In our national sporting discourse, there is a taken-for-granted assumption that sports and politics do not mix. As a result, athletes are typically expected to bracket their political views and opinions from the public eye (unless, that is, they are conveying patriotic or team crafted/branded messages for the media). However, the reality is that sports are political in that they involve intricate, often asymmetrical, relations of power. Check out Moyers & Company episode, "The Collision of Sports and Politics," in which Dave Zirin talk with Bill Moyers about how politics are interwoven through sports, and why we should care. The full episode is available at:
Why do you think there exists strong social expectations to separate sports from politics (or certain kinds of politics)? What might this reveal about the dominant culture in America? Do you contend with any of Zirin's assertions? How can we use the context of sports to better understand how power is structured in society? Does the recent involvement of professional and collegiate athletes in Black Lives Matter and other social movements compel us to rethink Zirin's claims in this 2013 show? What struck you
or sticks with you about the collision of sports and politics? How does this relate to the course themes and readings?
Sports are commonly thought of as religion. When something is worshiped so deeply its power simply goes uncontested. Sports stars and teams continually do horrible things and fans continue to watch and spend. And we all support the teams through tax incentives and publicly financed stadium deals. When will it end?
ReplyDeleteI believe sports are separated from politics because many Americans watch sports to break away from the current issues of the world. If the dominant culture views sports as escapism and as a way to avoid the harsh realities of society, then many will reject the idea of athletes voicing their opinions on political issues.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I also saw a clear connection between Zirin's claims about the power owners possess in sports and Rhoden's theory of the plantation. Both writers suggest that there is a hierarchical structure where owners control the athletes. I argue that this system of power can be reflected and related to our society as a whole. Those at the top of the pyramid dominate and influence those who are below them.
After watching the video, the first thing I thought of was the "plantation effect" and its role in college athletics. From that point, Zirin moved onto a discussion of whether or not college athletes should be paid. In my opinion, this is a very complicated issue. On one side of the argument, you have people who say athletes get compensated fairly with a free education. On the other side of the argument, you have people who see how much revenue these athletes generate for their schools, and think athletes must be paid.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, college athletes must be paid in addition to receiving a scholarship. I know there are complexities to this opinion, like does the Quarterback make more than the Punter, or the Volleyball team less than the Basketball team. However, if I was a prominent Division 1 college athlete, I would be furious every time I saw someone wearing my jersey, or the Athletic Director pull into his reserved spot in his new Mercedes. Additionally, are these college athletes getting a free "education"? I am only a Division III athlete and I have a tough time scheduling the right classes around lifts, meeting, practices, and games. I cannot imagine what it is like for a Division 1 player. For all their hard work, and all the money they generate, college athletes should be paid in some way. The problem then is determining how much, how often, and to who in particular.
I was struck by Zirin’s statements about college sports. He compares college sports to life on a plantation and asserts that college athletes should be getting paid. This comparison parallels Rhoden’s comparison of the black professional athlete and the plantation. In his book, "40 Million Dollar Slaves", Rhoden argues that black professional athletes are controlled by white owners and coaches. Now, Zirin is making this statement about college athletes. He believes that they are making money for their coaches an their school, but they are not getting any in return.
ReplyDeleteJust as I disagreed with Rhoden’s belief, I also disagree with Zirin’s belief. A college education is priceless. The majority of the high profile college athletes are on full scholarship. They are getting paid with an important and costly college education. Many young adults just like them cannot afford to go to college and will be stuck with average to below-average jobs. These college athletes have the ability to become professionals in whatever field they choose to study. In addition, Zirin suggests that there should be no college sports, but instead there should be minor leagues where college-age athletes can earn a living. But what happens if one of these athletes gets hurt? They can’t make a living playing sports and now they don’t have a college education to lean back on. The idea of college also makes high school athletes work hard in school so that they can play ball in college. College keeps kids focused and prepares them for the future. For these young adults, a college education is just as good as being paid.
