The Game’s Not Going Anywhere
Amidst a flurry of concern that politics is infiltrating sports coverage, please realize that’s simply not the case.
On Friday, Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, capped a very busy week in the sports and society domain with this piece at The New York Times, asking for a break from what has, undoubtedly, been a very political run-up to Super Bowl LI, what with the Donald Trump pregame interview, and Tom Brady dodging questions like they were unblocked linebackers, and all of us being forced to contemplate the idea of our lummox-in-chief sharing an intimate moment with Bill Belich- OH GOD MAKE IT STOP.
And so, writes Domenech, wouldn’t it be nice if maybe we could just take a time out from all of that messy, governing the country business, and just enjoy the big game? After all, he argues, there’s something to be said for a brief time-out from our endless political polarization.
When you “stick to sports,” you are doing more than confining yourself to the field and the court. You are providing a way for people who may have diametrically opposed politics to share a beer at a bar discussing quarterbacks instead of executive orders. We should recognize this is valuable, particularly given that one of the factors that led to Mr. Trump’s rise is a market for outrage, on the right and the left, which acts as a consuming fire. There is always another inch to be won, another point to be defended, and this hyper-politicization limits the space free from the culture wars Mr. Trump exploited to great effect.
First of all, as noted by the ever brilliant Spencer Hall, Domenech must have the most genteel sports fan friends in recorded history.
I mean seriously, say the word #DeflateGate around a Patriots fan sometime, and see just how free you are from the “market of outrage.”
Domenech is hardly alone, these days, in his yearning for, dare I say it, a “safe space” from the culture wars and political wrangling that have, undeniably, muscled their way into sports, comedy, celebrity culture, all manners of “escape”, with greater frequency. On Monday, at The Ringer, Bryan Curtis wrote about the growing trend of sportswriters injecting politics into their work, (and their social media), with greater frequency, and wondered if their readers, and their bosses, truly embraced the phenomenon.
The end of “stick to sports” is a pleasure for writers who can flex their muscles in a way their elders never could. The thing is, I see evidence that some readers don’t want their favorite Twitter feeds to become free-fire zones for politics. Over the weekend, when Lowe, Bedard, and Around the Horn’s Kevin Blackistone strayed from their beats, they were all commanded to “stick to sports.”
Similarly, the writers’ corporate parents would rather they point their hot takes toward something other than Trump. Recently, one sports TV executive told me his favorite kind of partisan dispute was one personality rooting for the Patriots to win and another rooting for them to lose — a clash that mimicked the theater of cable news but had none of its baggage. Last January, ESPN sent a memo to employees telling them to “refrain from political editorializing … on platforms such as Twitter or other social media.”
In a similar vein, here’s Ryen Russillo, from his daily radio show, sharing his desire to keep his program primarily about sports, and the frustration he feels over the fact that it seems harder than ever.
“I feel like, there’s so many people that I work with, that every show, every topic, every angle on it, is hoping to be right, destroying the right on every topic that comes up. And I don’t even feel like I’m taking that much of a stance other than I feel like I just — I hear it every single day. I don’t know what the job is anymore.
I got into sports because I want to talk about sports, and now I feel like if I’m not doing a social awareness show three out of five days a week I’m doing it wrong. I can’t possibly think that’s the play, long-term, for what I’m supposed to do as a sports talk show host for the next 10 years.”
For Domenech, Curtis, Russillo, and plenty of others, there’s obviously a certain strange quality to this new status quo. Political conversations are no longer simply entering the sports sphere on occasion, popping by when Tommie Smith raises a fist or Colin Kaepernick takes a knee. Instead, according to this line of thought, a political current now seems to run through the sports conversation as a matter of course, consistently, unceasingly. In Curtis’ own words, “The wall that once encircled sportswriting has been reduced to rubble.”
I, myself, have written plenty about the fact that “stick to sports” is not only folly, but an utterly impossible goal, given that the games we play, by their very nature, reflect our society, our values, our battles over how we operate and what we hold dear.
So here’s something that may sound somewhat surprising.
