With all the attention afforded to athletes' political opinions, The McGill Tribune discusses the question of whether or not athletes should speak politically during “sports time.” For the purpose of this article, “sports time” is defined as all pre- and post-game press conferences, along with any statements made during a sporting event.
Athletes should be allowed to address political issues on sports time if they wish to do so. Their statements should not take on an excessive role by interfering with gameplay; however, athletes addressing political issues in post-game or pre-game interviews is beneficial for society because of the unique status these athletes possess.
Professional athletes are on an unmatched platform to convey their messages to both political and apolitical parts of the public. Many segments of society feel alienated by politics and do not pay attention to the news. Therefore, athletes have the special ability to be heard by thousands of people who are usually deaf to the media. Athletes should make the most of this opportunity and spark interest in political debates by expressing their political opinions.
The platform afforded to athletes is inherently beneficial because of the discourse created from hearing differing opinions. In the contemporary environment of reinforcement through social media, being presented with a differing point of view is instrumental in opening the minds of individuals. Oftentimes, these accounts are from historically marginalized populations. These groups are rarely featured on mainstream media, but with sports they are placed front-and-centre and given the opportunity to express themselves. This is because sports is a true meritocracy: The best players succeed and only hard work and dedication come into play. Sexual orientation, race, and gender have no influence on who thrives once they’re on the field or court. It brings people with diverse and unique backgrounds into the spotlight.
As for the timing of athletes’ political statements, due to the omnipresence of political debate, drawing the line during sports time seems rather illogical. There are countless examples of situations where sports and political issues have been intertwined. From the 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute to the 2015 U.S. Men’s and Women’s national soccer teams making post-game statements about equal pay for women, athletes have the potential to impact the world and should speak out when they have personal connections to causes. Both of these protests were successful in achieving change. The 1968 Black Power Salute is often referred to as one of the most powerful protests in history and caused Americans to re-evaluate their treatment of blacks. In 2016, in reaction to the soccer protests, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resulution to end athletic pay discrimination.
Kneeling during an anthem or talking politics during a post-game interview is rarely a nuisance and has the ability to create conversation between sports fans that may otherwise share nothing in common. People complain about these statements not because they are distracting, but because they do not agree with the message. While this could turn into a much larger debate about freedom of speech, the issue here is with fans, not athletes. Individuals need to learn to accept debate and opinions that run counter to their own. In today’s politically charged climate, people need to question their beliefs and to be able to defend them in a civil manner.
Given these facts, athletes should be allowed to speak politically when they please. The real debate lies with our society’s ability to cope with political conversation.
While political conversation is without a doubt an important part of democratic society, athletes should not speak politically during sports time. Athletes do not have an effective platform for political conversation, their statements may cause unintended negative reactions from fans, and taking sides politically goes against the broad unifying aspect of sports.
The first problem with such statements is the constraints of sports time speech. At a pre- or post-game press conference, the most pertinent issues are match-related, leaving little time for athletes to expand on political positions. The primary focus during sports time is to see athletes compete and talk about why the game went how it did, not why players support one political movement or another. Since so much time is devoted to sports and so little exists to dwell on anything else, the athletes would be hard-pressed to shoehorn their message into a conference or in-game gesture.
Carolina Panthers’ tight end Greg Olsen discussed the limitations in an interview with Pro Football Talk. “The last thing [athletes] want to do is [...] be misinterpreted and then have your thoughts misconstrued [...] and now all of a sudden makes you seem to be something you’re not,” Olsen said.
It can be incredibly difficult for athletes to voice their opinions in such restrictive circumstances. Therefore, athletes should take their political opinions to other platforms–like social media or radio talk shows–that allow them to fully flesh out and discuss their beliefs.
The nature of the audience creates the second problem for athletes looking to speak politically. No matter one’s political leanings, sports has commonly been viewed as an escape from the negativity of politics. Whether it be the Black Power Salute at the 1968 Olympics or Kaepernick kneeling for the American national anthem, the general criticism of such act stems not from the political message but from the tarnishing of the viewer’s sports experience. There is certainly a time and place for political statements, but poorly timed assertions during sporting events can induce blowback from even those sympathetic to an athlete’s cause.
For this reason, political statements made during sports time can do considerable harm to the socially unifying aspects of sports. Sports fans can easily attest to the effect fandom has in counteracting more divisive aspects of society, especially in politics. On game day, the conversation isn’t about who voted for whom, it is about how great a play was, if someone should steal second, or why the goalie was out of position. In a political landscape where common ground is fleeting, a world where society holds on to things that unify people and urges athletes to consider better outlets for political speech is crucial.
The stance against political statements in sports time is not about infringing upon free speech. The argument is based on what is best for both the athletes and the audience. The athlete is better off using a platform that allows for the more complete and effective articulation of their views and the audience is best left alone during sports time so that they can enjoy their game without the political negativity in which they are usually swamped. In the interests of both of these aims, players should not make political statements during sports time.
