ESPN Minoring in Sociology

ESPN is no longer simply consumed with sports, or even entertainment for that matter. Nooo believe it or not, the sports mecca has waded into the arena of social commentary. Mind you, none of these individuals who express their expert opinion or display their years of experience in the class of sociology are paid by ESPN, but rather the opposite is true. ESPN.com message boards that follow nearly every article on the website have become battlegrounds for some of the topics that even our most powerful politicians refuse comment on. Whether it be homosexuality, poverty, or seemingly the most prevalent topic: race, subscribers to ESPN Insider provide a first hand glimpse into the collective psyche of the American fan. Writers love to argue that sports reflects society and offers insights into humanity that few other outlets create. This view may be partially correct as sports force issues to the surface and, at times, allow individuals to transcend traditional labels (race, gender). Sports also has the advantage of being the closest entity to a meritocracy that exists in America. For the most part, whoever makes the most shots or throws the hardest will get the playing time. This moves the discussion from "is the sport itself racist" to the view that fans hold of athletes and possible biases that accompany them. The most visible race debate, affirmative action, deals heavily with institutional racism, something sports mostly avoid. Two of the most heated stories in recent memory have to be the Gary Sheffield incident and the Mike Vick scandal.

Sheffield, with his categorization of Latinos as "controllable", created a situation that forcibly raised several questions central to any debate surrounding race. Sheffield went against conventional wisdom, purporting that institutional racism is visible at the major league level. His conduct also highlighted the debate regarding racism and its seeming ownership by whites. If a white manager talked about preferring Dominican players because he felt he could control them, he would be crucified by the media. It's hard to know what the hell Shef actually meant by his statements. Maybe by controllable he inferred that other players wouldn't purposely make errors just to get traded, or give up at-bats to make his team look bad, both of which are things he admitted to doing while a disgruntled employee of the Brewers. More than anything I think this was just Shef talking about something he knew very little about. Baseball is a business. Do you really think owners would purposely not sign black ball players? Everyone is looking for the tiniest competitive advantage but these same teams are simply going to ignore a huge percentage of the population?! The notion is absurd.

The Vick scandal is also interesting simply for the reaction it might illicit from a fan. Some view Vick as simply a fall guy who's getting treated unfairly. Of course the pendulum swings the other way and some are scared that Vick will get off easy due to his celebrity status. Looking at those contradicting viewpoints in a general fashion is very interesting and it's really difficult to say definitively which sides holds more merit. Both arguments have a wealth of evidence to draw from. The Vick case to me is a little different due to the grotesque nature of the alleged crimes: dog fighting. Dog fighting is completely indefensible to me. The national crackdown on the "sport" I keep reading about is great news because dog fighting is an activity that is rarely done independently of other nefarious activities. If Vick is getting hit especially hard by the Feds so he becomes an example, so be it. He's getting convicted of something. Just from the evidence available on the world wide web it's clear that dog fighting or dog breeding for the purpose of dog fighting was occurring on his property. I guess it's too early for this case to be submitted to the plight vs. benefit of privilege debate just yet.

These are just a few small examples of the stimulating, and very real, discussions that appear on the ESPN website. I can't think of a better place to see the way many Americans actually feel on various issues. People cut through the bullshit and call it how they see it, regardless of the popularity of their opinions. Writers often preface their comments with their background and race, providing the ultimate sociological survey on current events with the levels of participation unparalleled elsewhere. So go ahead, mock that NASCAR fan or dismiss that football writer, but remember: in America, their vote counts just as much as yours.