Athletes have been in the news lately, and not in a good way. Current high profile scandals include South Africa's Oscar Pistorious accused of murder, Lance Armstrong's belated admission to doping, and rejection of Sosa, Clemens, and Bonds to the Baseball Hall of Fame due to doping. Penn State's tragic history, and match-fixing of the world's most popular sport, soccer, are practically beyond belief in their enormity.
The long list of sports scandals ranges from the injudicious to the stupid, the criminal, and to the weird, such as Mante Te'o's fake girlfriend flap.
The other day a host on NPR and an "expert" were weighing in on these matters, speculating on why we impose high standards on athletes, whether they merit high standards, and why we hold athletes in such high esteem.
Much of what they said made sense. Naturally, we would like to impose high standards on athletes because they are prominent role models for kids, including "adult" kids. If athletes gain notoriety and financial reward with bad behavior, it is seen as justified. Hey, society says it's OK, and these people are getting rewarded - it must be the thing to do.
Conventional wisdom is that athletics teaches character, rewards hard work, consistent effort, teamwork, and promotes sportsmanship. Bad behavior by athletes and those associated with sport diminishes the validity of the conventional wisdom. We would rather hold athletes to high moral and ethical standards and have them honor an implicit contract with society - with fame, goes responsibility.
Do athletes, coaches, and owners merit the high esteem in which they are held? Many, probably most, merit it to some degree. Some, too few we would assert, are exceptional role models. But too many players, coaches, and owners abdicate this responsibility. Financially rewarding New Orleans Saints football players for injuring opposing players goes against the high values that athletics are purported to represent.
On why we hold athletes in such high esteem, the discussants seemed bewildered, totally baffled. Why is it that we so idolize those with exceptional hand-eye coordination, balance, and superior strength? It makes absolutely no sense - "it's only a game."
Of course it makes no sense if we are only sticking to reason. But these experts were overlooking the most obvious. It's not about intelligence - it's about emotions. It's genetics. We're hardwired to idolize star athletes - we can't help it.
How so? It goes back to evolution of the human race. Those families, groups, and tribes that flourished were enabled by strong protective guys with big clubs who kept enemies at bay. Those who failed to unite behind competent warriors never lived to reproduce their own kind. We are thus genetically preconditioned to identify with our own "tribe" and idolize those modern day warriors who represent us against enemies.
Of course the modern day purple and gold Vikings west of the river are not out to physically vanquish the cheeseheads east of the river and take over Wisconsin's backwoods. Nevertheless, our instinct is to unite behind the green and gold warriors of Green Bay to defeat those Vikings.
Same goes for that line running from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River and the Flatlanders south of that line who view Wisconsin as the land of small town hicks and lumberjacks. They unite behind the orange and blue, the Bears of Chicago and the fighting Illini of Champagne. North of that line we're behind the green and gold of the Pack and the cardinal and white of the Badgers, and are inclined to heap praise on our modern day warriors.
It's emotional; we can't help it - it's in the genes. Just as men are genetically programmed to gravitate to sex, to women with strong legs and good mammary systems, women are hard-wired to gravitate to power. As the human race evolved, women who gravitated toward the weak and incompetent were unable to reproduce their own kind. Laws of natural selection favored the competent. Women who gravitated to power and competence - to protective guys adept at wielding clubs and spears, reproduced their own kind.
In the modern, slightly more civilized, world there are various avenues to power, money being primary. But athletic prowess remains a primal source of power. Men envy it. Women gravitate to it, further reinforcing men's envy of it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or good or bad. It's just the way it is - facts of life. Star athletes from high school on always have their pick of gorgeous women and habitually get away with stuff - and human nature being what it is, push it to the limit.
During the recent college championship game between Notre Dame and Alabama, cameras focused on star quarterback, A.J. McCarron's girlfriend, a former Miss Alabama who was in the stands. Sportscaster Brent Musberger commented on her obvious beauty, and rambled a bit on how star quarterbacks always end up with beautiful women.
For this, Musberger was severely criticized, as if his comments were inappropriate. C'mon, give the guy a break. The game had already been decided and was getting boring. Anybody with a positive IQ knows that star athletes have gorgeous wives and girlfriends - often simultaneously. Brent was simply affirming and restating the obvious. That's what sportscasters get paid for.
So, consciously or not, we identify with our own tribe, idolize our warriors "defending it," and overlook their transgressions - until they become so egregious they cannot be overlooked. Never mind that they are highly paid mercenaries, few of who have indigenous ties to their current territories.
