Do politics and football mix?
How should America's war game balance political activism in an inclusive, communal game?
“Tommy Tuberville for senator from Alabama? Good luck, no Alabama fans are voting for that guy.”
That’s a take I actually saw on Twitter.com. Someone believed the fact Tuberville had lead a rival program would preclude the Republican voters amongst Alabama fans from voting for their party’s candidate.
Of course Tuberville won handily with 60% of the vote. If there were any football-crazy Alabama fans holding out their vote or changing “teams” to vote for the Democrat Doug Jones, it didn’t make much of a difference. A person’s voting allegiance in elections is higher than the one to their favorite team.
Part of what America’s war game of football gets right is allowing local, tribal instincts to have an entertaining release in inter-community competition. Politics aren’t a game, although people are increasingly following it like an ultra-intense game with two main teams, red and blue.
The point of politics is acquiring power. The teams form around who gets to have the power and for what aim. Our system is reasonably well designed to prevent someone from acquiring power and pushing forward onerous policies (grading on a curve here), but partisan politics always threaten the most onerous possible vision for the country.
As it happens, our system features particularly partisan rhetoric in the elections, but then fairly muted policy-making due to the division of power. Consequently, partisans on both sides regularly seem to feel as though they are losing, which makes them more desperate and increasingly partisan.
Recently the Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio made some partisan statements about the coverage of the January 6th Capitol riot in which Donald Trump supporters involved in “stop the steal” protests attacked the Capitol building and basically ran amok inside of it.
"Why are we not looking into those things -- if we're going to talk about it -- why are we not looking into those things?" I can look at images on the TV, people's livelihoods are being destroyed, businesses are being burned down, no problem. And then we have a dustup at the Capitol, nothing burned down, and we're going to make that a major deal. I just think it's kind of two standards, and if we apply the same standard and we're going to be reasonable with each other, let's have a discussion. That's all it was. Let's have a discussion."
He was ostensibly trying to be two-sided here but obviously he minimized the Capitol attack in which people died while trying to call attention to the harm caused by #BlackLivesMatter protests.
Washington head coach Ron Rivera ended up fining him $100k for these comments noting:
In reality, this was an equally partisan statement. In these comments Rivera is attempting to downplay any wrongdoing associated with the George Floyd protests while re-elevating the evil of the Jan. 6 attack.
The upshot is that everyone is angry. One side feels Del Rio was unfairly punished for speaking up for the “wrong team” and the other side thinks Del Rio got off light for voicing sympathy or support for an insurrection against American democracy.
Social media vs the community
It’s not possible to be more divisive than to involve politics into a discussion like the one Del Rio was claiming to be seeking. Politics concern every citizen’s personal interests and preferences for how their society is governed and how its resources are managed.
Yet nowadays politics are increasingly encouraged into different facets of life.
One of the newer grounds for disagreement, which of course was the first culprit here, is Twitter. Del Rio was asked in the media about a Tweet he’d made (he’s subsequently and wisely deleted his account) which was of similar substance to the later comments referring to the Jan 6 attack as “a dust-up.” His follow up answer blew up headlines.
Twitter and social media at large tend to encourage everyone to issue public statements about every major event which occurs in our world. No one was going around to us individuals with a microphone and a notebook previously and asking for us to chime in on a given news event, but it’s fashionable on social media to pursue the attention-seeking task of issuing statements and pronouncements whenever something particularly important happens.
If you # your sentiment, you can even signal boost it out to a wider audience beyond your poor online connections and infuriate complete and total strangers with your takes.
The very worst of these usually begins with, “as someone who…” and then some tenuous connection between you and the relevant tragedy or triumph which is supposed to make your public statement one of particular importance.
It’s truly an obnoxious practice. I’ve tried to dissuade myself from taking part after years of trial and error slowly brought home for me the folly of trying to engage in political discourse on social media. It’s tough, but a worthy discipline.
After someone tries to issue one of these attention-seeking PR statements, next up comes the backlash from those who don’t like the statement. It’s common for statements which generate mega-backlash to be much more famous than the well-received ones.
As it’s been said, “there’s a new main character every day on Twitter and your goal is to never be it.”
Next come the cries for the protection of free speech and the corresponding “you’re free to say it! And now you’re free to endure the consequences!”
