Why the 'Mans Mans' Games is an Insult to Men

The film Training Rules is directed by Mosbacher and Yacker. Mosbacher is a lesbian feminist activist who wanted to show how women in sports are discriminated against and some of the consequences that come with as identifying as a lesbian or being a part of the LGBT community. They directed this film so their audience can learn to be tolerant of others decisions and to encourage equal treatment among individuals which are portrayed in the film. After watching the film I could say that sport is not a safe space for LGBT athletes. It was a problem in the 1980's and continues to be a problem today. In the film it is made clear the sport is not supportive of athletes who identify within the LGBT community. In the film we are reminded by Portland that there are 'No Lesbians' allowed on her team. She enforces this by threatening, intimidating and doing anything in her power to make sure her lesbian athletes cannot pursue their basketball career once it's over at Penn State. Today, some may argue that sport is a safe place for LGBT athletes but I'm not sure how I feel about that. I only question it because we don't have a lot of professional athletes who have come "out" and that may be because their gender identity doesn't influence how they play the game and it's no one's business or it could be kept private because they don't want their identity to effect their game negatively as Robbie Rogers has explained in his interview.

To make sport a more inclusive environment for all, I would implement some type of training on how to be an ally to the LGBT community and whether people want to supportive of others choices, is their choice. Whether people want to be inclusive or not is ultimately up to them. All I can do is provide the information, enforce it and how they process it is up to them but I will not tolerate any discrimination. I read a scholarly article about how to create an Inclusive Organization and I liked some of the explanations it gave to create an inclusive environment. They are as follows:
1. Be a learner
2. Be inquisitive
3. Set the vision
4. Model inclusive behaviors
5. Be an advocate for the change
6. Speak out when necessary
7. Hold each other accountable for all of the above
I liked these recommendations for becoming a more inclusive community because it encourages individuals to be accountable for their actions and to respectfully challenge others who have an opposing opinion. Although I'd like to say that how one person identifies doesn't effect their game, it does unfortunately in the society we live in and we need to work towards being a more accepting and supportive community for them.

References:
-Training Rules
- Jason Collins came out; NBA should let him play
- Robbie Rogers: why coming out as gay meant I had to leave football
-The 7 actions for leading or creating an inclusive organization

"Darwin's Athletes": Sports & Ethnicity

Sport definitely has a significant impact on African American culture. I find this to be true because African American athletes who play a sport at a young age have dreams of making it big. A lot of kids have these big aspirations of becoming an astronaut, a professional athlete, singer etc. I feel that it's more relevant in the African American community to have such big dreams because when we look at teams playing in the NBA or the NFL there are a lot more African Americans in on the court or field and that says something to the youth. African American children, teens and young adults see all the African Americans playing the game they love and aspire to be like them one day. Another reason why sport has such a big impact on the African American community and culture is because making it to the professional leagues is an outlet. For some young adults who are drafted into the league leave behind their lower income neighborhoods and that's huge for someone to come from very little and to have more than they'd ever dream of. That alone is inspiring.

The Hollywood portrayal of African American athletes is a lot more glamorized and can be misleading of what an athlete actually experiences to an extent. For instance, in The Blind Side, Michael Oher's life in the beginning is portrayed as rough and we get a glimpse of his neighborhood but as the story goes on you get this sense that since he joined the Touhy family and gets all these new things it's as if his roots are put in the shadows and since he gets all this new stuff opportunities, Michael's life is now normal. In Hoop Dreams we see the struggle. Arthur and William and their families are interviewed and we heard the stories and struggles they went through. The documentary gives an accurate portrayal of what these kids dreamt of and how they got where they got. The main different between the two films is one is trying to accurately give its audience a true reflective representation of the teens life whereas in the Blind Side, the film is much more subtle.

I don't feel like sport is damaging the Black American and preserving the myth of race because I think sport encourages the African American community specifically the youth to try hard and try to make it big even though their chances may be slim. Giving something for kids to work hard for is great and allows young athletes to set and strive for their goals. Professional African American athletes aspire young youth to become pros so I wouldn't say sport has a negative impact on the African American culture.


