Nike Goes "Green" and Becomes "Socially Responsible"

This college bowl season, look at team jerseys and note how ubiquitous the Nike swoosh has become in the NCAA. Nike has spent millions to associate their brand with anything that may be even remotely cool... and universities have become their partners in crime.

And recently, this "socially responsible" and self-proclaimed "green" corporation has teamed up with the "environmentally responsible" folks over at Hummer to bring us the latest cool thing.

From Conceptcarz.com:

The H3T's tires evolved from discussions between GM Design and Nike Design regarding the question of off-road performance footwear influencing off-road performance tires. The result is the innovative ACG TA tire, which addresses multiple traction environments with sand paddles, traction pads and multiple durometers of rubber defined by different-color breakouts - much like the design of Nike's ACG trail and hiking shoes.

Nike's influence on the interior includes the use of its Sphere material on the H3T's seats. The lightweight material, used by Nike in specialized clothing, can cool or warm the body without mechanical means. It also conveys a technical aesthetic that looks perfectly at home in the H3T. The seats also are enhanced by Nike Epic backpacks, which are integrated into seat-back clamshells and released with elastic bungees.

Nice. Apparently they thought overconsuming would be the next big thing.... I hope they are wrong.

I would like Nike to make the following New Year's resolutions:

1) Pay workers directly and take responsibility for them instead of paying subcontractors who siphon off money and force employees to work too many hours for too little pay. (My colleague Jeff Ballinger, who notified me of the Nike-Hummer partnership, has been to the subcontracted plants and seen the abuses taking place in person.)

2) Instead of teaming up with Hummer, team up with hybrids and promote energy efficient homes.

In short, let me call you "socially responsible" and "green" without having to type quotes around the terms.

When a Sport is NOT a Sport (IV)

After all my high-minded historical work to define what makes a sport a sport, my neighbor gave me his simple definition over dinner tonight: if you can bet on it, it's a sport.

So tractor pulls (he has seen them, and says you CAN bet on them) and presidential elections (see Intrade) are sports... For him, if it involves chance and odds, it's a sporting event.

In other words, follow the money.

As a holiday wish: may your grading be painless, may all your articles be accepted for publication, and may your student evaluations be high...

What do French Gold Medals Have to do with American College Football?

Bernard Laporte, French Sports Minister, recently announced a new initiative designed to make France "among the premiere sporting nations" by 2016. He notes that France won a paltry 40 medals in Beijing and "too few were gold." So, he proposes resources be used to build a massive, state-of the art training facility for "elite" athletes and to restructure the way these elites are selected and managed.

There is much we could question about Laporte's initiative (read the entire speech here): Why finance the elite at the expense of the many? Why follow a British model (in sports, the French are always looking across the channel)? Why does he want to impose a reporting procedure that imitates the business world when I'm pretty sure the business world has been having some problems lately on that front? Why does he overuse of the expression "ultra-modern," not employ a proof reader (apparently), and use too many exclamation points!!!!?

But the most basic and most pertinent question may be: who cares how many medals a country wins and what does it prove? Do more medals really translate into a "better" country?

Certainly a stronger economy, larger population, better technology (and pharmaceuticals), and more leisure time can all contribute to better elite sporting achievements. But these factors would all be present without gold medals. To state the obvious, gold medals are a result, not a cause.

Laporte cursorily argues that improving elite sporting performances (and limiting the "elite" to a smaller number of athletes) will help France's economy by "spreading the light of our country throughout the world." But funneling the bulk of state euros to the elite athletes means neglecting public infrastructure and potentially alienating a large class of consumers: those who without access will never begin practicing a sport. Does Thierry Herny's success translate into more jobs in France? Will another canoeing gold medal mean millions in sponsorship deals worldwide for French companies? Je doute...

Laporte's other argument is that investing in the few translates into social gains for the many: they have champions that unify them. Maybe. But I for one would rather see a new bike path built (that is open to everyone) than to see a U.S. track cyclist win gold.

Historically, the social argument for winning Olympic medals coincides with a country either hoping to hide serious failings or promote a morally suspect imperialist agenda (the same can be said for hosting the games; see, for example, 1936 Germany, 1968 Mexico, 1980 USSR, 1984 USA). If China has attempted to increase their Olympic medal clout, it is because they are attempting to both provide rationalization to foreign corporations who invest in China despite human rights violations (more about this) and rally nationalistic support for an anachronistic regime. The same could be said of the U.S. where we were so caught up in Phelps-mania that we ignored Chinese human-rights violations and forgot momentarily about rising price of gas and the wars in Irak and Afghanistan.