The fact we all repeatedly stumble into this nonsense is a true testament to our egos and sense of self-importance. There’s very little upside to engaging in this fashion unless your job is to actually be a partisan who plants flags with their PR statements on social media. For the rest of us the potential costs are myriad and sometimes unseen and heavily outweigh any benefits.
The introduction of politics into American sports has typically been praised and promoted when it’s centered around issues of social justice. However, as the purview of “social justice” has expanded into every phase of life we’ve necessarily seen the inflammation of partisan politics into sports.
Now you routinely have right-wing sentiments such as Del Rio’s inserted into the discourse as well.
Can politics and football mix?
Here’s the main issue for the Washington Commanders. Del Rio is supposed to represent the D.C. community as a member of the Commanders football program within what I’m emphasizing is the war game of football. Members of the franchise have to credibly pose as a mascot for the fans who hail from that community, and that community is surely pretty displeased with Del Rio’s comments. Not a lot of Jan 6 sympathizers there.
For Del Rio, this was a pretty poor mistake. You can’t really make public statements with partisan viewpoints when you’re attached to a team which is supposed to represent a diverse community likely to include people of both the same and the exact opposite partisan leanings. If you do, you’re causing division in a team sport, which at its heart is supposed to be about in-group unity and sacrifice in pursuit of a collective goal.
A coach who asks his defensive tackles to eat double teams in order to keep teammates free should probably consider eating his own words before putting his colleagues in such a tough spot.
And for what? A tweet?
Twitter.com isn’t lacking for people who will make the point Del Rio was trying to make, just as the social media discourse after a given tragedy doesn’t need our individual pronouncements. There’s plenty of it, more than enough.
The injection of politics and political statements from sports figures is generally a losing proposition. It may be worth it for a player or coach to make a meaningful stand on some issue or another, but there’s also a cost and that cost is likely to be paid by his teammates or the team’s fans and community.
American sports are much healthier when they’re an escape or even a SOLUTION to partisan politics. The strongest version of the Washington Commanders would have people on both sides of an issue with the mutual respect and willingness to put it aside for the purpose of serving as a mascot for the people of D.C.
Are there issues where a team or figure should make a stand, even at great cost, to try and make a difference.
Of course!
The problem is that everyone who’s invested in politics will tend to believe that their particular viewpoints or issues are of supreme importance with dire consequences if we don’t reverse course. Particularly when there’s no fixed and clear cost to making these statements.
The nature of political ideologies is to inflame any potential wedge issue which can help a faction seize more power for themselves. We all tend to buy in pretty easily and are fooled into believing that policy position X and election Y will determine if our future is a paradise or a nightmarish hellscape.
It’s often better when we fool ourselves into thinking a given recruitment for our favorite college football team or the 1st round draft choice is the most important thing to track online.
Social media makes us think multiple issues are “do or die” moments and that our own PR statements are essential in making a difference. It’s ridiculous when viewed clearly, yet we repeatedly fall for it.
The way out is tricky.
I think the Commanders got things right in fining Del Rio for his comments. In fact, I think all public pronouncements about politics from players and coaches should carry fines. If you only selectively enforce a “don’t make statements” policy against one side, you’ll decrease the important sense football needs that teams are a “big tent” mascot for wide swathes of the citizenry.
You’ll end up penalizing some statements that SHOULD be made, but at least then the cost is clear and only those with great, personal conviction will count it and act. In our current set-up where everyone can make low-cost statements until media decide to inflame it, we have loads of losers and few actual heroes.
I'm a fan of your work (not only a subscriber but also purchased Flyover Football) so I want to be clear this is a response in good-faith. I appreciate this post because I agree with some but found this passage particularly troubling: "In reality, this was an equally partisan statement. In these comments Rivera is attempting to downplay any wrongdoing associated with the George Floyd protests while re-elevating the evil of the Jan. 6 attack."
The reason I find it troubling is because it looks like you're trying to **bothsides** this whereas I respectfully disagree. Black and white protestors asking for black people to not be extra-judicially murdered by police during the George Floyd protests, and domestic white terrorists attempting to overthrow free and fair elections and undermine the core of American democracy because of the previous President's lies, are not the same IMO. Would be interested in your reasoning behind Rivera's statement being equally partisan if you get a chance? And equally partisan of what exactly? American democracy I presume? Thanks!