I get it.
Much as I might disagree with plenty of Domenech’s piece, I also understand, on some level, his desire to, in his own words “consume media without the constant encroachment of political divisiveness and partisan tribalism.” I consider myself as much of a news and politics junkie as I am a fan, and while I enjoy spirited discussion of sports and society as much as anyone, of course there are times when you need a break, if only to preserve some semblance of mental health in these truly dystopian times. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to take a time-out from immigration policy, confirmation votes, and executive orders, in order to discuss other matters. Like, for instance, will Julio Jones see single coverage? Can Dwight Freeney actually rattle Brady? How good is the Patriots defense, really?
The problem that I, and so many like-minded folks, have always had with the “stick to sports” refrain is its tendency to be used as an all-encompassing cudgel, a reflexive response to anyone who would dare to suggest that, yes, perhaps there are political implications to athletic competition that are well worth discussing. But yes, of course, it’s perfectly understandable to want a place to talk about pass-rushes, zone-blocking, and the 4–3 defense.
And to be clear, nobody is coming anywhere close to taking that away.
Here’s Danny Kelly, at The Ringer, breaking down the tactics we can expect to see on Sunday. Here’s David K. Anderson and Joe Ward, at The New York Times, with an illuminating look at how Brady and Matt Ryan handle pressure. Here’s Russillo and Kanell, on ESPN Radio, with a spirited conversation on whether the Patriots are the most despised team in sports.
Here’s the incomparable Stephen White, at SBNation, breaking down all the X’s and O’s, and arriving at a Falcons upset prediction. Here’s Rivers McCown, at Vice Sports, outlining the scenarios that could lead to a Falcons, and Patriots victory, respectively. Here’s Will Leitch, at Sports on Earth, noting that we’re probably underestimating the likelihood that this is Brady and Belichick’s last Super Bowl ride. Here’s Dom Cosentino, at Deadspin, suggesting in the bluntest terms possible that the Falcons’ defense will have quite a challenge on Sunday. Here’s Aaron Schatz, at Football Outsiders, with the deepest dive you could ever possibly desire into the nuts, bolts, and DVOA of the matchup. Here’s Zac Robinson at Pro Football Focus breaking down what he sees on both sides of the ball. Here’s the always thorough Bill Barnwell, at ESPN, turning over every possible nook and cranny of the game, and explaining why he expects a Patriots blowout. Here’s the First Take guys debating whether Brady or Belichick is more indispensable. Here’s Scott Van Pelt’s Super Bowl pick. Here’s Chris Berman’s. Here’s Tim Tebow’s.
You know what’s missing from all of it? Any mention of Donald Trump, Sean Spicer, Steve Bannon, and the rest of the administration’s misfit scoundrels. The notion that the Trump administration has actually made it impossible to just talk about the game is built on… well, how do we put this nicely… “alternative facts”. Have the first couple weeks of this unprecedented administration intruded into the sports dialog with greater frequency than those that preceded it? Certainly. Does that mean that, as Domenech writes, “politics surrounds and engulfs us, leaving us no space to gather as citizens without giving a thought to it.”? Absolutely not.
Given the saturation in coverage, not just of the Super Bowl, but of sports in general, I feel quite confident in my ability to escape political conversations in the sports realm any time I so desire. Sure, I might argue, alongside many others, that to completely ignore Brady’s sheepish abdication of the Trump question, the very real way in which his election has impacted basketball and football locker rooms, and the all-too-real implications that his executive order had on travel for some NBA players, is to put one’s head in the sand. But make no mistake, the option will always be there, for anyone who needs a brief respite, or a long cleanse, from the sharpest edges of our political dialog.
So yes, indeed, Mr. Domenech, “bonding over sports, television, comedy” is indeed “healthy and valuable.” And I have no intention of letting this President, despite his chaos, his fecklessness, and his utter lack of regard for laws and norms, take that away. Thankfully, there’s still plenty of room to “stick to sports,” whenever I’m so inclined.
Just keep Trump the hell away from the Puppy Bowl, ok?
