Court.

In the back-and-forth between lawyers after Judge Wilken's ruling was issued, the NCAA repeated its mantra regarding "student-athletes" and the many benefits to which they are entitled in yet another attempt to justify the fact that it and its member schools make billions of dollars from the labor of their football and basketball players (and pay their coaches millions of dollars at the same time). 

Meanwhile, Northwestern University football players have taken steps to organize and join a union. The critical issue in that case, is, of course, whether football players are employees of the university or are merely (wait for it ...) student-athletes. The NLRB held hearings last week in Chicago in the case, in which Northwestern introduced a number of witnesses to testify that its athletes (who, with their 97% graduation rate, are probably more "students" than at most U.S. universities) receive academic support and are limited in the amount of time that they are allowed to practice or otherwise participate in their sport.

Former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, who is leading
the effort of its football players to organize (photo from Deadspin).

If past cases are any indication, the players may have a tough go of it. An effort by graduate assistants at Brown University to organize last decade was denied by the NLRB, which found that the assistants were primarily students, not employees, and reversed a prior decision of the Board to the contrary. But left unanswered is the question of why one cannot be both. "I don't know that there's anything inconsistent with being a student and an employee," noted Craig Becker, the AFL-CIO's general counsel.

The ultimate decision in the NLRB case may rest on the next Presidential election, as it's unlikely that it will be submitted to the consideration of the entire Board until 2016. Just as in Brown case's George W. Bush's Board reversed precedent regarding the organizing efforts of graduate assistants at private institutions, so too the next Board is likely to be comprised of a majority of pro-union or pro-employer members depending on whether a Republican or Democrat next sits in the White House.

Regardless of the outcome in that case, however, the O'Bannon case is likely to have a more immediate impact, both because it appears to be nearing it apex (trial is scheduled for this June) and because it will likely hit the NCAA where it hurts the most - its pocketbook and that of its member institutions. It's hard to see the NCAA's position regarding compensation of players for the use of their likenesses as anything other than archaic, last ditch attempt to cling to the same arguments that Major League Baseball made and ultimately lost long ago regarding its reserve clause, which essentially made players indentured servants to their mother clubs.

While the NCAA has a valid point that players do receive at least the opportunity to receive a higher education through their scholarships, the value of that education so pales in comparison to the billions of dollars flowing to the NCAA and its members that it is difficult to perceive that as adequate or just compensation in the 21st Century. While O'Bannon's case against the NCAA may or may not ultimately succeed, one suspects that the recent movement toward paying football and basketball players some amounts in addition to their tuition and room and board may be an avenue to at least limit whatever future financial bleeding may result from his case and thousands of others that will follow if it is successful.

Earning It

About this time every high school soccer season, I'd begin thinking about the awards that we coaches would give our players at our season ending get-together.

I had a tradition that, every other season, I would find a toy, token, or object that fit each player and her abilities, attitudes, or interests. Sometimes they would be obvious, sometimes not. They were always meant to be fun, even if they were occasionally a little ambiguously mean.

The superstitious player who wouldn't abandon her soccer boots at the end of the season, choosing to use duck tape on them instead, received a big roll of tape for the next year. The elegant winger who ran like a colt and cursed like a sailor was given a Princess Leia doll with a tiny bar of soap in her mouth. The player who consistently "forgot" to bring her running shoes to practice got another pair of her very own for the next season.

I sometimes wonder if any of them have kept those knickknacks, which weren't huge and gaudy like the dozens I'm sure they had been handed at the end of every soccer, basketball, and softball league in which they had participated when they were younger.

Ever since our son, E, first brought home a "participation trophy" from soccer when he was four years old, I have been opposed to youth leagues that award them. Trophies should be won, not handed out like Halloween treats. When an athlete, at any age, earns a trophy, she does so knowing that her team excelled -- or at least was better than most -- not just for showing up.

Fortunately, E got it at an early age. As competitive as he was, it didn't take long for him to realize that trophies won were much more valuable than those provided for participation. And I never gave the participation trophies much more thought.

Others, however, have given them great consideration, and have concluded that we may well have poisoned a whole generation into thinking that they are entitled to anything and everything, including a trophy for mere attendance.  In a recent op ed piece in the New York Times, the author cites psychologists and psychological studies that conclude that participation trophies are counterproductive. "Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, found that kids respond positively to praise; they enjoy hearing that they’re talented, smart and so on. But after such praise of their innate abilities, they collapse at the first experience of difficulty. Demoralized by their failure, they say they’d rather cheat than risk failing again."