The bottom line is that I'm not convinced "going for the gold" is a good use of public funds, here or in France.

So what does this have to do with college football?

Laporte, midway through his talk, calls for the creation of a "Harvard of Sport" that he describes as "a French Olympic and sporting campus."

Harvard is the birthplace of American college sports, and particularly of college football. It is where the elite played to prove themselves disciplined, strong, and morally upright. Harvard is also where colleges began to care about winning games. In England, winning was of little consequence: it was about the spectacle and tradition of the matches. But in the U.S., winning meant more students would want to attend Harvard than Yale, and they would bring their money with them.

But I have the same nagging question about college football today as I do about France and gold medals. Why does it matter if a college team wins games?

According to the NCAA Knight Commission Report, the reasons are not economic: contrary to popular belief, college athletics is almost always a drain on a university's finances, even with donors, ticket sales, etc.

And if the economic argument is moot, what about the social one? Does winning provide something to a university that the classroom cannot? Again, maybe.... There is an amount of cohesion that may not be gained by any other campus activity. But like the gold medal chase, the quest for college football wins, too, may hide other agendas. Murray Sperber, in his book Beer and Circus, maintains that college sports keep students happy who are otherwise receiving a lousy education. He's exaggerating some (I hope...). But it could certainly be argued that the same objectives of school unity, exercise, teamwork, etc. could be achieved with much less fanfare and less money. Division II or III might be an example for the big schools to follow...

To summarize...

To monsieur Laporte: the government should put money into sporting infrastructures where it will benefit the most people and improve the overall health and well-being of citizens instead of simply helping elite athletes shave a millisecond off their time in the 100-meter dash. And to the NCAA: instead of pouring money into new stadiums, practice facilities for a few students, and huge salaries for some coaches, focus instead on the general student population and (dare I suggest it?) make education the top priority.

If you don't, I'll keep comparing you to the French.

Baseball Fights in Korea

Apparently the penalties for fighting in the Korean baseball league are extremely severe, either that or there is a strong cultural taboo against throwing a punch. As a result (and I'm only guessing here), players have adopted a different way to express their anger at opposing pitchers.



If this gets the idea of insult and anger across culturally without actually bloodying someone's nose, that's great. And maybe it's just a joke. Whatever the case, I just wish someone had done this to Clemens when he was still playing.

Can you imagine Nolan Ryan hopping into someone?

Basketball Fans Chant "O-BA-MA!" to Heckle Opponents

The Washington City Paper reports that the Obamas had been searching for a private school for their daughters in D.C. Two of the Obama sweepstakes finalists, Sidwell and Maret, met in a boys basketball game a little over a week ago. Apparently, the Obama's had recently opted for Sidwell and the fans (whose team was trailing at the time) chanted "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" to rub it into their opponents' noses: "We got the big fish, now so what if you win this silly little game."

Perhaps hearing the refrain, "Yes, we can!" in their heads, Sidwell's team came from behind and nipped Maret by a point, 47-46. Obama's touch must really be golden.

When a Sport is NOT a Sport (III)?

Dana reminds me of speed stacking:



Now that's an athlete! Almost as cool as a tractor pull.

Hegemonic Sports and the Future of Soccer

Towards the end of Andrei Markovits's lecture Thursday at BYU, he expressed a hope that soccer might one day, in his lifetime, join the ranks of the 3 or 4 "hegemonic" sports in the US (lecture available below). Synthesizing his remarks with those of Frank Foer from last month, for soccer to rival the NFL, MLB, NBA and, maybe, NHL, it would necessarily have to tap into new social demographics. (According to Foer, soccer's appeal is only truly prevalent amongst Latino-American men and the 25-35-year-old Caucasian, suburban, male population--or "gringos" imitating Latin antics at MLS matches.) Both agree that it is unlikely that this change will come about with the MLS. (Markovits recounts a humorous anecdote about being unable to find a sports bar in which to watch the New York Red Bulls play for the MLS Championship—even in Manhattan. In one of the same bars he had visited, they had, however, screened the Chelsea match earlier that morning.) Quoting Markovits: “Americans have grown accustomed to seeing the best.” The MLS is not the best. So, how do we get the best? It is not in buying Beckham or Thierry Henry and soccer is far from becoming an NCAA stronghold (in fact, college lacrosse gets better ratings)—it is making the best (ie European leagues) available in the US.

