Alex Rodriguez

By Andrew Fletcher

OK, I realize that the title of the blog post should have more of a focus off the bat. Even though it only has two words, it does indeed have a focus. If I wanted to describe Alex Rodiguez and his relationship to sports scandals, the title would probably be as long as the blog post.

Now that I got that little disclaimer out of the way, here we go...

David Leonard has a section in Chapter 31 called "A Convergence of the Front and Back Pages." Anyone who lives in New York will tell you that Rodriguez graces the covers of the New York Post and New York Daily News almost daily. The Yankees blog "Replacement Level Yankees Weblog" even keeps track of Rodriguez's cover appearances here. In the past, Rodriguez's cover appearances would stretch down most of the page. Because he is still on the disabled list, he hasn't been in the public eye and that's why he only has five appearances since they started counting this season. But good news, folks: he's working out in Tampa today!

Leonard mainly focuses on Blacks and crime in his writing about the front and back pages, but Rodriguez's relevance is still there.

Leonard writes: "As with the sensationalized literature, the popular press ubiquitously offers the impression that athletes are committing crimes at disproportionate rates, although the bulk of the coverage centers on the alleged criminal activities of Black athletes (Benedict, 2003; Lapchick, 2003a, 2003b; Vlahos, 2003)" (526-27).

Rodriguez is neither Black, nor is he exactly a criminal - he's a deviant - but his disproportionate appearances in the New York covers would lead one to believe that he has in fact committed crimes. The fact that he was caught using steroids is almost irrelevant, because he has been hated by New Yorkers since he became a Yankee on Valentine's Day 2004.

Look at the above picture, for example. A picture of Rodriguez kissing himself as part of a magazine spread is above news involving President Barack Obama. Apparently Rodriguez is more newsworthy than the president of our country. How about that.

Then we have articles about Rodriguez not washing his hands in the bathroom and his comments about wishing Jose Reyes was batting leadoff for the Yankees got blown out of proportion. He is the media anti-darling.  Everything he says or does gets scrutinized. Some of this is Rodriguez's doing, but too much is just too much.

Do you think the media is to blame for its coverage of Alex Rodriguez, or is it his own doing? When is enough actually enough?

Judging Stereotypes in Sports Reporting:

Christina Gaudino
MSS 340 Blog: Sports Scandals & Controversies:

The media loves to pass judgment on athletes. This comes from our instincts to make our favorite athletes into prized perfected possessions. In chapters 30 and 31 of the Handbook, sports scandal and controversy is discussed and magnified from every angle. The handbook suggests that as fans and commenter’s we hold athletes to unrealistic standards, “awards them with special attention and privileges, which may give them a sense of entitlement and freedom from accountability.”
It is also important to consider the role that race plays in sports scandal reporting. The handbook suggests that many commenters are white males passing judgment on the actions of black athletes. Are we providing whites “with the chance to talk about athletes in a way that reinforces these stereotypes? The handbook also talks about the relationship between images of black athletes and black criminals. “Throughout history black male bodies have come to rep that which is deviant criminal and threatening.”Blacks are seen as more violent, prone to drug use and inclined toward violence against women. Clearly, this issue steams out from a much larger society problem. “I believe that at least part of the systematic coupling of athletes and crime revolves around racial stereotyping.”
The role of race is discussed further in the article from the New York Times; McNabb Says He Can Relate To Obama, by Judy Battista. Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is infamous for his 2003 quote in which he suggested he’d be treated differently if he was not black. The media ripped him apart for his remarks, but was he lying? Mc Nabb went on to relate his public scrutiny to that in which president Obama experienced while running. ''I think it was similar in his process and the things that he went through, of the criticism that he received, people going back into his past and trying to characterize him and figure out what type of person he was,'' said McNabb, who added, ''Obviously, it's on a different level with him because he's the president of the United States, but I just watched the way he handled it, standing strong up there, continuing not to get rattled.'' Mc Nabb also stated that prior to his incident he become reluctant to discuss race and sports.
I think a lot of African American athletes may look at the problem with racism and sports as unchangeable and it’s better to keep quiet and make money then to stir up controversy. The Handbook points out America’s views on black entertainers, “Americans love their black entertainers when they behave “properly,” and stay in their place.
In an older article printed in the New York Times entitled Unfair Play written by Warren Goldstein, Goldstein suggests the existing attempts of white officalsto market black athletes. Goldstein states, “white people’s denial of black business ability while they continue to profit from black athletic skill; black athletes’ training in high school, college and the pros (what he calls the “Conveyor Belt”) to think only about individual success, never about a system that distributes power unequally.”
So is the problem the way we report on athletes? Or the expectations we hold them to? Or do these men and women really feel they are above the law because of their positions in sports? Do you believe athletes are judged entirely differently based on their race?