I think it's a little too easy to blame the awards themselves to any great extent, but perfectly legitimate to blame what they represent: a generation of parents (yes, you baby boomers) that failed to discipline their children when they misbehaved and failed completely at the honest, objective analysis of their children's abilities and the understanding of the value that sports and teamwork can impart, even in the absence of athletic skill.

As you might imagine, there are many stories that I could tell about dealing with unrealistic or misguided parents advocating for their children (often to the child's horror) with regard to athletics. But to do so at this point would be both futile and equally selfish on my part.

While the author of The Times article starts her article with the premise that if the youth league your child is joining hands out participation trophies you should "find another program", that's easier to do in New York City than Charleston, West Virginia. And, in some ways, it's just a further abdication of a parent's responsibilities. Isn't it more of a teaching moment, when their kid brings home that first shiny trophy that is the same as one that every other child received, for the adults to point that out, that, while participation is fine, excellence is better?

They will get it. E certainly did. While he lives in Richmond now, his room at home is still stuffed with various reminders of his athletic achievements: a state track relay championship medal, plaques from state tennis championships, a first-team all-state soccer plaque, even trophies from basketball and soccer tournaments won ten or more years ago. But those participation trophies? He banished them to the attic long ago.



Participation trophies - where they belong.

This Ball is Always Round

Sometime back I mentioned in a post that one of my all-time favorite books about soccer is The Ball is Round. Unfortunately though, for many who play the game, the ball isn't always round. Or even much of a ball.

An article in The New York Times (which I first saw linked on Rachel Maddow's Facebook page) last week highlights an obvious fact: kids in the poorest countries not only do not play with balls that are round, they often play with balls that are not even balls but rather rough spheres fashioned from trash or debris. Efforts by relief organizations to provide them with "real" soccer balls often fail because the balls are quickly torn or otherwise deflated by the rocky conditions on which the children play their games.

Cue Tim Jahnigen and his quest to bring durable soccer balls to kids in the poorest countries in the world. The article recounts Jahnigen seeing a documentary about children in Darfur who found joy in playing soccer, even though the balls were made out of garbage and string.

Something of a renaissance man, Jahnigen has held a variety of jobs and engaged in a number of pursuits before turning his efforts to inventing an indestructible ball. You don't need me to recount the entire Times article (linked in the second paragraph) but it's an interesting story that involves, among other things, Crocs and Sting.

The balls are expensive, at least in part because it costs so much to ship them where they are needed (they are not only indestructible, they're also not deflatable). Still, if you're looking to make a charitable donation this holiday season, why not give a kid somewhere a ball that will always be there for him or her? You can buy a ball, or make a donation, here.

Lest it be completely lost on us, there is also a certain beauty to make-shift balls.  As I was writing this post, my friend Michael sent me a link to this series of pictures by Jessica Hilltout that she has taken of cobbled together balls. 

"Domingo's Ball, Mozambique."

These balls, or at least their photographs, certainly are artful. But those who play with them I'm sure would rather play with one that rolls true and stays round.

It's Still a Game

Two recent injuries to high-profile athletes, in situations that could have easily been avoided, have caused some folks (me included) to examine the coaching decisions that played a role in the injuries, or more precisely in what could have been done to avoid them.

In the first, the Saturday before last, the Chicago Bulls' Derrick Rose (the reigning MVP of the NBA) tore the ACL in his left knee with 1:20 left in the game and his team up by 12 points in a win over the Philadelphia 76ers in the first game of their playoff match-up. Rose's presence in the game that was essentially wrapped up led some to question whether his coach, Tom Thibodeau, should have kept him in the game and risked any injury, let alone a season-ending one that will require surgery and months of rehabilitation.

A week later, Mariano Rivera, who is almost certainly the greatest relief pitcher in the history of baseball, tore the ACL and meniscus in his right knee while shagging balls pre-game last Thursday in Kansas City. Catching outfield flies before a game is not standard operating procedure for relief pitchers, let alone 42-year-old relief pitchers, and others have questioned the wisdom of his manager, Joe Girardi, in allowing Rivera to, well, act like a kid when he's now middle-aged.

As is too often the case these days, when sports opinionators (it's hard to call many of them "journalists") weigh in on every coaching decision, some have questioned whether Rose should have been in the game when he was, and whether Rivera should have ever been allowed to tempt fate by shagging balls in the outfield.

In response to the questions, Thibodeau, who has a well-earned reputation for exhaustive, even obsessive, preparation, replied that he thought that Rose, who has struggled through a number of injuries this season, needed to be on the court at the end of the game so that he could acclimate himself to finishing games if the need would arise (and it almost certainly would have) in a close game later in the playoffs.

