Much of the discussion related to steroids, jail time, drug use, and the various other topics that have headlined recent news coverage in the sports world has revolved around the question of responsibility. Specifically, what responsibility do professional athletes have to be role models? As a part of their chosen profession, do they inherently agree to adhere to a code of personal conduct that differs from that of the normal individual, or should they be treated no differently than anyone else?
There is no shortage of opinions and differing viewpoints when the term “role model” is evoked. Charles Barkley famously dismissed the concept, arguing that he was not in any way a role model and suggesting that parents should themselves serve as their child’s role model. Others, taking a more idealistic approach to the topic, make the argument that popular figures in society must respect their position of influence on fans (especially children) and in doing so must present a public persona that reflects high ethical fortitude and moral consciousness.
My problem with this entire debate is that neither side enters into it objectively. Both are driven by the desire to defer their own responsibility, and therefore present arguments with varying degrees of truth and rationale, but that are infected with hypocrisy.
Athletes and other public figures are correct to make the case that no individual should be inherently held to a different standard with regard to personal conduct. In my opinion, privacy should be preserved for those who honestly want it. However, athletes don’t generally want complete privacy- they want it in bits and pieces. They want a selective privacy that exists to veil their transgressions and that disappears when marketing and positive public relations opportunities arise. In essence, they want the good without the bad.
Every time that a sports program plays a long character piece, or a professional league shows a commercial of an athlete volunteering at the United Way, these institutions and players directly call attention to their actions beyond the playing field. Furthermore, although they may claim to not have a responsibility to represent themselves well to young fans, nearly all of these players receive large amounts of income from endorsements, which do very much require that they represent themselves well to a broad marketing base. And, regardless of whether they like it or not, these marketing bases include all varieties of demographics, opinions, likes and dislikes. So while I might not personally be offended when Michael Phelps smokes marijuana, I can guarantee you that there are a significant amount of Subway consumers (Subway is an endorser of Phelps) who care a whole lot. And when Michael Phelps signs on as an endorser of their product, he agrees to appeal to both me and to that latter category of buyers and potential buyers.
Parents and general critics, however, also are not immune from getting egg in their faces in this whole debate. Because while we want to blame athletes for presenting poor examples to children, the fact of the matter is that this is mostly a problem because of the fact that parents often do no better. Rather than mentor their own children, parents are quick to pass the buck along to public figures and then to criticize them when they don’t fill the void effectively. However, if more attention were paid towards improving the family dynamic and in-home environment, there would be much less of a need for children to search externally to find heroes and idols. I would venture to guess that scientific studies show a much stronger correlation between a child’s success and their family stability than between success and the ethical fiber of professional athletes at the time. In the game of who’s to blame for a child’s end result, divorce, child abuse, and neglect will always win out over Alex Rodriguez and steroids.
So, as I said at the onset, there are truths to both sides of the equation here. Society is correct to expect more from public figures who voluntarily expose themselves to the public eye for the sake of endorsements or goodwill, and society at the same time must come to turn an introspective eye and recognize the very real need to expect more from itself. I think that Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Vernon Wells had it exactly right when he was asked to comment about the steroids issue: “There’s someone to blame in all this, and it starts with yourself”.
There is no shortage of opinions and differing viewpoints when the term “role model” is evoked. Charles Barkley famously dismissed the concept, arguing that he was not in any way a role model and suggesting that parents should themselves serve as their child’s role model. Others, taking a more idealistic approach to the topic, make the argument that popular figures in society must respect their position of influence on fans (especially children) and in doing so must present a public persona that reflects high ethical fortitude and moral consciousness.
My problem with this entire debate is that neither side enters into it objectively. Both are driven by the desire to defer their own responsibility, and therefore present arguments with varying degrees of truth and rationale, but that are infected with hypocrisy.
Athletes and other public figures are correct to make the case that no individual should be inherently held to a different standard with regard to personal conduct. In my opinion, privacy should be preserved for those who honestly want it. However, athletes don’t generally want complete privacy- they want it in bits and pieces. They want a selective privacy that exists to veil their transgressions and that disappears when marketing and positive public relations opportunities arise. In essence, they want the good without the bad.
Every time that a sports program plays a long character piece, or a professional league shows a commercial of an athlete volunteering at the United Way, these institutions and players directly call attention to their actions beyond the playing field. Furthermore, although they may claim to not have a responsibility to represent themselves well to young fans, nearly all of these players receive large amounts of income from endorsements, which do very much require that they represent themselves well to a broad marketing base. And, regardless of whether they like it or not, these marketing bases include all varieties of demographics, opinions, likes and dislikes. So while I might not personally be offended when Michael Phelps smokes marijuana, I can guarantee you that there are a significant amount of Subway consumers (Subway is an endorser of Phelps) who care a whole lot. And when Michael Phelps signs on as an endorser of their product, he agrees to appeal to both me and to that latter category of buyers and potential buyers.
Parents and general critics, however, also are not immune from getting egg in their faces in this whole debate. Because while we want to blame athletes for presenting poor examples to children, the fact of the matter is that this is mostly a problem because of the fact that parents often do no better. Rather than mentor their own children, parents are quick to pass the buck along to public figures and then to criticize them when they don’t fill the void effectively. However, if more attention were paid towards improving the family dynamic and in-home environment, there would be much less of a need for children to search externally to find heroes and idols. I would venture to guess that scientific studies show a much stronger correlation between a child’s success and their family stability than between success and the ethical fiber of professional athletes at the time. In the game of who’s to blame for a child’s end result, divorce, child abuse, and neglect will always win out over Alex Rodriguez and steroids.
So, as I said at the onset, there are truths to both sides of the equation here. Society is correct to expect more from public figures who voluntarily expose themselves to the public eye for the sake of endorsements or goodwill, and society at the same time must come to turn an introspective eye and recognize the very real need to expect more from itself. I think that Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Vernon Wells had it exactly right when he was asked to comment about the steroids issue: “There’s someone to blame in all this, and it starts with yourself”.
No comments:
Post a Comment