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/

Should athletes be punished for their crimes?

Professional athletes committing crimes seems to be a growing problem, but they are not facing consequences for their actions. They are not convicted because it might possibly ruin their career, for Michael Phelps and Kobe Bryant this is almost too true. Most of their sponsors decided not to resign them and both athletes are are trying to rebuild a reputation. In an article in USA Today it stated on accusations of rape "there is enormous pressure on the victim not to press charges, that you're ruining his career" (www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm ). But rape is still a serious crime, how can these athletes just walk away? In the Handbook it says "a problem exists because athletes do not face consequences legal or otherwise when accused, arrested or convicted of a crime. Athletic skills represent a get out of jail free card that provides universal immunity, thereby guaranteeing a persistent problem within sports" (Leonard 525). Of coarse for everyday people who do commit these same crimes such as rape (most widely committed among athletes) getting off scott free is just not fair. Even though they do have a special skill and make loads of money they should not be treated any different, they have committed a federal crime and should be punished accordingly. What do you think? Should athletes get special treatment to protect their careers/reputation? Should they be able to just walk away from a crime they were convicted of. Is that fair for everyday citizens who commit these serious crimes and are punished?

Farrell Henneberry

Olympic Coverage

The ratings of the Olympic Games the past few years have been dismal. Things finally took a change for the better last summer. NBC’s coverage of the Olympic Games was seen by many Americans and NBC was happy with the results. Much of the ratings success is of course due in part to Michael Phelps and his race for gold. This fact also meant that NBC had to air a lot of swimming. Almost every time I turned to NBC last August it had coverage of either swimming, diving, track or volleyball. One time I saw badminton but that was when I turned on MSNB at 4 0 clock in the morning because I was having trouble sleeping. This got me thinking is this how all the networks air the footage of the Olympics to their country? Are populations around the world subjected to the same four sports over and over again? Apparently not.

Just over the boarder Canada has an entirely different way of covering the Olympics. In this article the author states why the Canadian’s coverage is much better than the US’s coverage:

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/08/if-olympics-cov.html

The article notes not only does CBC cover a more wide range of sports, but it is also better because it gives better analysis, is more in-depth, and is less dramatic. What do you think of this year’s coverage of the Olympic Games? Do you think NBC did a good job with its coverage? Or do you think the format should be more like Canada’s? Is NBC right to put some sports on lesser channels?

The text states, “When viewers tune in to the Olympic Game, they are certainly addressed as biased observers. It is assumed that they wish to see representatives of their nation at work, but it is also believed that they wish to see a more transcendent excellence-that they want to watch the best”(Rowe 128). Do you think NBC is just showing us what we want to see? Do you wish they showed more and if so what other sports would you like to see?

Is America still in diapers when it comes to soccer?

“Every four years, the world comes together around the little black-and-white ball, a carnival scene mixing sport and revelry with a not-so-subtle undertone of nationalism.”  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/jan-june06/worldcup_06-09.html

 This statement, released prior to the 2006 World Cup kick-off, helped give an idea to the global effect the game of soccer has come to have. With the spread of globalization being consistent in many aspects of our lives, its no surprise that sports would be one of the many things that seem to connect countries around the world.

 However, with all of this said, America seems to not be as consistent as the rest of the world in identifying with the sport and their team. This was noted and became a concern to the rest of the media world when the U.S. was chosen to host the 1994 World Cup. “For the first time the tournament was scheduled to take place in the United States, where soccer (in U.S. coverage was afforded this, its ‘proper’ name, to distinguish it from American football) had very little following compared to baseball, basketball, American football, and ice hockey. Concern about the likely adverse impact of this “American exceptionalism” on the success of the tournament exercised media across the world prior to the event itself,” (Tudor 227). So why is it that America hasn’t emerged ourselves in this international sport?

 Other countries are well aware that we are content with our own sports such as football and baseball; and in Andrew Tudor’s article of “World Cup Worlds”, the term “ethnocentric” is linked to Americans, but would you agree? For a culture that seems to be so actively involved in all efforts of globalization do we realize that the world sees us as behind in this sport?

 The article that best described this comparison of international soccer and American soccer stated that, “Soccer is still in diapers in America. It is not played on the street, in every park, or in every playground around the country, like it is in almost every other country. Kids don’t grow up exposed to the game on a daily basis – it’s not in the media, in politics or in recreation”.

http://soccerlens.com/the-generation-gap-in-american-soccer/3697/

 After reading this article, would you argue this point? Do you think our interest in this global sport will ever increase, or are we too involved in our own past-times?

Globalizing the American Pastime

posted by Kristen Finelli

It is no secret that sports are trying to globalize. Globalization of sports such as rugby, American football, and hockey would mean increased revenue for everyone involved. However, most of these sports have failed to attract worldwide audiences.

