Should Athlete Tweets Matter to Teams?
The panel looks at whether or not a player’s social media history should factor into a team’s draft decisions.
In the digital age, nobody’s safe from their past social media posts re-surfacing, especially not pro athletes. Recently, MLB players like Trea Turner, Sean Newcomb and Josh Hader learned this the hard way, after it was discovered that they sent racist and homophobic tweets when they were teenagers. These events have only illuminated sports teams’ “fears” of social media, as discussed by the Honolulu Star-Adviser. How should teams be evaluating a player’s online and social media history when considering things like drafting?
Sandy Mui, GrandStand Central’s Facilitator of Special Projects
For better or for worse, teams should be evaluating a player’s online and social media history the same way many employers do in other lines of work. That means things like an athlete’s online and social media history should actually matter to sports teams, and these things should be factored into the drafting decisions they make. Just look at it as another variable for sports teams to consider when determining an athlete’s fit on the team. (In Brooklyn Nets terms, this would mean that “culture” fit Sean Marks mentions so much.)
Let me break it down for you in an analogy. Think of an athlete trying to get drafted, as an average Joe seeking a job. After all, playing full-time for a sports team is the dream of any athlete who is looking to get his/her big break in sports. Now, picture yourself as that average Joe. Wouldn’t you be worried about potentially career-ending tweets your future employer uncovers from your account? It wouldn’t necessarily mean you’re undeserving of the job if you tweeted something dumb as a teenager, but you should be worried about the weight that tweet might carry in the employer’s decision.
I’ve heard time and time again that students should be extra cautious in what they post on social media. And, if you do have tweets that could ruin your career or future career prospects, then scrub, scrub, scrub those accounts. Hopefully, you’re a changed person though, and those tweets are indeed not representative of the person you are today.
In 2018 alone, we’ve seen past, questionable (to put it lightly) tweets surface from the Twitter accounts of various sports journalists. (If you haven’t heard of Will Reeve Jr., well… a simple search of his name on Twitter will display very interesting things.) So, if the job prospects of someone could be hurt because of someone’s online and social media history, then so could an athlete’s draft stock.
Anthony Varriano, GrandStand Central Staff Writer
Teams should not be examining the online and social media history of minors as much as we do when it comes to the president. The president is at least legally responsible for his words; minors are not. Their parents share that responsibility, and while it’s not fair to retroactively punish players for things they tweeted in high school, it’s certainly disturbing that the president’s racist, sexist and homophobic thoughts are going through the heads of 21st-century adolescents.
Talent evaluators should certainly investigate the past social media usage of top prospects who have the shortest or surest path to super-stardom and who will draw the eyes of tweeters with too much time on their hands. But, I don’t think tweets should impact draft status.
Randy Moss pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor battery for assisting a friend in a high school fight, violated his probation by using cannabis, and still should have been a top-five pick in the 1998 NFL Draft. He went 21st because teams were worried about his off-field issues, but any team besides maybe the Indianapolis Colts (Peyton Manning) would draft Moss if they could go back in time. It’s all relative.
Generational talent will always make teams overlook red flags, but marginal talent is more susceptible to off-field impact. Most importantly though, the investigative tweeters, talent evaluators and resident gasbags should all remember these are the words and digital actions of children and to treat them as such.
Jesse Blanchard, Editor-in-Chief at BBALLBREAKDOWN
The rise of social media in sports, as it relates to evaluating talent and fit, is no different than the rise of analytics. I don’t know if it changes how teams draft or recruit, but it certainly offers them more information to filter through their own values.
Quality organizations already account for culture and character when evaluating talent. Poor organizations often overlook these virtues or think, in their hubris, they can correct or overcome poor character. And that’s what these racists or homophobic tweets represent — poor character.
Teams that value culture within their locker rooms will flag these things. Teams that don’t, might overlook them. But at the highest levels of competition, teams do their due diligence — interviewing former teammates, coaches, etc. to try to get an idea of their character and how they might fit in. Chances are, these incidents on social media will bleed into other parts of their everyday life and end up on a team’s radar. That being said, old tweets shouldn’t condemn everyone.
At 16, 17, or 18 years old, a person has enough cognitive ability to recognize right from wrong. “Being too young” isn’t an excuse at this stage. But, not everyone is the exact same person at 26, 27, or 28 as they are in their late teens. What I look for is a matter of forgiveness, as opposed to redemption. Writing off this attitude toward other people as a mistake of youth and asking for forgiveness, isn’t really an indication of growth. Forgiveness is an act given by the people you’ve wronged; it’s not necessarily earned.