Picture: http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/blindside.php

"You Throw Like a Girl": Sports, (Wo)men & the Gender Order II

I chose this commercial because Derrick Rose is one of my favorite athletes. In this commercial Derrick Rose is promoting his sponsor, Adidas.  The message reflects his identity and experiences by representing his home city of Chicago. This commercial highlights masculinity by showing off his body. The opening scene he has his shirt off and throughout the commercial his muscles are exposed and it shows dominance.










Derrick Rose adidas commercial
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-QQ7CPjbuo

Interrogating inequalities in Sports Media: Examining gender/race representation in Sports Illustrated

In 2013, Sports Illustrated had 102 covers where not 1 cover had a female athlete starred on the front of the magazine. Of the 102 covers, there were 9 covers that included women on the cover but of course they weren't athletes--they were fans, a police woman or Kate Upton. Four of those covers the women were were the backdrop for a star male basketball player at Indiana, Kansas, Syracuse or Gonzaga University. The police woman on the cover was surrounded by 3 men looking very professional and fully clothed in uniform whereas flirty Kate Upton was surrounded by a few teammates from the Braves in a jersey. Upton's other magazine cover was titled "Kate Upton goes Polar Bare" and of course was naked under a winter coat. There were 2 covers where there was a very small insert of Lindesy Vonn's rehab process in the top right corner and if you didn't look up, you'd miss--that's how small it was. After looking back on last years 2013 covers, it's clear Sports Illustrated does not recognize women as all-star athletes deserving of a picture on the cover. The ONE cover of a woman was Kate Upton and she was naked, how typical. She's a model and has no  relation to sports whatsoever and she made the cover. That's a slap in the face to all women athletes. Women are sexualized objects. Yes, we all know are the norm is men who read Sports Illustrated also like women preferrably hot women so why not put a hot woman on the cover or have the "swimsuit edition."Sports Illustrated reinforces what we already know. Sports Illustrated has many opportunities to put women athletes on the cover and they don't. They're fine with keeping us women as their backdrop, off to the side or as some sex symbol. Even an old black and white cement stadium made the cover, wow.

In regards to the other 93 Sports Illustrated covers, male athletes took the cover. There were golf, basketball, baseball, football and hockey players every other page. The posing men displayed male dominance whereas the other photos were action shots. Granted, the targeted audience of those who read Sports Illustrated are male, they can still include a handful of covers dedicated to women. However, I can't say the magazines women read don't do the same thing. Cosmo and Glamour magazines both have women dominating their magazine covers with one cover titled "Sexiest Man Alive." Overall, in a sports magazine I do expects to see more women athlete recognition and inclusiveness in the magazine and on the covers because I know there are some women athletes out there that would own some men in a competition.

References

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/photos/1305/si-covers-2013/#/magazine/photos/1305/si-covers-2013/2/

Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports: Should NCAA Div 1 Basketball and Football Players get Paid?

There's always going to be debate whether NCAA Division 1 athletes should get paid, specifically men's basketball and football players. It makes sense as to why these men should get paid because they bring in millions of dollars to their university whether it's in relation to ticket sales, donations, sponsors and or cable deals (Pappano). There are plenty of reasons why NCAA Division 1 athlete should and should not get paid during their college careers. Some reasons why student athletes should not get paid is because they never have in the past and college athletes need to maintain their "amateur status." Some believe if athletes were to get paid for their hardwork they won't be playing the game for the love of the game but for a paycheck (people have said that for years). Also, some would argue that student athletes do get paid in a sense through scholarships. Some in favor of paying Division 1 men basketball and football players would say these athletes earn to be compensated for their skills and the amount of revenue they bring to the University. Although some athletes earn scholarships it doesn't mean they're all on full rides. There's a budget and you have to divide that money up on who gets what/who needs what. I myself have 3 scholarships here at CU and 2 jobs and that's still not enough to make it through my college career. College athletes need to get paid because they do not have the extra time us regular students have to maintain 1,2,3 jobs at a time.


In my opinion, mens basketball and football athletes should get paid. NCAA Division 1 athletes spend countless hours in the gym, on the field, in the weight room, on the road and on top of all of that they are full-time students like the rest of us. However, these athletes who bring in millions to our universities can only have a part-time job during their off-season and just because it's called an "off-season" doesn't mean these men are not training to be better. They still have commitments to their team/sport. Any athlete that strives to be great and wants to make it to the league is doing more than what's required of them from their coaches. Besides, what company wants to hire a person who can only commit a day or two for a few hours here or there, it's not promising. So I say, why not pay our athletes? We can afford to pay our Division 1 athletes enough to get by through their college careers if we're signing coaches for millions. Paying athletes may even give them some incentive to stay in college and earn a degree. On the flip side-- athletes who have the opportunity to be drafted after their season ends may skip the degree because they cannot risk getting injured and missing their chance getting into the league, a lifelong dream for some.