When most people think of globalization of sports, they imagine the World Cup, which draws millions of viewers around the world. Even here in America, a country that has never embraced soccer, we watch the World Cup matches. There is even a bid going on to bring the World Cup to the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/sports/soccer/31vecsey.html?em

The Olympics is another example of the globalization of sports. But recently, there has been a new tournament that has brought a certain sport worldwide attention. And that’s the World Baseball Classic. The World Baseball Classic is a brand new concept. The first tournament was played in 2006, and the second tournament was played just last month. Baseball is thought of as a purely American sport, at least by Americans. It was founded here and has a long, colorful history. However, people all over the world, especially in Spanish-speaking countries, have tuned in to the WBC. And the teams have proved that baseball is not purely an American game. Team USA made it to the semi-finals, but in the end, the final came down to Korea and Japan. And who would have expected the Netherlands to get as far as they did? This just proves that baseball, a small sport that Americans think of as their own, has spread around the world with positive results.

There was a question of whether the WBC would do well in the States. We’re a little snobbish when it comes to our sports, and it was debatable whether fans would want to watch people from other countries, whom they didn’t know, play a sport that we feel attached too. However, coverage on ESPN was a huge success. http://www.multichannel.com/article/189969-World_Baseball_Classic_Starts_Strong_For_ESPN_Vehicles.php And part of the reason for that was the opportune timing of the games. For Americans, the off-season is long and spring training games get old after a while. In MediaSport it says that in sport, “the audience is targeted in its most vulnerable condition, relaxed yet fully receptive to the physical action and the inserted sales pitch” [Wenner 128]. True baseball fans are desperate for baseball, so of course they will watch. I did.

The WBC is still in an experimental phase. What are your opinions on it? Do you think that it’s a good thing for the globalization of baseball? Or is it purely a publicity stunt by MLB? Did you watch the World Baseball Classic this year or in 2006?

Globalization of Sports

Posted on behalf of Katie Devlin:

With the constant advances in technology and work ethics, a major change has been made with universal communication becoming exceptionally simple and virtually effortless as evidently seen in sports. Although countries are more connected which can be seen as an increase in globalization, this also means there is an increase in global competition.

Some sports have failed to become globalized. For example, baseball, America’s favorite pastime, and arguably the most famous sport to watch and participated in America has not become so popular in other countries… yet.

Soccer however is globalized which is why watching the World Cup is so popular in many countries. Sport globalization definitely shows both universal competition and universal bonding. It seems as if Europe and Canada seem to be adopting football into their culture which may lead to World Football Championship perhaps in the future. If soccer has been globalized, there is no doubt other sports have the same capability to be picked up by other countries. For instance, NFL played its first regular season game in London a couple years ago which could definitely a way to promote and advertise the game of football that us Americans seem to love.

Sport globalization can lead to international markets and business opportunities in the sport industry that can help the economy that especially needs help in our country.
Sports act as a universal feature of culture. There are no language barriers in sports. The rules are the rules. Everyone has the ability to know the game. There are no geographic barriers.

As notes on page 325 of the Handbook, “The motivations for and responses to viewing sports on television are primarily functions of affect, but they contain distinctly cognitive and social aspects as well.”

Globalization: The wide world of sports

In the Handbook of Sports and Media Joseph Maguire states, “The concept of globalization is subject to intense political, ideological, and social scientific debate” (436). He further goes on and talking about other issues that go in the idea of globalization in sports. Over the years globalization in sports has grown to an extreme. Games can be shown in over 100 hundred countries at a time. LeBron James is a perfect example. A game played by him shown on ESPN can viewed in many different countries. There are many more examples in different sports. One factor that plays a big role in globalization is the amount of foreign or international players coming to America to play the sport professionally.

One article I found briefly talked about how Yao Ming is the reason why Chinese people watch the game of basketball. http://sportsprof.blogspot.com/2005/09/globalization-and-sports.html This article also talked about other sports, such as, soccer, and baseball. After reading this article it showed me how the international and foreign players have an effect on the game. I believe the international players bring a lot of the money for the sport.

Maguire also states “The sport and leisure-wear industry can be used to highlight how consumption of cultural goods is bound up with globalization” (436). I believe star athletes being represented by big name brands play a big role in globalization in sports. Sports gear is being brought all over the world due to the companies’ big name star athletes. For example, Nike has LeBron James and Michael Jordan, Addidas has Kevin Garnett and David Beckham. Young children in other countries want the gear that the star players wear.

Over the years more and more athletes from other countries have came to America to play the sport the love. In today’s society it is uncommon not to have an international player on your hometown’s professional team. Which sport do you think is most globalized? Who do you think has the most influence on their sport’s globalization?