Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sports and Resistance in the USA

By Elana Berkowitz, Campus Progress. Posted October 5, 2005.


An interview with progressive sports writer Dave Zirin on Muhammad Ali, the 'indentured servitude' of the NCAA, and why politics and sports can't be separated.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Elana Berkowitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In 1960, at the tender age of 18, Cassius Clay tossed his Olympic gold medal into the Ohio River. He had just been denied service at a restaurant in Louisville when he tried to order a hamburger only weeks after winning boxing gold in Athens.

The rest of the story has become a classic, as Clay, now Muhammad Ali, goes on to win 56 of 61 fights with 37 knockouts and, along the way, becomes an iconic political figure that defined an era of racial struggle.

Now, in a time of sometimes crass hyper-commercialization, we've found a sports writer unwilling to ignore the issues of race and class that have always been inextricably tied up with sports. Dave Zirin, author of "What's My Name, Fool?: Sports and Resistance in the United States," is a sports fan with a political conscience who won't let us forget the intersections between his twin passions as he explores sports unions, anti-war athletes, the controversially-named Redskins, Jackie Robinson and desegregation with wit and an inexhaustible stockpile of knowledge.

Dave sat down with Campus Progress to talk about the Canadian progressive politics of NBA star Steve Nash, building stadiums on the public dime, athletes becoming "thingified" and being a fan.

You've described the NCAA as a "sweatshop for indentured servitude." Why are you so concerned about college athletes getting paid?

I know it's so controversial right now - "oh you can't pay college athletes, you'd ruin their amateur status" and all the rest of it. Fifty years ago all college athletes received a stipend, so this is not some kind of new radical idea. I went to a Division III college and I had a good friend who was up at the crack of dawn every day and would come home every day and collapse in a heap just to be on a Division III swim team. If you're good enough to play a college sport you're contributing to the life and culture of that particular campus and therefore deserve to be treated like anyone who's doing any kind of work study, and should get some kind of a stipend. When it comes to revenue-producing sports like baseball, basketball, football -- where the college actively profits off of what you do -- I think you're entitled to a piece of that. Anything other than that is, frankly, rank extortion of the worst sort.

By not paying college athletes, do you feel there are certain portions of the population that are disproportionately affected?

Absolutely, without question. Working class African-Americans, Latinos, and communities of color disproportionately make up the ranks of these teams. If you look at any school, the percentages in terms of racial diversity of the sports team versus the campus as a whole are stacked in opposite directions. Growing up in NYC in the '80s, I thought that Georgetown University was a predominantly black college from watching basketball because their coach was African-American and almost the whole team was African-American. When I found out what Georgetown actually was my jaw hit the floor.

Still, on a lot of big sports school campuses, athletes get other perks thrown their way, particularly when they are being recruited. Over the last few years we've seen a number of news stories about athletes being recruited and treated like kings, plied with promises of easy academics, sexual bait and so on.

I think that's a very important thing you're raising. That is a reality today. The competition and profits for big-time college sports is so intense and the athletes can't be paid for it. Colleges can't compete with each other by paying the players, so it's all under-the-table stuff -- payments, women, drugs, whatever. It's sort of a moral sewer. I'm not trying to talk like Pat Robertson here, but when I hear that the University of Colorado had a special slush fund that involved escort services and a liquor store I just think, "That's disgusting. Why does something like that exist?" The answer is because there can't be an honest and fair exchange of labor.

How would you respond to those who point out that college athletes are being paid to some extent with free ride athletic scholarships?