Although it is important for athletes to speak out politically, the timing of those comments is best reserved for outside sports time. Sporting events have the power to unify people all over the world, but associating them with athletes’ personal political views does the opposite. There are better opportunities for athletes to express their leanings and more effectively advance their goals.
Athletes should be allowed to address political issues on sports time if they wish to do so. Their statements should not take on an excessive role by interfering with gameplay; however, athletes addressing political issues in post-game or pre-game interviews is beneficial for society because of the unique status these athletes possess.
Professional athletes are on an unmatched platform to convey their messages to both political and apolitical parts of the public. Many segments of society feel alienated by politics and do not pay attention to the news. Therefore, athletes have the special ability to be heard by thousands of people who are usually deaf to the media. Athletes should make the most of this opportunity and spark interest in political debates by expressing their political opinions.
The platform afforded to athletes is inherently beneficial because of the discourse created from hearing differing opinions. In the contemporary environment of reinforcement through social media, being presented with a differing point of view is instrumental in opening the minds of individuals. Oftentimes, these accounts are from historically marginalized populations. These groups are rarely featured on mainstream media, but with sports they are placed front-and-centre and given the opportunity to express themselves. This is because sports is a true meritocracy: The best players succeed and only hard work and dedication come into play. Sexual orientation, race, and gender have no influence on who thrives once they’re on the field or court. It brings people with diverse and unique backgrounds into the spotlight.
As for the timing of athletes’ political statements, due to the omnipresence of political debate, drawing the line during sports time seems rather illogical. There are countless examples of situations where sports and political issues have been intertwined. From the 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute to the 2015 U.S. Men’s and Women’s national soccer teams making post-game statements about equal pay for women, athletes have the potential to impact the world and should speak out when they have personal connections to causes. Both of these protests were successful in achieving change. The 1968 Black Power Salute is often referred to as one of the most powerful protests in history and caused Americans to re-evaluate their treatment of blacks. In 2016, in reaction to the soccer protests, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resulution to end athletic pay discrimination.
Kneeling during an anthem or talking politics during a post-game interview is rarely a nuisance and has the ability to create conversation between sports fans that may otherwise share nothing in common. People complain about these statements not because they are distracting, but because they do not agree with the message. While this could turn into a much larger debate about freedom of speech, the issue here is with fans, not athletes. Individuals need to learn to accept debate and opinions that run counter to their own. In today’s politically charged climate, people need to question their beliefs and to be able to defend them in a civil manner.
Given these facts, athletes should be allowed to speak politically when they please. The real debate lies with our society’s ability to cope with political conversation.
The first problem with such statements is the constraints of sports time speech. At a pre- or post-game press conference, the most pertinent issues are match-related, leaving little time for athletes to expand on political positions. The primary focus during sports time is to see athletes compete and talk about why the game went how it did, not why players support one political movement or another. Since so much time is devoted to sports and so little exists to dwell on anything else, the athletes would be hard-pressed to shoehorn their message into a conference or in-game gesture.
Carolina Panthers’ tight end Greg Olsen discussed the limitations in an interview with Pro Football Talk. “The last thing [athletes] want to do is [...] be misinterpreted and then have your thoughts misconstrued [...] and now all of a sudden makes you seem to be something you’re not,” Olsen said.
It can be incredibly difficult for athletes to voice their opinions in such restrictive circumstances. Therefore, athletes should take their political opinions to other platforms–like social media or radio talk shows–that allow them to fully flesh out and discuss their beliefs.
The nature of the audience creates the second problem for athletes looking to speak politically. No matter one’s political leanings, sports has commonly been viewed as an escape from the negativity of politics. Whether it be the Black Power Salute at the 1968 Olympics or Kaepernick kneeling for the American national anthem, the general criticism of such act stems not from the political message but from the tarnishing of the viewer’s sports experience. There is certainly a time and place for political statements, but poorly timed assertions during sporting events can induce blowback from even those sympathetic to an athlete’s cause.
For this reason, political statements made during sports time can do considerable harm to the socially unifying aspects of sports. Sports fans can easily attest to the effect fandom has in counteracting more divisive aspects of society, especially in politics. On game day, the conversation isn’t about who voted for whom, it is about how great a play was, if someone should steal second, or why the goalie was out of position. In a political landscape where common ground is fleeting, a world where society holds on to things that unify people and urges athletes to consider better outlets for political speech is crucial.
The stance against political statements in sports time is not about infringing upon free speech. The argument is based on what is best for both the athletes and the audience. The athlete is better off using a platform that allows for the more complete and effective articulation of their views and the audience is best left alone during sports time so that they can enjoy their game without the political negativity in which they are usually swamped. In the interests of both of these aims, players should not make political statements during sports time.