The Sport of Politics
In 2017, escaping to football is no longer an option. Not only have been forced into the political fray, they’ve amplified it.
It’s a Tuesday night in October, 2017, and Mike Ditka and Joe Namath are in the news. It isn’t for a Hall of Fame reunion, or some celebration of football’s golden era. Clips of their exploits on the gridiron do not run on cable news networks. These two septuagenarians find themselves on a disorienting new playing field — in bold print for their comments regarding race relations in America. More specifically, in sports.
“There has been no oppression (in America) in the last 100 years that I know of,” said Ditka, a former tight end and head coach for the Chicago Bears. “Now maybe I’m not watching it as carefully as other people.” He continued:
“Is that the stage for this? If you want to protest, or whatever you want to protest, you’ve got a right to do that, but I think you’re a professional athlete, you have an obligation to the game. I think you have to respect the game. That’s what I think is the most important thing. I don’t see a lot of respect for the game. I just see respect for their own individual opinions. Opinions are like noses, we all have one. Some are good. Some are bad.”
Joe Namath found himself on Fox & Friends — a favorite of President Trump’s — responding to Ditka’s claims and the issues at hand.
“I think there’s been a somewhat of a disappointment with a lot of folks on how our country’s been looked at, how our flag has been treated with respect. But going back to what Colin Kaepernick initially did, it was to point out some injustice that’s being done to the black race or to people that — obviously when you look and I say, obviously, some of these dash-cams and shootings that were done to unarmed people and all, he was reaching out to try and get it more investigated. So that’s where this oppression thing comes in.…
“It’s a national dialogue now more on the flag, patriotism, but the oppression, the unjust treatment of others has fallen in the background here. We haven’t heard that part.”
Namath is hardly the messenger you’d expect to take up the cause of the social justice warrior. Today’s NFL certainly doesn’t resemble the one Namath or Ditka played in, and it underscores the quaint absurdity of their newsworthiness. But he highlights the inescapable truth of 2017: if you’re in the sporting world, in any way whatsoever, you are a de facto political commentator with an anticipation from the public that you will weigh in. The national anthem debate that has persisted over the past month — largely due to the President and Vice President’s insistence — is simply part of the NFL viewing experience now. You better have a stance on it, too. In a debate like this one, nothing will light the powder keg more than indifference.
Football players, and those who announce, coach or comment on it professionally, should not have an inordinate amount of political sway. While most of them are American-born, presumably registered to vote, and affected just the same by Trump’s policies as the rest of us, they didn’t enter the sport with the intentions of becoming partisan lightning rods. But, as Bryan Curtis of The Ringer put it, “One of the things that’s amazing about Trump is his ability to take a mostly apolitical part of American life and divide it with his Us-versus-Them worldview. …It’s no longer possible to affect a tone of shrugging neutrality. You have to pick sides.”
The United States has, in many ways, slunk away from informed conversations about more complicated topics, like climate change, or the ability for people like Harvey Weinstein to go undetected for decades. The NFL has been an oasis for that redirection of attention. It was safe because it didn’t really matter. It’s a football game, and sharing a pointed opinion about Aaron Rodgers in the workplace or at the dinner table just felt safer. Nothing is more liberating than having full command of a subject and the license to talk about it anywhere.
So imagine the maelstrom that followed when the security blanket was removed. Colin Kapernick was a Trojan Horse filled with uncomfortable ideas, waiting at the gates. When he entered, he changed the terms of the war. How many sons and fathers who only had football to bond them now had that innocence ripped from their Sundays? The proverbial water cooler talk in the office? Football is officially off limits, unless you’re ready for a fight.
Even stranger is that simply by being within the friendly confines of a football game, political outrage is amplified. By virtue of the fact that football players would consider a statement during the national anthem is, according to some, laced with enough egregious disrespect that they can no longer enjoy the sport they once loved. Trump himself is under fire for, at the very least, breaking unwritten decorum by staying seated and making jokes with Sean Hannity while a military bugler played “Retreat” behind him. “They’re playing that in honor of his ratings, did you see how good is ratings? He’s beating everybody!” For this president, patriotism works on a sliding scale, more a weapon than a philosophy.
Donald Trump has successfully infiltrated and destabilized one of the last remaining vestiges of the monoculture. Everyone watches football. More importantly, everyone is empowered to offer an opinion on football. Remember Deflategate? Incredibly, the general public was filled with pseudo-scientists and ethics professors who decided to share their opinions with the world. The roar to severely punish Tom Brady and the New England Patriots was deafening. One fully grown ESPN commentator nearly broke down in tears just thinking about it. Others called for the termination of Bill Belichick, full-season suspensions, and fuzzy yet impassioned correlations between air pressure and steroids. I’d venture a guess that the ubiquity of the sport, the disdain for the perennially competitive Patriots, and the utter insignificance of the crime led to its lengthy news cycle. This was a misdemeanor, a football misdemeanor, at best, and a whole lot simpler to talk about than Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Hernandez, CTE, labor disputes or Greg Hardy inexplicably being offered employment by Jerry Jones.
Jones has, for reasons that are still somewhat unclear, reentered the fray on this issue. His Dallas Cowboys had not been kneeling during the anthem, aside from one unified display on September 25, when the entire team, Jones included, knelt prior to the playing of the anthem, and then stood for the duration of the song. According to reports, his team had moved on from the issue. Earlier this week, Jerry revived the issue.
“If there’s anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play. Understand? We will not … if we are disrespecting the flag, then we will not play. Period.”
Players were frustrated and insulted, and, understandably, confused. “Some players found it odd that Jones was becoming the face of the anti-protest movement at a time when his players were complying with the team policy,” noted one CBS Sports article.
In effect, this ensures the continuation of the story. The Cowboys have a bye week, but there’s no question their October 22 game — against the 49ers — will receive heaps of attention. The owner aligned with the president, essentially issuing a challenge to his team. Keep your eyes peeled for Tweets from POTUS, claiming “victory” for the cleansing of the NFL. Will Cowboys players now feel compelled to kneel for the anthem?
Trump has taken one of the last things we could all agree on and taken it away from us. Should all citizens respect the flag, the national anthem, and our military that has fought to preserve our freedoms? Of course. That goes without saying. But watching a football game should not compel you to be outraged at the political leanings of young men who have been vilified for using the only platform they may ever have to enact social change.
Perhaps this was a necessary correction. The NFL had grown too large to remain outside of our society’s most pressing conversations. Now we find ourselves in a world where the only debate everyone is willing to join, though, revolves around a game.
What remains to be seen is the long range impact. Will this division lead more children to pursue different sports? If this happens, will advertisers follow? The NFL sends mixed signals about their employees with opinions, and the president is not afraid to call them out by name.
Either way, this marks the true beginning of a culture of hyper-politicization. Nothing is unrelated, immune, or off-limits. If just a handful of seventy-something-year-old-men — not one of whom ever portended to be politically significant — can tip the country into this kind of frenzy, we have bigger problems on our hands.
Most likely, you will watch football again this Sunday. I will, too. Just know that by doing so, you’re making a political statement all your own.
