What happens in sports isn’t just about sports. Consider three sports stories in the news these days: what the Redskins will be named; protests in Brazil surrounding The World Cup; and the O’Bannon trial (college athletes v. the NCAA). Broader social issues are involved in all three.
And when it comes to changing the way things operate, well, sport and society share a common feature: public pressure ignites reform. Who leads? The public does. Who follows? Authorities and institutions do. It’s routine. Take the Redskins. If Washington changes its nickname and logo it won’t be because Dan Snyder acted first.
How does reform happen? Here’s a two-letter short-course: “VA.” What happened? An institution got off track. Public trust turned to anger. People shared grievances. The media took note. The story became national news. Public outrage followed. Authorities took action.
The VA scenario illustrates how reform often takes place in America. We can thank Thomas Jefferson for that. Jeffersonianism—that profusely American brand of democracy—is alive today.
Here’s a short history lesson.
Jefferson desperately wanted America to be different from Europe where elites held sway, most notably the First and Second Estates (the clergy and nobility, respectively). In Jefferson’s America, the Third Estate—the people—would rule. An informed and engaged citizenry—and democracy—would be coins of the realm. And a free and independent press—The Fourth Estate, a term attributed to Edmund Burke in 1789—would be vital to the success of Jefferson’s enterprise.
Courtesy: history.com
But even the free press has limits. Its voice can be manipulated, and its influence co-opted, by the very forces Jefferson sought to counter (rich, powerful elites). Something more was needed. Flash forward two centuries…. What if the people could connect directly—anywhere, on anything—without restriction? That’s what today’s social media enables (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
Enter the Fifth Estate, a term coined by William Dutton in 2009. People share information; discuss grievances, aspirations, and hopes; and sometimes plot and take collective action. It’s all about creating ad hoc, self-organizing networks. Strangers become friends, even allies on joint projects, in cyberspace.
Consider what’s happening in today’s world—in society and in sport. People want reform. They connect. They speak up and act out—together. They are joined by “new journalists,” those in the media who critique the status quo, sometimes advocating for change. New journalists are in the story as much as they report on it.
It adds up to this: if it’s reform you want then look to the 3rd–5th Estates working together—people, the press, and social media. Don’t expect elites to lead: they’ll defend the status quo and blunt the winds of change.
Courtesy: bu3.nl
A great example is the unionization movement in NCAA sports.
It’s naïve to believe that the NCAA and its member institutions will make significant reforms on their own. Major change will come by way of outside pressure. And it’s here. It’s coming from organizations like the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA); from “for-the-public-good journalists,” such as Dave Zirin (The Nation and Edge of Sports) and Christine Brennan (USA Today); and from en gaged and connected people—like you.
How does it work? CAPA carries the ball of change; sports commentators keep issues in the public spotlight; and everyday people supply energy by using social media to weigh in. Working together the 3rd-5th Estates advance the public good.
But let’s be clear about one thing: elites won’t stand still waiting for change to happen to them. They’ll take defensive action assisted by a cadre of public relations and communications specialists. Here are four commonly used tactics.
The first tactic is when elites use their bully pulpit, often by writing opinion pieces for high-profile news outlets. An example is “Student athletes shouldn’t unionize,” published in The New York Times (4/1/14). It was written by Patrick Harker, president of the University of Delaware and a member of the NCAA’s D-1 Board of Directors. This 700-word essay is a classic example of how to manufacture a partisan argument:
Use emotion-laden language to portray change as negative (#1).
Present change from one angle only—through the lens of how things are now, not how they could be. It will make change look impossible and not worth doing (#2).
Use your authority position to lecture people. Tell them what’s in their best interests (#3).
Make assertions. Because you’re in an authority position you won’t need to substantiate what you say. It’s true because you said it (#4).
Deflect blame. Things aren’t right because others aren’t doing what they should be doing (#5).
Harker applies these principles masterfully in what he writes (or in what was written for him). He declares that unionization “would be a disaster” (#1). It will endanger the existence of varsity sports and compel many schools “to cut back further” in funding college sports (#2). The answer “isn’t to unionize” (#3). Implementing that option would “further lessen the priority on learning” (#4). Instead, the onus is on professional sport leagues, “which still bar high school athletes from turning pro” (#5).
A second tactic is to use “spin.” Using short-hand, easy-to-remember language is best. “Pay for Play” is an example: it portrays pro-union athletes negatively (as “money grubbers”). Although Pay-for-Play is alliterative in style and memorable in expression (important attributes of effective short-hand language) it’s also patently false. So it’s up to the Fourth and Fifth Estates to counter spin with facts. Comcast SportsNet Chicago was among many media outlets to set the record straight early and emphatically: “Paying players not among CAPA’s listed goals” its headline reads (1/28/14).