As an economist, I note a modern day twist. Rather than keeping them out, we invite enemy tribesmen in. Wisconsin's economy is lagging the nation. So you Vikings west of the river, and Flatlanders to the south - bring money. And leave a bunch of it here.
We need it more than you do.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
The long list of sports scandals ranges from the injudicious to the stupid, the criminal, and to the weird, such as Mante Te'o's fake girlfriend flap.
The other day a host on NPR and an "expert" were weighing in on these matters, speculating on why we impose high standards on athletes, whether they merit high standards, and why we hold athletes in such high esteem.
Much of what they said made sense. Naturally, we would like to impose high standards on athletes because they are prominent role models for kids, including "adult" kids. If athletes gain notoriety and financial reward with bad behavior, it is seen as justified. Hey, society says it's OK, and these people are getting rewarded - it must be the thing to do.
Conventional wisdom is that athletics teaches character, rewards hard work, consistent effort, teamwork, and promotes sportsmanship. Bad behavior by athletes and those associated with sport diminishes the validity of the conventional wisdom. We would rather hold athletes to high moral and ethical standards and have them honor an implicit contract with society - with fame, goes responsibility.
Do athletes, coaches, and owners merit the high esteem in which they are held? Many, probably most, merit it to some degree. Some, too few we would assert, are exceptional role models. But too many players, coaches, and owners abdicate this responsibility. Financially rewarding New Orleans Saints football players for injuring opposing players goes against the high values that athletics are purported to represent.
On why we hold athletes in such high esteem, the discussants seemed bewildered, totally baffled. Why is it that we so idolize those with exceptional hand-eye coordination, balance, and superior strength? It makes absolutely no sense - "it's only a game."
Of course it makes no sense if we are only sticking to reason. But these experts were overlooking the most obvious. It's not about intelligence - it's about emotions. It's genetics. We're hardwired to idolize star athletes - we can't help it.
How so? It goes back to evolution of the human race. Those families, groups, and tribes that flourished were enabled by strong protective guys with big clubs who kept enemies at bay. Those who failed to unite behind competent warriors never lived to reproduce their own kind. We are thus genetically preconditioned to identify with our own "tribe" and idolize those modern day warriors who represent us against enemies.
Of course the modern day purple and gold Vikings west of the river are not out to physically vanquish the cheeseheads east of the river and take over Wisconsin's backwoods. Nevertheless, our instinct is to unite behind the green and gold warriors of Green Bay to defeat those Vikings.
Same goes for that line running from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River and the Flatlanders south of that line who view Wisconsin as the land of small town hicks and lumberjacks. They unite behind the orange and blue, the Bears of Chicago and the fighting Illini of Champagne. North of that line we're behind the green and gold of the Pack and the cardinal and white of the Badgers, and are inclined to heap praise on our modern day warriors.
It's emotional; we can't help it - it's in the genes. Just as men are genetically programmed to gravitate to sex, to women with strong legs and good mammary systems, women are hard-wired to gravitate to power. As the human race evolved, women who gravitated toward the weak and incompetent were unable to reproduce their own kind. Laws of natural selection favored the competent. Women who gravitated to power and competence - to protective guys adept at wielding clubs and spears, reproduced their own kind.
In the modern, slightly more civilized, world there are various avenues to power, money being primary. But athletic prowess remains a primal source of power. Men envy it. Women gravitate to it, further reinforcing men's envy of it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or good or bad. It's just the way it is - facts of life. Star athletes from high school on always have their pick of gorgeous women and habitually get away with stuff - and human nature being what it is, push it to the limit.
During the recent college championship game between Notre Dame and Alabama, cameras focused on star quarterback, A.J. McCarron's girlfriend, a former Miss Alabama who was in the stands. Sportscaster Brent Musberger commented on her obvious beauty, and rambled a bit on how star quarterbacks always end up with beautiful women.
For this, Musberger was severely criticized, as if his comments were inappropriate. C'mon, give the guy a break. The game had already been decided and was getting boring. Anybody with a positive IQ knows that star athletes have gorgeous wives and girlfriends - often simultaneously. Brent was simply affirming and restating the obvious. That's what sportscasters get paid for.
So, consciously or not, we identify with our own tribe, idolize our warriors "defending it," and overlook their transgressions - until they become so egregious they cannot be overlooked. Never mind that they are highly paid mercenaries, few of who have indigenous ties to their current territories.
As an economist, I note a modern day twist. Rather than keeping them out, we invite enemy tribesmen in. Wisconsin's economy is lagging the nation. So you Vikings west of the river, and Flatlanders to the south - bring money. And leave a bunch of it here.
We need it more than you do.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
