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