World Cup ratings have improved substantially in the US over the past sixteen years (or 4 cups). With the new satellite/cable packages that feature soccer channels, the average Joe now has access to European and South American soccer that was formerly—as Foer indicates in his book—only sparsely available on PBS. And, these channels are doing very well, mind you. Again, this is only true within the same social demographics given above.

With my new responsibilities as a recent husband, father and first-year professor, I have become an ESPN.com junkie. To keep myself apprised on what is going on in sports, I count on ESPN.com (and the LA Times for my Lakers and Dodgers)—as it becomes increasingly harder to invest four hours into watching a game. Anyway, to show how this all ties in to my discussion of soccer, I have been fascinated by the sports blog of rap artist Lil’ Wayne that is featured on ESPN.com. While I could not name a single song by Wayne nor do I claim to be a hip hop fan, he really is an interesting voice for sports and his comments have opened my eyes to the potential of soccer in America. In a recent post he wrote:

“I was watching Manchester United play soccer against Villareal yesterday […]. A lot of Americans don't really watch soccer, which is a shame, because it's really exciting and once you get into it it's pretty easy to stay with it.” (See Wayne’s entire post HERE.)

Lil’ Wayne, a 26-year-old African-American from New Orleans, also informedly talks about ManU and Christiano Ronaldo in his post. In order for soccer to fulfill Andrei Markovits’s wish of cultural hegemony, Lil’ Wayne’s demographic—one who both loves and is invested in sports—needs to be targeted and become more involved. Besides young, African-American males, women are another group that could be marketed for soccer. Not only is soccer a sport in which women traditionally excel (or, in Markovitsian "sports language," has come to embody a female semiotics in the US), male soccer players are generally the most physically fit of professional athletes, which provides marketable sex appeal (even beyond Beckham’s celebrity). Then, there is the youth market, who could mutalistically benefit from the fitness aspect of soccer, while being exposed to new cultures. While it is doubtful soccer will ever pull the Joe Six-Pack (or Joe the Plumber) demographic away from their red meat and Monday Night Football, if marketed correctly, it could catch on like wild fire in the US.

What does it boil down to: the first network that takes the chance on INTERNATIONAL league soccer (beginning with England, Italy or Spain) and does so in the wake of a World Cup, presenting it to the right demographics with Nike, Adidas, Gatorade, etc. as sponsors, looks to gain a TON of money. Then, you have the UEFA cup, Eurorean Cup, International competitions, etc. It can happen. It won’t be with the MLS; but, using a George Steinbrenner YankeesNet approach to soccer, it could become the fifth American hegemon—even the first “global” hegemon in sport.

Maradona

I was stunned when a friend contacted me several weeks ago to let me know that Diego Maradona had been named the head coach of the Argentine national soccer team. (there is no team in the universe that elicits as much pride, emotion, and love for me as does the Argentine national team)

Alongside Pele, Maradona is considered the greatest soccer player of all time. From the slums of Argentina, his talents were noticed at a young age and this eventually catapulted him onto the world stage. Along with many soccer accolades accumulated over his soccer career there have also been off field incidents that have plagued his life-drug addiction being one of them. At 48 years old, Maradona has already suffered a heart attack.

Even though his personal life has been erratic, what most concerns me and the question I pose to you is this: can a great player-not just a "good" player-ever be a great coach? I don't think so.

Coaching seems to be a complicated endeavor that involves much more than just "playing" the game. At being a "good" player (not a great one) fundamental lessons are learned on how to be better. Your lack of abilities helps you to "see" the game differently. This paradigm assists the coach in being a better teacher. (Look at Phil Jackson, Johan Bruyneel) Could Michael Jordan ever be a great coach?

I still haven't worked out my issues about Argentina's loss against Germany in the last world cup (one thing is to get beaten by a team and another is to lose the game yourself, but that's another post) I'm sure there are many waiting for the "Albiceleste" to raise the trophy over their heads this next world cup. Will Maradona be able to work his magic as the new national team coach?-not sure

Please look at this great post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2008/10/is_is_maradonas_time.html