The best defense of Rivera's actions came not from his manager but from former Yankee pitcher Ron Guidry, to whom Rivera was compared (or mirrored, since Rivera is right-handed and Guidry a lefty) when he first came to the Yankees two decades ago. Guidry shared with Rivera not only sneaky-fast stuff, but a longing to play the outfield. Guidry actually realized his dream, twice, while in a Yankee uniform.

Rivera never made an official appearance in the outfield for the Yankees, but, in a recent New York Times interview, Guidry expressed the belief that that dream, or at least allowing Rivera to foster it by catching flies in warm-up, may have extended rather than shortened Rivera's career. “We’re people, not just pitchers,” Guidry said. “If they didn’t let Mo enjoy the game, maybe he doesn’t pitch this long.”       

Rivera in action.

I'm with Thibodeau and especially Guidry on this one. Sometimes, coaches just have to let players be players. The word "player" itself has a connotation that we too often ignore. It is a game, and players play it. Sometimes coaches coach best when they let their players enjoy what it is they're doing. As long as it's not disrespectful of the other team, or designed solely to pad statistics, then players should be allowed, at least sometimes, to acknowledge that they should have some fun, to express themselves whether on the field of play or just preparing to play.

Perhaps there's a lesson there for businesses outside of the sports world as well. Too often management feels compelled to require employees and even executives to conform to their idea of what a position requires. Employees are required to dress as an account executive or administrative assistant "should" dress; to act like a like a manager or a agent "should" act, to express themselves as a salesperson or an lawyer "should" express themselves.

Once in a while, perhaps a square peg will fill a round hole, as long as it's not forced and there's a little elbow grease that eases the fit. Sometimes we should let employees be who they are, and by doing that let them enjoy more what they do. Understanding that there are certain situations that require particular behavior or even attire, employers ought to be willing, in general, to adapt to the way employees and even management can go about their business in the manner that is most appealing to them, as long as that business and that conduct aids the greater good.

Let players play.

The Entitled Athlete

Turns out I wasn't the only one who thought that David Brooks got it wrong.

The blogosphere has been full of commentary about Brooks' commentary regarding Jeremy Lin. Most take the position that Brooks didn't know what the heck he was talking about when attempting to make the point that it's difficult for an athlete to be religious and succeed at the highest level.

A sports story that unfolded this past week has legitimized Brooks' thought that preparation for, and success at, the highest level of professional sports tends to result in selfishness rather than the selflessness that many religions demand.

Brooks did meander about in his recent column, concluding that religious athletes in general, and Jeremy Lin in particular, struggle in balancing the self-sacrifice that the Judeo-Christian ethic (although Brooks more broadly concludes "the religious ethos") demands with the will to excel in sports, and the fame and attention that come with that success. In response, I argued that sports can, especially at the amateur level, teach us the same things that that our religions require of us: to work for the common good; to subsume ones' personal achievements to the benefit of the team; that the repetition of practice moves us a little closer to unattainable perfection.

Ryan Braun, however, did his best this past week to prove that often arrogance, self-importance, and a sense of entitlement often go hand-in-hand with athletic success. 

Braun is the baseball player for the Milwaukee Brewers who tested positive for steroids (at 20 times the normal level, mind you, when four times is enough to warrant a finding of doping) during last season's playoffs. An arbitration hearing was held on his appeal from the 50 game suspension that he was dealt in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the teams and the Players' Union. Braun won his appeal, apparently on the technicality that the protocol for the MLB drug testing procedure had not been followed.  According to ESPN:

In his appeal, Braun didn't argue evidence of tampering and didn't dispute the science, but argued protocol had not been followed.  Multiple sources confirmed to ESPN investigative reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and T.J. Quinn that Braun questioned the chain of custody and collection procedure.

So, essentially, good lawyering and a technicality got Braun off. As a lawyer who has heard a "not guilty" verdict on behalf of his client, I appreciate the arbitrator's decision for exactly what it was -- a finding for Braun because MLB did not follow its protocol. That decision, however, was not a proclamation of innocence.

But Braun couldn't let it go at that. Instead, the day after the arbitration decision was handed down, he held a press conference at which he announced the decision as one of vindication. "I will continue to take the high road," Braun said. "We won because the truth was on my side. I was a victim of a process that completely broke down and failed as it was applied to me in this case. Today's about making sure this never happens to anyone else who plays this game." He also took a swipe at the man whose job it was to collect, store, and ship Braun's sample by saying that "we spoke to biochemists and scientists, and asked them how difficult it would be for someone to taint the sample.  They said, if they were motivated, it would be extremely easy."

Mr. Not Guilty Proclaims his Innocence.