At the same time I can see why some are against paying NCAA Division 1 athletes because they don't want to see a college trend to mock NBA or NFL athletes habits, attitudes or lifestyles. It's fair to give them some money if they don't necessarily have enough time to dedicate to a job outside of being a full-time student AND being a full-time Division 1 athlete AND they're bringing in millions where the University benefits. It's fair to give back just a little.

References
The Shame of College Sports and NYT_sport_economy

Sports, Politics and the Olympics

One of the most evident use of sports for political gain was the Olympic games hosted by Berlin, Germany in 1936. Nazi Germany rose to power in 1933 and what was more perfect to spread their Nazi ideology than to host the Olympics--a global participation. Germany wanted to be the most powerful force in the world and it makes sense to host the Olympics where there was 49 different countries who came together to compete. However, many nations were hesitant about participating in the 1936 Berlin Olympics because of Adolf Hitler and his followers alternative dehumanizing motives. One of the main events (if not the only "event") that occurred at the Olympic games was the spreading ideology on Nazi Nationalism. The entire motive around Germany hosting the Olympics was to become a world power. Hitler could influence a great deal of people in a confined place under his rule. The "Nazi games" fueled Nazi propaganda according to Sage and Eitzen.

When I'm asked to take a stance on whether "Sport is pure and devoid of political interference," I don't think you can have sports without the influence of politics which was clearly evident here with the 1936 Olympics. Those games were 100% used for political gain and even to today the games remain political. There are bids put in years before the Olympic games to determine which city will host the next games to come. That city/country will bring in so much revenue just because of the games, the media and publicity that country will receive. Even if you don't have the space, the city will make space. Look at Beijing-- they destroyed thousands of peoples homes and lives so they could build the Olympic village/stadium. Billions of dollars is spent for the games and that is definitely politically motivated.



References
http://www.olympic-museum.de/part_count/1936.htm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/china-s-games-the-olympics-have-destroyed-our-lives-a-570717.html

olympics pp

London Calling: The Globalization of the NFL

Let me begin by saying why I think the NFL would want to migrate towards London, money. I can't even wrap my mind around the idea of the NFL moving overseas. The game isn't respected there like it is in the states. We love football--it's something our country thrives on in the sports world. It doesn't even make senese to why the NFL would want to expand over there minus the fact the it would bring in revenue. However, we need to bring up the question, how much revenue? Is it worth all the hassle, no way. The NFL has more than enough support here in the states. Some say the superbowl this weekend is going to be the best match up to date. (Go Broncos!)The NFL is alive and well here in the states just fine. I may sound exclusive but it's the reality of the situation.

Seperate from my opinion, the NFL may be leaning towards expanding its operations outside of the United States because it's a bussiness and will bring in money to both the US, London and possibliy surrounding areas near the city of London. A move like this can also create a more inclusive local community and strengthen the relationship between the US and Europeans perhaps. Some of the driving sources behind this potentially dramatic move is that London is an internationally renowned city with the great, Wembley stadium. With advantages come disadvantages. Some barriers of the NFL moving to London is the concern surrounding the amount of support they might get or lack of. The cost of traveling a handful times a year to a football game for many doesn't sound promising. Although Wembley stadium is perfect for events as history has shown us, fans selling out this stadium for a NFL game is not likely. Not only does the move to London have barriers surrounding the sport but it also seems to put athletes at a disadvantage for the most part. The amount of traveling that will be done  has the side effect of jet-lag and creates conflicts with game schedules. It seems to cause more of a headache implementing this plan than it would be rewarding.

After looking at both ends of the spectrum, the only good thing of moving NFL to London would be the amount of revenue it would bring in and the inclusiveness it would create between the US and Europe. It sounds like an okay idea and I'm all for bringing countries together, I just don't see the NFL being successful as we'd like in London. Like Barnwell said, "The reality is that making all these changes would create more problems than a London team is probably worth" (4).

References:
London Calling by Barnwell