What struck me most about Zirin's conversation were his opinions, which mirror Rhoden's, that athletes both professional and collegiate, are on plantations. Zirin, unlike Rhoden, mainly focuses on the NCAA and its corruption. What really stuck with me was something that is perhaps obvious but one that I had not put together until Ziring said it: the sports that are the most profitable, football and basketball, are dominated by African-American athletes. Other sports, like baseball, hockey, and soccer, are not very profitable and they lack a clear African-American presence on the field. This realization has given more weight to Rhoden's thoughts on athletes as slaves, with others profitting off of the labor of black individuals.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Zirin hit the nail on the head with the discussion about sports stadiums in cities. In both cases he discussed, he mentioned the old, white, incredibly wealthy owner using his political connections to lobby for the stadium's completion. This concept only underscores the need for more diversity in the ownership ranks across the sporting world. Owners hold the power, the money, and the social capital to create change. Having individuals who think the exact same way will ensure that the sports world is one that involves political corruption and oppression for the future.
Reed Thomas-McLean
ReplyDeleteSociology of Sports
02/20/15
Collision of Sports and Politics
Whether we like it or not, politics and sports are very intertwined in society today. People desperately want to separate sports and politics because many people see sports as an outlet to escape the corruption and stresses of the real world associated with politics. This interview opened my eyes up to real world implications of sports I never picked up on before.
One part of this interview that I found incredibly interesting was the segment on gay athletes coming out. It is really cool that Jason Collins coming out encouraged gay soccer player Robbie Rogers to come out of retirement. This reflects the huge impact that sports have on politics and society. One athlete taking a stance and coming out can inspire so many people. Athletes are very powerful because they are public figures that people can relate to. Kids who hear the story about Jason Collins know that they can overcome their hardships and be themselves because Collins is going through a similar hardship, being a gay man in a historically homophobic sport. I remember the Collins story being a big deal when it came out but I did not quite realize how huge the real world implications were. This reminds me of the segment of Forty Million Dollar Slaves about neutrality. The case of Jason Collins contradicts this theory of Rhodens. Jason Collins is a prime example of how not all athletes are like Michael Jordan. Some athletes are willing to jeopardize their image to make a difference and stay true to themselves.
Another interesting topic brought up in this interview is about how scholarship college athletes are “athlete students” rather than the more commonly used phrase “student athletes”. Zirin’s discusses how scholarships are not guaranteed for four years. He says that scholarships are for one year and only are rewarded past the first year if the player produces. This segment about how sports are prioritized over academics supports the point Rhoden makes in the chapter about the “conveyor belt”. Sports are very cutthroat and players will be given advantages in life if they produce. This relates to politics because the money drives the treatment and accommodations made for athletes.
I found Zirin's comments that professional sports do in fact support a specific kind of politics to be quite telling. The playing of the national anthem prior to every sporting event and the constant commercials for team sponsors and the team itself are political statements, but they are so ingrained in the sporting culture as to not seem like statements at all. It is dangerous that such prominent statements can somehow go under the radar and not be fully realized. Since sports offer an escape from the daily travails of work and family, we do not consider the political implications of such statements while purportedly trying to keep politics and sports separate. This whole concept of the separateness of politics and sports is mentioned in Rhoden's book when he discusses players not having a voice. I believe this is beginning to shift, as evidenced especially by NBA players standing up in the wake of the Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner situations.
ReplyDeleteWhile Zirin focuses on problems of the sporting world, I considered his tone to be a hopeful one. He pointed out several areas where relatively easy improvements can be made. For instance, the NCAA can alter student-athlete's scholarships so that they are four years in length instead of being up for renewal each year. The idea behind this would be to provide stability in terms of being assured of the possibility of four years of higher education, something that serves as a key stepping stone to success for many people. While not solving the entire issue, this fairly small change would be a recognition of student-athlete's humanity in that it would de-emphasize their expendability.
I thought that Zirin’s commentary about the use of public dollars within the sports industry brought a negative light on the way that sports function in our economy. It’s easy to look at how much revenue they generate and think that it is a major contributing sector of our economy and thus have a positive function in the economic system. The other side of the equation, though, requires looking at what that money is being used towards. It is not revitalizing cities or being used to create less of a disparity between the rich and the poor, etc. but it is just circulating back into the sports industry system. The money is being recycled into the pockets of owners, coaches, building new stadiums, and reinforcing the positions of the corporate elite. Furthermore, sports have priority over other public infrastructure, public safety measures, and the like. This issue was further highlighted through the footage of the protests in Brazil of the building of more stadiums for the World Cup. Some of the protestors held signs that said they wanted to see a similar budget and effort put into building better quality hospitals.