I would remind you that people said in slave days: "they're getting room and shelter." It's completely apples and oranges. Yeah, they're contributing to the economic wellbeing of the school. But they are revenue producers for the school of the first order, and many of them are doing a hell of a lot more to fill the coffers of the school than a typical tenured professor, for example.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hmmm
Posted by: kittykat on Oct 5, 2005 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a completely pointless article and I am SO sick of self-righteous,self-serving media bitches who are so quick to whine about what others are or aren't saying or what others are or aren't doing when they sit on their lazy,stupid asses. The media are propaganda whores who rent themselves out to the highest bidder and now this putz was to get all preachy with the same shit these someone else has written 10,000 times already?! Been there done that find a new song to sing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmmm Posted by: caesarhowell
» RE: Hmmm Posted by: kittykat
Valid assumptions?
Posted by: ScottP on Oct 5, 2005 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems like there is a built in assumption that pursuing a career as an athlete is something to be encouraged. I'm a former ivy league NCAA athlete from an athletic family (my Mom won a masters national championship in the 70's age group). Ivy league schools don't even allow athletic scholarships and produce few professional athletes. I think that's good. I encourage the youths I know to think of sports as a hobby, not a career. I think it's a lousy career, almost as bad as the military. Pro athletes sacrifice their health for at best a short career, and most that aspire to go pro end up not making it but bearing the lifelong physical damage of the attempt. I think sports are great for participation, but feel that spectating actually reduces participation in general. The pros are so spectacular that it makes the efforts of a weekend athlete look pathetic, which I think is part of why our country is continually falling into worse physical condition overall while pro athletes continue to reach new heights.

I agree with Dave that some pro (and college) athletes have a positive effect on the world, but feel that is a small minority, and the effect of pro sports overall is very negative. I would encourage everyone to turn off the TV, stop buying tickets to pro sporting events, and take that time and money and go play yourself.

Have fun!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sports is so OVER
Posted by: Jeffersonista on Oct 5, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the price of gas creeps ever higher, sports from highshool darwinian age filters to glitzy NFL gladiatorial splendors, are becoming more and more irrelevent and forgotten. When folks have to start walking instead of driving, they will not want to be reminded of walking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Forced Labor in the NCAA
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 5, 2005 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a kid doesn't want a FREE college education for playing a child's game, it's not my problem. My stance is to outlaw ALL athletic scholarships. College sports was created as an outlet for students who were attending in order to earn a degree. It was not created for kids who wish to use it as a developmental league for professional sports. Why should taxpayers in state 'A' fund a free education for a kid from state 'B' who has no interest or desire in living in that state after graduation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Air Hoodlum
Posted by: Kneel on Oct 5, 2005 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I don't get how a couple athletes taking a stand redeems the whole deal. Every time a jingoistic player makes a good pass, is that an example of jingoistic, repressive policies at work?


2. NCAA the players ought to have a trust fund. A stipend isn't so necessary as the universities take pretty good care of the athletes.

But they've generated a lot of revenue, and they ought to share in it. I think the best way to do that would be to establish a trust fund that makes long term payments to the players after they leave college.

Air Hoodlum (Public Enemy's song) offers a better lesson than "He Got Game" - why should anyone pass up the NBA to go to college? Bank the money, then go to college later. What if the young star blows out his knee in one of those many, many college games?

Also having these college superstar teams is just perverse. Be nice if more resources went to just ordinary college students who want to play for excercise and recreation.



3. Yes, sports are a distraction. Spectator sports. I lived in a city that was touted as being such a great sports city. When I read about that, I wondered what they were talking about - everyone was pudgy and if you wanted to ride your bike, you had to drive it to the park first. Then I realized they meant, oh, spectator sports. So, what, it's a great city to watch TV?

Pro sports are really weird. I never understand why you're supposed to get all hyped about the hometown team, especially when their not even hometown players. It's not like these are the guys we went to kindergarten with. It's not like after they win your rent's gonna go down. It's not like you're actually any part of the team whatsoever (ok, you'll get to hold a big foam finger at the parade). I think it's just jingoism in another form. Good training to chant slogans when called upon to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Air Billionaire
Posted by: Kneel on Oct 5, 2005 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
4. Nice that the interview touched on the public funding for stadiums. I know a lot of people in Seattle were wondering why they had to pay $300 million build welfare queen Paul Allen a new facility for his for-profit sports team (especially given that just one of Allen's yachts cost $200 million, and his planes include two (!) personal Boeing 757 jumbo jets), and why they're taxed when they buy stuff for their families to help pay for it (here's an idea for a sales tax to pay for the stadium: put it on... the tickets). Another reason to never believe the "We'd like to help, but there's just no funding" lie.

Shame that local governments aren't so eager to spend $300 million on sports facilities (bike paths, swimming pools, gyms, courts and fields, etc.) for the locals to use and enjoy. Those would really make a difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]