So much for the high road.

What Braun didn't say, of course, is that there was no evidence that his sample had been tampered with. Or that his lawyers had argued that it had been. Or the complete lack of ability of the "motivated" villain to tamper with the sample of a specific player, since the samples are identified only by a number, not name, and are sealed in the player's presence. Or why MLB, especially since its Commissioner is the former owner of the club for whom Braun toils and whose statue sits outside of Miller Park where he plays 81 times a season, would condone, let alone instigate, the tampering.

Braun's throwing of the sample collector under the bus resulted in the collector coming forward to defend himself. Yes, Ryan, he has a name, and a reputation to protect. In doing so, Dino Laurenzi, Jr. made it even more clear than it already had been that while Braun had succeeded in beating the rap, the evidence against him was indisputable.

In choosing to incorrectly proclaim his vindication when it didn't occur, Braun perhaps didn't act much differently than others would have given the opportunity. That he chose to justify his false innocence by singling out someone who by all appearances was just doing his job, who had no explained or even conjectured bias against Braun, is a completely selfish act that certainly fits Brooks' profile of the modern professional athlete. None of Braun's actions, from the time that he gave the sample up through his lawyer's response to Laurenzi's statement, have been intended to benefit anyone but Braun.

Braun, of course, is not alone when it comes to boorish behavior by athletes. In fact, just this past week Tiger Woods, the poster-child for self-absorbed athletes everywhere, engaged in yet another attempt to intimidate a reporter who asked a question that Woods did not believe required a response.

There is no doubt that athletics can teach us values consistent with those of our religions. But there is also no doubt that the single-mindedness necessary to achieve at the highest level of sports, the unshakable belief in oneself that he or she can make it to the top, and the fawning attention from parents, coaches, hangers-on, fans and often the media that accompanies that success can also create self-centered individuals who, other than their value as entertainers, have nothing to offer to society as a whole.

The Religious Athlete

It's impossible to watch ESPN, or an NBA game, or read the sports section these days without hearing or seeing a reference to Jeremy Lin.

From the awful ("Linevitable"?) puns in the New York Post to breathless "Top Ten Lin Moments" on SportsCenter (after one week as a starter? seriously?) he has been everywhere. And not without reason - his is a "feel good" story if ever there was one, although one suspects if he was plying his trade in Houston or San Francisco, his two former NBA teams, he wouldn't be getting nearly the press that comes with playing in Madison Square Garden.

Lin shooting over a Laker in a recent game.

By far the most interesting analysis regarding Lin's instant fame, however, hasn't been from ESPN or even the New York Times sports section. It's been from David Brooks, the Times' columnist, who analyzed Lin's faith and, as Brooks sees it, the inevitable conflict between devoutly religious athletes and athletic success. 

Brooks believes that success in the sports world and living a religious life are antithetical. Far be it from me to summarize Brooks' position -- he is perhaps the political and social pundit whose writing and intellect I admire most -- so let's just let him say it:

Ascent in the sports universe is a straight shot. You set your goal, and you climb toward greatness. But ascent in the religious universe often proceeds by a series of inversions: You have to be willing to lose yourself in order to find yourself; to gain everything you have to be willing to give up everything; the last shall be first; it's not about you . . . Sports history is littered with odd quotations from people who try to reconcile their love of sport with their religious creed -- and fail.

As much as I agree with Brooks regarding many star athletes, I disagree just as strongly with regard to sport in general, and amateur sports in particular. Devotion to a craft or simply a belief in one's natural talent may result in self-centeredness at the pinnacle of a sport, particularly individual sports, which may be difficult to reconcile with subservience or submission to a great power or the greater good. But Brooks paints with too broad a brush. While a belief in oneself or the need to prove oneself may be necessary to the inner drive that is required to succeed at the very highest level, team sports teach us something very different.

The concept of team, and with it that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, is the very essence of sport. It also permeates every aspect of our daily lives, on the field and off. Being a "team player" or "taking one for the team" are concepts that everyone in our culture understands and most value. Sports at any level can and do teach us that practice, hard work, and perseverance can help make even that teammate who is not naturally gifted or athletically talented a valued member. Even if it's just by working hard in practice, or providing a warm body to scrimmage against, or supporting teammates during a game.

These values that anyone can learn by participating in a team sport - loyalty, honesty, hard work, self-sacrifice - are exactly the same as those demanded by our religious ethos, or even more generally, by democracies. I don't see a conflict between succeeding as a team member and religion or society. In fact, I believe that what sports teach us about teamwork is another reason why our society values sport, and why it can and does make us better members of that collective effort.