ReplyDeleteIn light of Boston’s nomination to be a site for the Olympic games, a similar issue has been debated. Would hosting the games be good or bad for the economy? I think this example in particular is interesting considering the proposal of the use of preexisting college stadiums as venues rather than building new ones. But, will schools just use this as an opportunity to revamp their stadiums and thus perpetuate the same sports dominance? It would bring attention to the sports identity of schools rather than their academic or other qualifications. On the other hand, the games would increase tourism and be a major economic stimulant thus proving the role sports can play in helping businesses such as hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, airlines, etc. What do you guys think about the possibility of hosting the games in Boston? After weighing the pros and cons, what would be your final decision?
Listen to Economics prof Andrew Zimbalist discuss his book, “Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup,” which explores the corruption and faulty economics of hosting these monopolistic elite sporting ventures. He argues Boston would be very lucky to lose its bid for the summer games.
Deletehttp://onlyagame.wbur.org/2015/02/07/olympics-ioc-fifa-economics-boston
One part of the video that stuck out to me was Zirin's discussion about college sports as a plantation. His arguments were very valid: college coaches make about $4 million a year while their athletes really make nothing. Yes, they do receive scholarships, but they have to be re-earned every year and the education they are receiving is not of the utmost importance. As he said, they are not student-athletes, they are athlete-students. Even though they are attending a college to get an education, they are not necessarily receiving that.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to Rhoden's discussion of the college “conveyer belt.” In his book, he mentions how black male athletes are exploited because of the college recruiting process. He would likely agree with Zirin's comments that the college athletics system should be overturned in favor of a better, more equitable system. Zirin mentioned that one way to override the system is to put caps on the amount of money coaches can make or to have professional leagues create minor leagues where they can further develop their talent. These could be possible solutions. Another solution, which the Northwestern University football team began, is for the athletes to unionize to better be able to obtain their rights (such as good healthcare). This part of the video stuck out to me because there is so much wrong with the college recruitment process and the issue that they are athlete-students rather than student-athletes.
When Zirin talked about the role of "student-athletes" at a university, he's talking about an extremely complex, and controversial topic. The way someone thinks about this topic is going to be shaped by the side of the argument they're coming from. On one hand, Zirin makes very valid points that student-athletes are taken advantage of by their universities, and should be entitled to at least a share of the revenue. But on the other hand, the athletes are also using the universities to gain recognition and move on to the next level. The equation is still very much slanted to favor the system and not the individual, but Zirin's idea of an expanded minor leagues is fantastical; it's simply not plausible. What makes more sense however, is the idea that players that play for revenue-producing sports should get a stipend, or that these programs should have a salary cap that can be used flexibly to attract players, rather than the current system of recruitment.
ReplyDeleteIn the current system, athletes are certainly more in the mold of 'slaves', which Rhoden would agree with. Zirin's model would give the student-athletes more freedom, with the ability to profit on their talent to a certain degree before reaching the professional level. This would also help them out to an extent in the event of an injury. Some players with next-level potential never get that opportunity because of a devastating injury, and if they're not getting paid now, they never will. I see nothing wrong with these kids (many of whom do not have better options) wanting to take advantage of their athletic talents to get them and their families out of poverty. What's wrong is that they're not able to cash in on their opportunities soon enough.
