Role Models
I commented on another blog concerning athletes as "role models": My take is that it depends on what is required of the player. For example, as I've said before if a player doesn't want to sign autographs or be what is now called an "ambassador for the game" then I don't have a problem with him. We don't expect Gary Kasparov to be an ambassador for chess and kiss our @sses. I would much rather see excellence on the field than excellence in marketing.
The motivation of league officers in all seems mostly crass and cynical - the league wants to sell a product. Players are commoditized now to a greater extent than ever, so they are expected to be who they are not, leading to artificiality and provoking cynicism when the player's true colors are (inevitably) revealed.
The process tends to beget mediocrity and it is spreading like kudzu. Enron was a corporate example of this appearance-over-substance mentality. Authors today don't have to write well but must be able to sell their books (i.e. have good looks and pleasing personalities).
I would rather have sports heroes and villians (with the edifying contrast between the two) than having merely milquetoast plastic "heroes" who keep two eyes on the bottom line. For true villians, however, suspensions and banishment are good things. Pete Rose deserved to be banished from the game and that sent a powerful message to kids. Same with Vick. But not getting an autograph, on the other hand, is something kids might need to learn - i.e. the world doesn't revolve around them and players aren't consumer items. On the other hand, autographs show that not everything is for sale and that a player might, of his own volution, give something that is unearned & free - and that is a beautiful thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment