This is an article from socialist magazine Current Affairs discussing american football, particularly how professional football players are exploited and how the spectacle of football reinforces...
This is an article from socialist magazine Current Affairs discussing american football, particularly how professional football players are exploited and how the spectacle of football reinforces harmful aspects of society.
Football is ultimately a performance, a grand spectacle, but not a spectacle that understands itself or will tolerate athletes who violate the unwritten codes of hero-soldier behavior. The fans are supposed to have fun—and football is fun!—but no one is supposed to question anything, or consider the players as anything more than costumed gladiators hurting each other for public consumption. The violence then becomes an end in itself. Nothing must interrupt the sacred rituals of masculine realness.
I've never followed football closely, so I'm curious how people who do react to this article.
Unrelated note: is "football" the proper tag for content about american football or should the more explicit "american football" be used?
First, I've moved this post to ~sports, seeing as it's about a sport (and that group can use some content!). Second, I've changed the "football" tag to "nfl", seeing as that's the name of the...
Unrelated note: is "football" the proper tag for content about american football or should the more explicit "american football" be used?
First, I've moved this post to ~sports, seeing as it's about a sport (and that group can use some content!).
Second, I've changed the "football" tag to "nfl", seeing as that's the name of the particular football code being discussed. Even "american football" would be a bit ambiguous, as there's more than one type of football played in the USA.
The rules of the game are essentially the same, just a few minor changes, but the organizations and their respective subcultures are entirely separate. Also, this is super pedantic and not at all...
The rules of the game are essentially the same, just a few minor changes, but the organizations and their respective subcultures are entirely separate. Also, this is super pedantic and not at all important, but "cfb" might be a better tag for college football than "ncaa" which refers to the governing body of all college sports.
The NFL is a formal football league. There are other, competing leagues like the Arena Football League, but they just don't have the media reach and cultural cachet of the NFL. The NCAA is the...
The NFL is a formal football league. There are other, competing leagues like the Arena Football League, but they just don't have the media reach and cultural cachet of the NFL.
The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which is a sort of umbrella organization that oversees competitive sports between colleges and universities. The professional sports leagues, like the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. are heavily involved in the NCAA since they use it as a feeder for new talent. Lots of people think the arrangement is exploitative and the organization that was initially meant to help protect upcoming athletes from exploitation now does the opposite and primes them for it instead.
I think American Football is probably an appropriate enough tag. If one of the purposes of tagging is to make sure it shows up in a search result, people interested in this story are going to use the word "Football" before anything else.
So, we'll have tags for "american football" and "english football" and "australian football"? Maybe that should be "football.american" and "football.english" and "football.australian".
If one of the purposes of tagging is to make sure it shows up in a search result, people interested in this story are going to use the word "Football" before anything else.
So, we'll have tags for "american football" and "english football" and "australian football"? Maybe that should be "football.american" and "football.english" and "football.australian".
Association Football (Soccer) is English football. The English people call that game simply "football". It's only other countries that call it "soccer", to distinguish it from their own local...
Association Football (Soccer) is English football. The English people call that game simply "football". It's only other countries that call it "soccer", to distinguish it from their own local versions of football.
I've added a tag for "ncaa". Here in Australia, our local type of footy is called "AFL", which is the name of the professional league (Australian Football League). There are state-level amateur...
I've added a tag for "ncaa".
Here in Australia, our local type of footy is called "AFL", which is the name of the professional league (Australian Football League). There are state-level amateur leagues and plenty of local community clubs which all play the same game, but when we need an official label for our type of footy, we call it all "AFL".
I would say the author's thoughts are indicative of some fans, but not all fans. There is a growing demographic of NFL fan that the organization is courting pretty hard that would not previously...
I would say the author's thoughts are indicative of some fans, but not all fans. There is a growing demographic of NFL fan that the organization is courting pretty hard that would not previously have been welcome at the sports-fan table. The stats-nerd. And a lot of stats-nerds get into the whole thing surrounding contracts and player/club negotiations and the things behind it.
Expect outcry in 2021 when the current CBA (collective bargaining agreement) expires, and the players' association enters negotiations. Expectations (among some fans) are that we may not have NFL football at all that year.
This article reads like the writers are people who know a few things about some football but are not fans. Which doesn't discount their views, as I doubt a lot of football fans can objectively...
This article reads like the writers are people who know a few things about some football but are not fans. Which doesn't discount their views, as I doubt a lot of football fans can objectively assess their favorite sport.
Aside from some minor nit-picking (the new roughing the passer rule was garbage because it put defensive players at an injury risk to protect quarterbacks for entirely monetary reasons) I think they got it right. Football in the US, both at the collegiate and professional level, is hugely exploitative of the players. But pro-athletes won't see much support as far as being workers because all fans see is how much money they are making. Fans see "Bell holds out for better contract" and side with the owners because "they're getting paid to play a fucking game!" The problem is that you're siding with billionaires who have nothing but disdain for you the common fan against the players who are putting their health on the line.
I think part of this comes from that fact that a huge portion of the US male population played football in high school, myself included. And you get indoctrinated into the whole "sacrifice for the team, be a team player' mentality that can be good or bad depending on how it's applied. So as a person who knows how to play football, you look at the people on TV and think "they're making millions to do something I did for free! How dare they complain!" without taking into account the fact that these players have more in common with you and having to deal with your boss than the owners who you have nothing in common with.
Part of it is also marketing. "The Team" becomes a point of civic pride. You see corporate sponsorship and community outreach and this multi-billion dollar franchise is at your kids's schools talking about health and not bullying. Lots of people buy into it. They take pride in The Team, they fight other fans (verbally or otherwise) and they start to feel like The Team has become part of their identity. Which is nuts. Because in reality The Team is a business that doesn't give two shits about you. Look at the Chargers, who left San Diego to be the 3rd most popular NFL team in Los Angeles because it made the owner richer. Or the Raiders, who are moving to Las Vegas even though there isn't anywhere there for them to play. Or look up Art Modell, or Bud Adams and it becomes quickly clear that owners don't give a shit about fans.
Anyway I think football has a big problem coming because the fact is that fewer and fewer parents are letting their kids play youth football. So you'll see fewer and fewer fans, while also a shallower talent pool to pull from.
Which really doesn't make sense to me. If I'm a fan then presumably I like the guys on "my" team and want them to do well for themselves and cover themselves in glory. Why side with their boss...
Fans see "Bell holds out for better contract" and side with the owners because "they're getting paid to play a fucking game!" The problem is that you're siding with billionaires who have nothing but disdain for you the common fan against the players who are putting their health on the line.
Which really doesn't make sense to me. If I'm a fan then presumably I like the guys on "my" team and want them to do well for themselves and cover themselves in glory. Why side with their boss over them? The player isn't the one making ticket prices absurdly high and fleecing me on concessions, the billionaire owner is.
I can't help but think the fact that these issues are being framed by the media, who will be inherently biased towards the interests of the team-as-business that negotiates with them rather than the team-as-players that fans actually care about, plays a hand in this. I wonder if people would see these stories differently if we had more local and independent media to cover it instead of having all sports coverage monopolized by the major networks and ESPN.
Well, because of the salary cap, if one player makes a ton of money it means the team (as a whole) has less money to allocate towards other players. Payroll with NFL teams is a zero-sum game. So...
If I'm a fan then presumably I like the guys on "my" team and want them to do well for themselves and cover themselves in glory.
Well, because of the salary cap, if one player makes a ton of money it means the team (as a whole) has less money to allocate towards other players. Payroll with NFL teams is a zero-sum game. So if you want your team to be dominant, you want the players on your team to sign contracts that are worth less than market value, because it allows your team to build a roster that is better than everyone else. This is basically how the Patriots have managed to be a juggernaut for the last decade or so.
This is an article from socialist magazine Current Affairs discussing american football, particularly how professional football players are exploited and how the spectacle of football reinforces harmful aspects of society.
I've never followed football closely, so I'm curious how people who do react to this article.
Unrelated note: is "football" the proper tag for content about american football or should the more explicit "american football" be used?
First, I've moved this post to ~sports, seeing as it's about a sport (and that group can use some content!).
Second, I've changed the "football" tag to "nfl", seeing as that's the name of the particular football code being discussed. Even "american football" would be a bit ambiguous, as there's more than one type of football played in the USA.
College football is discussed as well, so that might not be the best choice.
Isn't college football the same game as NFL, just without money? (I'm not American, so please excuse my ignorance.)
The rules of the game are essentially the same, just a few minor changes, but the organizations and their respective subcultures are entirely separate. Also, this is super pedantic and not at all important, but "cfb" might be a better tag for college football than "ncaa" which refers to the governing body of all college sports.
The NFL is a formal football league. There are other, competing leagues like the Arena Football League, but they just don't have the media reach and cultural cachet of the NFL.
The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which is a sort of umbrella organization that oversees competitive sports between colleges and universities. The professional sports leagues, like the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. are heavily involved in the NCAA since they use it as a feeder for new talent. Lots of people think the arrangement is exploitative and the organization that was initially meant to help protect upcoming athletes from exploitation now does the opposite and primes them for it instead.
I think American Football is probably an appropriate enough tag. If one of the purposes of tagging is to make sure it shows up in a search result, people interested in this story are going to use the word "Football" before anything else.
So, we'll have tags for "american football" and "english football" and "australian football"? Maybe that should be "football.american" and "football.english" and "football.australian".
Is English Football different from Association Football (i.e. Soccer)?
Association Football (Soccer) is English football. The English people call that game simply "football". It's only other countries that call it "soccer", to distinguish it from their own local versions of football.
As far as I know college football is under the NCAA which is wholly unrelated to the NFL. Like I said though, I'm not a huge football guy myself.
I've added a tag for "ncaa".
Here in Australia, our local type of footy is called "AFL", which is the name of the professional league (Australian Football League). There are state-level amateur leagues and plenty of local community clubs which all play the same game, but when we need an official label for our type of footy, we call it all "AFL".
I would say the author's thoughts are indicative of some fans, but not all fans. There is a growing demographic of NFL fan that the organization is courting pretty hard that would not previously have been welcome at the sports-fan table. The stats-nerd. And a lot of stats-nerds get into the whole thing surrounding contracts and player/club negotiations and the things behind it.
Expect outcry in 2021 when the current CBA (collective bargaining agreement) expires, and the players' association enters negotiations. Expectations (among some fans) are that we may not have NFL football at all that year.
This article reads like the writers are people who know a few things about some football but are not fans. Which doesn't discount their views, as I doubt a lot of football fans can objectively assess their favorite sport.
Aside from some minor nit-picking (the new roughing the passer rule was garbage because it put defensive players at an injury risk to protect quarterbacks for entirely monetary reasons) I think they got it right. Football in the US, both at the collegiate and professional level, is hugely exploitative of the players. But pro-athletes won't see much support as far as being workers because all fans see is how much money they are making. Fans see "Bell holds out for better contract" and side with the owners because "they're getting paid to play a fucking game!" The problem is that you're siding with billionaires who have nothing but disdain for you the common fan against the players who are putting their health on the line.
I think part of this comes from that fact that a huge portion of the US male population played football in high school, myself included. And you get indoctrinated into the whole "sacrifice for the team, be a team player' mentality that can be good or bad depending on how it's applied. So as a person who knows how to play football, you look at the people on TV and think "they're making millions to do something I did for free! How dare they complain!" without taking into account the fact that these players have more in common with you and having to deal with your boss than the owners who you have nothing in common with.
Part of it is also marketing. "The Team" becomes a point of civic pride. You see corporate sponsorship and community outreach and this multi-billion dollar franchise is at your kids's schools talking about health and not bullying. Lots of people buy into it. They take pride in The Team, they fight other fans (verbally or otherwise) and they start to feel like The Team has become part of their identity. Which is nuts. Because in reality The Team is a business that doesn't give two shits about you. Look at the Chargers, who left San Diego to be the 3rd most popular NFL team in Los Angeles because it made the owner richer. Or the Raiders, who are moving to Las Vegas even though there isn't anywhere there for them to play. Or look up Art Modell, or Bud Adams and it becomes quickly clear that owners don't give a shit about fans.
Anyway I think football has a big problem coming because the fact is that fewer and fewer parents are letting their kids play youth football. So you'll see fewer and fewer fans, while also a shallower talent pool to pull from.
Which really doesn't make sense to me. If I'm a fan then presumably I like the guys on "my" team and want them to do well for themselves and cover themselves in glory. Why side with their boss over them? The player isn't the one making ticket prices absurdly high and fleecing me on concessions, the billionaire owner is.
I can't help but think the fact that these issues are being framed by the media, who will be inherently biased towards the interests of the team-as-business that negotiates with them rather than the team-as-players that fans actually care about, plays a hand in this. I wonder if people would see these stories differently if we had more local and independent media to cover it instead of having all sports coverage monopolized by the major networks and ESPN.
Well, because of the salary cap, if one player makes a ton of money it means the team (as a whole) has less money to allocate towards other players. Payroll with NFL teams is a zero-sum game. So if you want your team to be dominant, you want the players on your team to sign contracts that are worth less than market value, because it allows your team to build a roster that is better than everyone else. This is basically how the Patriots have managed to be a juggernaut for the last decade or so.