What stuck out to me most was Zirin's comment about college sports and the realities of being a student-athlete. It was interesting to hear his take on how the "student-athlete" is essentially really an "athlete-student" while in college. The fact that coaches are paid a ton of money and their athletes make nothing is somewhat concerning after hearing Zirin's argument. Some athletes receive scholarships but these scholarships really aren't for them to use throughout their college experience. Instead, it seems to really be used by the coaches as a tool to get them to perform in their particular sport. The scholarships ultimately have nothing to do with how well the student-athlete is performing academically. We have discussed the coach-player relationship and how it has an effect on the player and how he or she plays their particular sport. Zirin makes a good point that scholarships are not guaranteed for four years but rather they are renewed annually. Therefore, even if the student-athlete were to have a 4.0 GPA, he or she may not get their scholarship renewed because these scholarships are really based on their athletic performance. I agree with Zirin it that it is completely unfair to withhold scholarship money from a student-athlete who isn't performing up to the coach's standard. This illustrates a clear abuse of power that the coach is exhibiting over the player which ruins the player's love of the game as well as their college experience. I have heard of situations in which a coach withheld meal money from an athlete because the coach thought that the athlete was gaining too much weight. The politics behind the coach-player relationship and how these scholarships really control the athletes rather than giving them the full opportunities of a good education while playing their sport at a high level. For this reason, I agree with Zirin's statement that if he had a magic wand, he would disassociate college football from its particular university. This would eliminate all of the behind the scenes politics of being a college athlete. In addition it would give the players the ability to play their sport for the initial reasons they began playing it, which probably was for their love of the game, not just for their scholarship money or because they are afraid of the power that their coach has with this money.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stuck in particular in this “The Collision of Sports and Politics” is the debate over whether college athletes should be paid. This is a common topic of discussion in the sports world because these college athletes, especially the one’s at high-end football and basketball schools produce so much revenue for the university, but where is the money going? The answer to that question is the money is going a small number of individuals such as the coach or president of the school. A few examples of people getting paid are Ohio State’s head coach Urban Meyer who was getting paid roughly 4 million dollars to coach, or the head of the NCAA who made nearly 2 million dollars. Imagine all of the money that Division 1 college football programs are making across the nation, but only a small number of people are benefitting from it. They describe it as “being back on the plantation” because these athletes are providing money and services for a school, but not getting anything in return.
ReplyDeleteThis relates back to “Forty Million Dollars Slaves” when William Rhoden talks about how athletes are basically controlled by the white owners. For example, college athletes can sign autographs but can not take any of the money that those autographs produce. Johnny Manziel, former Heisman Trophy winner was accused of taking a thousand dollars after signing autographs. I think college athletes should be paid, however, they should be paid within reason.
There will never be a decision about this topic that makes everyone happy. If college athletes start getting paid, there will be a select few that get paid much more than everyone else on the team which makes sense. If you score twenty touchdowns in a season, you should be getting paid more than the back-up kicker. That brings up another problem though because it will deter players from participating in college athletics. So although there will never be an outcome that everyone can benefit from, I do feel college athletes should be paid but there should be some type of salary cap so salaries do not get completely out of hand.
Zirin’s statements about college sports were very similar to the claims Rhoden made in his book, “40 Million Dollar Slaves” when he argues that black professional athletes are controlled by white owners and coaches and this power dynamic is representative of a slave plantation. Zirin focuses on the NCAA instead of professional sports. This is a very controversial topic, and there is great debate surrounding the role of “student-athletes” at a top athletic university. On one hand, Zirin raises arguments that student-athletes are being taken advantage of by their universities and should therefore be allowed to earn a profit off of their work. The counter argument is that universities provide these students with an education and a way to gain recognition to move on to the next athletic level. In my opinion, athletes should receive compensation for their work. These students are first and foremost athletes and are not student-athletes.
ReplyDeleteZirin's discussion on the salaries of college coaches and the construction of publicly-funded stadiums heavily reminded me of discussions on Wall Street CEO salaries and government bailouts of Wall Street banks during the 2007 financial crisis. He cites that while coaches can make $4M+ annually, their athletes are only given 1-year scholarships (up for renew each year, pending performance). Given the cost of college education in the US, these scholarships would be worth a maximum of $65k/year, while the athletes help to bring in millions in revenue to their universities annually. He also notes that during the same week that Detroit declared bankruptcy, the Detroit Redwings announced the construction of a $400M stadium. During the financial crisis, much focus was brought to the fact that CEOs of major banks made millions upon millions of dollars while their companies not only received billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, but their companies laid-off thousands of lower-level employees and their loans caused insolvency and the loss of homes for millions of Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe sports industry and Wall Street are able to reap the benefits of taxpayer dollars and keep up such exorbitant salaries for their officials because of their immense sway in our society and in government. Sports and banking are major institutions in our society, as they provide entertainment and financial in/stability to our livelihood. As such, they have great lobbying power and sway over government officials that clouts decision-making in government (local or national). This decision-making may be irrespective of taxpayer wishes, despite their funding of the outcomes. While both pro- and con-arguments can be made in favor of these salaries, construction of stadiums, and bank bailouts, it is profound the government interference in these institutions, given the both that these industries are inherently apolitical (sports ~ entertainment, Wall Street ~ economic) and theoretically could be autonomous. A detangling of these industries from government may be more detrimental than beneficial (i.e. Wall Street regulation or treatment of athletes), but given that we do not traditionally associate these industries with politics, these analogies between the sports industry and Wall Street are significant.