Redemption is something you earn by demonstrating growth or repentance via demonstrable actions or dialogue. People would demonstrate more respectable values by acknowledging the failings of their character, what led to them, and showing what steps have been taken to change. To say, “that doesn’t reflect who I am,” is empty. It’s a throwaway line, and it’s disingenuous. At the very worst, it absolutely reflects who you were. The question is, what’s changed since then?
People who’ve truly changed are more concerned with redemption than forgiveness.
John Edwards, Contributor at Sporting News and The Athletic
As a writer, I’m all too familiar with the weight words carry. They can lift someone up, put someone down, elevate or denigrate.
When I was much younger, I thought the use of prejudicial language was “funny” or “edgy,” and I would use it with my friends — all of us white, straight males — in private. It took me many of my formative years in high school to realize that the language I used, even in private and regardless of intention, helped reinforce societal institutions that continue to deny minorities equal treatment today. These words were not historical relics whose impact had deserted them as the years had passed — rather, they carried as much weight as they did for so many years, or even more.
When I used that language, I was careful to never use it publicly, especially on the internet. I was always warned that “everything on the internet is forever,” and I feared not that someone else would be hurt by the language I used, but that I would hurt my future if some employer were to see a post from me with that language.
The use of this language by professional athletes, exposed and dug up years after this language was published, displays the same kind of careless white privilege that I failed to recognize in myself years ago. These athletes acted ignorantly without thinking about the history behind that language, and attempted to create humor out of hatred.
Perhaps the use of that language is excusable as an act of immaturity, as I was as immature in using it in private as they were in public. But the language carries weight, and the internet is forever.
In drafting and evaluating players, even if we pardon the use of such language and believe players who claim to know better now, we need to be aware of the hatred in the history of those words. After all, the language is still out there, and in drafting these players, teams find their brand associated with this language. I refuse to believe someone would have forgotten about using that language on such a public forum as Twitter, and allowing the language to exist today is hurtful to the maligned and downtrodden minorities who are targeted by that language. At a bare minimum, it is the responsibility of the team, the player and the players’ agent to ensure the language is no longer out there before a player takes the field for the first time. If a team feels as though a player still has this immaturity, or worse, still genuinely believes in the hatred behind the language, then it is the team’s responsibility to not give that player a public platform for that language, and pass on them.
Baseball has had a problem attracting women, racial minorities and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The past weeks have been a painful reminder that many of the people who still play baseball are straight white males who have not had to confront prejudice in their lives, and remain ignorant of the impact of such language, especially on the groups of people that the MLB wishes to attract. I personally don’t believe the use of such language when used immaturely should disqualify players from being drafted — but at the same time, teams must be seeking out players’ social media histories and taking action as quickly as possible, not playing whack-a-mole whenever an old tweet resurfaces. Teams have a responsibility to the fans to create an inclusive environment, and that environment includes social media — confronting fans with language from their favorite players that marginalizes them makes it easy to abandon the team. Baseball is a beautiful sport that everyone should be able to enjoy, and that language, no matter when it was published, should play no part in it.
Jeff Eisenband, Senior Editor at The Post Game
First of all, I’ve heard rumblings of, “Teams should pull their players off social media.” Let’s be clear: that’s not going to happen. Social media is too ingrained in our culture. It’s a moneymaker. Teams are making money off engagement. The NBA is the most rapidly-growing American sports league because it’s made social media part of the sport’s culture.
As for dealing with athletes’ social media, let’s not kid ourselves. Teams are still going to bring in the best players possible unless they commit a felony or cheat the game. But, that does not mean they should turn a blind shoulder to athletes’ social media accounts. These franchises have the resources to back-stalk their players and should definitely be encouraged to get ahead of any problems.
For the most part, recent examples of offensive tweets have come from players currently in their 20s who made remarks in their teens. This doesn’t get them off the hook, but it provides an opportunity to set an example. Many fans are kids and teens approaching the age of the mistake. These athletes have an opportunity to not only apologize, but to teach a lesson. These mistakes can be turned into vehicles to communicate that racism, homophobia and other offensive mindsets are unacceptable.
As fans, people can choose how to react. People make mistakes. If you’ve gone your whole life — including your teenage year — saying the right thing, congrats. But, many people know mistakes are made. It so happens in the last decade, that’s been on social media. That’s not an excuse; that’s a fact. It’s a black eye on this current era of sportsmen, but it is an opportunity for them to groom the next generation.
I honestly think current teenagers operate knowing their social media activity can go viral at any moment or when they become famous (everyone thinks they’ll be famous). But, this also isn’t about just not saying the wrong thing on social media. It’s about why it’s wrong. And if athletes can communicate that, our sports will be in a better place.
Sandy Mui is the Facilitator of Special Projects at GrandStand Central. She takes pride in her background as a multi-platform journalist and more recently, as a digital campaigner advocating for gun safety in the United States. You can follow her on Twitter here.