What stood out to me the most was Zirin's discussion of social movements impacting athletes. I have been interested in how professional athletes also function as political activists through their social location. Two social injustices that he recognizes are racism/stereotyping and homosexuality. First, he gives the example of the Miami Heat team taking a team photo with their hoods up to represent Trayvon Martin. This act was as act of protest, and because they had star players at the time like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, it became even more powerful. When the athletes participating in social movements can relate based on their social location as black professional athletes, the activism becomes more meaningful and personal.
ReplyDeleteZirin also explores the correlation between homosexuality and leadership, which I found very interesting. The world of professional sports have stigmatized what it means to be a homosexual, professional athlete because sports are typically known to stress hyper-masculinity, and being gay would not fit that category. It is refreshing to see athletes starting to come out in professional sports. This is not only powerful for the athlete as an individual, but it is also sharing to the world that there are no limits for anyone who shares a different sexual orientation.
Both of these examples show how the world of sports is a reflection of the society in which it exists, and it is important that professional athletes who relate to social injustices stand up for a cause when appropriate. Perhaps if athletes begin to advocate various social injustices, then their actions will then translate onto society.
One statement Zirin made that stuck out to me and encapsulated much of what we talk about when analyzing sports and their relationship to politics was something along the lines of people wanting to think sports are apolitical, when in reality what that statement means is they are only political in a certain kind of way. Zirin and Moyers touch on this idea of sports as purely entertainment and escapism. That's our ideal version of sports -- a meritocracy where the best players shine without being exploited and we can appreciate the spectacle as simple human achievement. What we don't want to recognize is the injustice and corners we cut -- the dangers we create -- by striving for this idyllic type of entertainment. We don't call out sponsors as a form of politics in sports, the way large corporations profit immensely off of players' branding themselves. Yet that is a form of politics just as much as athletes protesting with #BlackLivesMatter apparel and t-shirts.
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of entertainment America society in general wants -- to be able to spectate while ignoring negative impacts that come for those with less capital or those marginalized by American society. This can even mean players getting exploited or losing out on the revenue they create. Football players and concussions or scholarship athletes not being student-athletes but athlete-students who don't get to focus on studies and building knowledge for a future outside of football are examples I think of from the discussion with Zirin.
When I think about making change, I think back to Rhoden's section with the Conveyor Belt and how athletes can get off that by recognizing the true power they have as the talent and integral part of sports. Rather than putting that capital and skill in the hands of someone else, players should leverage this power like Kellen Winslow, Sr. spoke of when guiding his son through the college recruitment process. When Zirin said imagine LeBron James being referenced in a political manner for taking a stand of courage regarding a matter, from someone like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as was done with Muhammad Ali, I was a bit taken aback. It is hard to think of a prominent political issue being represented by one of our most popular athletes, the way Ali was one of the most popular and talented athletes of his generation. Athletes must step up in this way (as they are in a unique position as literally the cruxes of sports) in order to help change the world's unfair structures -- structures they participate in and structures that affect everyone.
One thing that struck me is the amount that money was talked about during the video with Zirin. I thought it was really interesting when he spoke about paying college athletes. He explained how he thought the professional leagues should also pitch in to pay the athletes because of the amount these leagues use college sports as "farm teams". It is an interesting concept to have the NFL and NBA pitch in as the most notable leagues in this situation. For me, I've thought that college athletes should be paid but always assumed it would come from the NCAA or the school's revenue and not so much the leagues that benefit so much from the athletes later. Also schools use the names of these athletes to gain popularity and money, yet the players can't sign an autograph for $20. To me that doesn't make much sense. I remember being on a college tour of University of Texas and hearing the guide and university officials use names like Vince Young and Jamal Charles. They mention current players that get nothing in return, in order to gain interest about the success of their team. The money that should go to the players, goes straight to the 100,000 person stadium instead.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting topic discussed was the stadiums in Brazil. Zirin mentions how people are pleading that the money should be spent on hospitals and schools that are failing to provide adequate care to the Brazilian people. It seems like each time the Olympics and FIFA have their month long events, billions of dollars are spent resurrecting stadiums when the money should be spent on other issues. In Beijing, the problem was air quality. In a smaller, less health concerning case, the recent Boston push for the olympics has brought along some skepticism as well. After this winter, the flaws with a decaying public transportation system have been exposed. A concern of many Bostonians is how could we possible survive an Olympics if our transit system is falling apart. The million and billions of dollars that would be spent on the stadiums could be used for better things around the area. Many feel we simply aren't and won't be ready for an Olympics.
To summarize what I heard in the video, money controls everything in sports. It is as simple as that. Where there is money, there is also greed. And unfortunately, it hurts many groups who can't do much about it. In sports we have truly seen the rich get richer. If we want to make positive change in the sports world, everyone must take a step back to really see what sports have become and what money is doing to the games we all love.
I see it's been discussed a lot already, but I have to agree with the comments Zirin makes on college athletes. As we've seen so often in our readings, sports can be the only way out of poverty for many kids. There is an insane amount of money going into the business that is college sports. From the coach's salary, to the TV coverage, to the jerseys sold at the stadium, it seems college athletes can bring in up to hundreds of thousands dollars, and see absolutely none of that money come there way. Big time division 1 sports programs barely allow their athletes enough time to even go to class, they are setting their athletes up for failure. In the event of an injury, a college athlete who spent his or her entire life preparing for professional sports, will never see a dime come there way for that work. I couldn't agree more with the idea of "athlete-students" as Zirin says, most D1 universities are taking complete advantage of their athletes and something needs to be done or at least said about it.
ReplyDeleteI was also pleased to hear the discussion on potential activist athletes of our generation. I've been through this debate with my friends and family over and over again, and I agree the next big step is in the LGBTQ community. Jason Collins and Michael Sam have had profound impacts on both professional basketball and football, and it was inspiring to hear that the soccer player Robbie Rogers had come out of retirement once Jason Collins became the first active athlete to come out as gay.
I see it's been discussed a lot already, but I have to agree with the comments Zirin makes on college athletes. As we've seen so often in our readings, sports can be the only way out of poverty for many kids. There is an insane amount of money going into the business that is college sports. From the coach's salary, to the TV coverage, to the jerseys sold at the stadium, it seems college athletes can bring in up to hundreds of thousands dollars, and see absolutely none of that money come there way. Big time division 1 sports programs barely allow their athletes enough time to even go to class, they are setting their athletes up for failure. In the event of an injury, a college athlete who spent his or her entire life preparing for professional sports, will never see a dime come there way for that work. I couldn't agree more with the idea of "athlete-students" as Zirin says, most D1 universities are taking complete advantage of their athletes and something needs to be done or at least said about it.
ReplyDeleteI was also pleased to hear the discussion on potential activist athletes of our generation. I've been through this debate with my friends and family over and over again, and I agree the next big step is in the LGBTQ community. Jason Collins and Michael Sam have had profound impacts on both professional basketball and football, and it was inspiring to hear that the soccer player Robbie Rogers had come out of retirement once Jason Collins became the first active athlete to come out as gay.
For me, the most striking points that Dave Zirin made were the ones in regards to aspects of sports that typically go unnoticed. The first comment he made that got me thinking was that famous figures like Martin Luther King and Muhammad Ali are often seen as “harmless icons who live above the fray of messy politics.” When you think of either of these men your mind goes straight to the progressive, loved, inspirational, motivational actions they carried out or speeches they made. We often glance over the struggles and controversies they had to overcome in order to establish themselves as national icons. Zirin reminds us “We never speak of the Muhammad Ali who said things like the real enemy of my people is here [in this country].”
ReplyDeleteA second point Zirin addresses on a completely different note is that “sports can be used as an economic shell game for people in power.” I’ve been a pretty consistent spectator of sports my entire life and as long as I’ve been watching, big, lavish, fancy, stadiums and arenas have always been a part of the culture. I’ve heard that they cost millions and millions to build. However, I’ve never taken the time or effort to think about what those millions actually take away from or where they come from and what each of those questions says about the franchise I consistently support. It’s important that people like Zirin continue to speak up about issues and topics that often get taken for granted because like our class realized after the first assigned reading, often sociologists (who might come to similar conclusions after similar research) don’t get the chance to address their findings on a non-academic platform.