Courtesy: Allsportsnoballs.com
The third tactic is to “get out in front” on an issue—to frame it as early as possible so that the public is more likely to see it your way. But framing early doesn’t automatically mean framing accurately. Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote a book about what sometimes happens. It’s entitled, On Bullshit. Frankfurt contends that messages with self-serving intent can stretch the truth. And while it’s easy to BS, Frankfurt concludes, it isn’t always easy to recognize. Why? BS is used artfully. When applied skillfully Frankfurt believes that BS “is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies.”
The fourth tactic is “the echo effect.” It happens when elites realize things aren’t working out in their favor. They end up—quite remarkably—voicing support for what activists have been asking for all along! While elites will sometimes say that their position “isn’t well understood”—and that’s why they’re coming out publicly—what they’re really saying is that reform is near and it’s time to declare what they can digest politically. There’s a proviso, though: they want to retain as much power and control as possible. For the NCAA and member institutions that’s avoiding the worst-case scenario: a players union. Elites don’t want a union because it will encroach on their power to call the shots. It’s Politics 101.
To investigate the echo effect in collegiate unionization let’s compare the objectives CAPA declared months ago (see Jason Kirk, “No, college football players aren’t unionizing for pay-for-play.” SB*Nation (1/28/14) with what PAC-12 presidents and chancellors declared a few weeks ago in a joint letter sent to counterparts in the other NCAA power conferences (Big 12, SEC, ACC, and Big 10—53 other institutions). See http://pac-12.com/article/2014/05/21/letter-pac-12-presidents (5/22/14).
The PAC-12 positions are cross-referenced (by number) to the CAPA list.
Courtesy: CAPA
CAPA OBJECTIVES
Minimize college athletes’ brain trauma risks.
Raise the scholarship amount to the full cost of attending college.
Prevent players from being stuck with paying sports-related medical expenses.
Increase graduation rates.
Protect educational opportunities for student-athletes in good standing.
Prohibit universities from using a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a reason to reduce/eliminate a scholarship.
Establish and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths.
Eliminate restrictions on legitimate employment and players’ ability to directly benefit from commercial opportunities.
Prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have not committed a violation.
Guarantee that college athletes are granted an athletic release from their university if they wish to transfer schools.
Allow college athletes of all sports the ability to transfer schools one time without punishment.
PAC-12 OBJECTIVES
Permit institution to make scholarship awards up to the full cost of attendance (#2).
Provide reasonable on-going medical or insurance assistance for student-athletes who suffer an incapacitating injury in competing or practice. Continue efforts to reduce the incidence of disabling injury (#1, #3, and #7).
Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor’s degree, provided that students remain in good academic standing (#6).
Decrease the time demands placed on the student-athlete in-season, and correspondingly enlarge the time available for studies and full engagement in campus life, by doing the following: a) prevent the abuse of organized “voluntary” practices to circumvent the limit of 20 hours per week; and b) more realistically assess the time away from campus and other commitments during the season, including travel time (#4, #5).
Similarly decrease time demands out of season by reducing out-of-season competition and practices, and by considering shorter seasons in specific sports (#4, #5).
Further strengthen the APR (Academic Progress Rate) requirements for post-season (#4, #5).
Address the “one and done” phenomenon in men’s basketball. If the NBA and its Players Association are unable to agree on raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men’s basketball.
Provide student-athletes a meaningful role in governance at the conference and NCAA levels.
Adjust existing restrictions so that student-athletes preparing for the next stage in their careers are not necessarily deprived of the advice and counsel of agents and other competent professionals, but without professionalizing intercollegiate athletics.
Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions (#10, #11).
While the two lists aren’t the same, there’s considerable overlap. Players seem to be especially concerned about medical-health coverage and retaining scholarships through college; and the university heads are especially concerned about the professionalization of college sports. There’s plenty of room to compromise.
The PAC-12 leaders write: “We acknowledge the core objectives could prove to be expensive and controversial, but the risks of inaction or moving too slowly are far greater. The time for tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments is over” (AP and The New York Times, 5/20/14).
Sound familiar? Well, it’s the echo effect, isn’t it?
“Why has it taken so /long/?” law professor Amy McCormick tweeted recently. (McCormick studies and writes about the legal treatment of college athletes.) She’s right, of course: it could have happened long ago, but it didn’t.
So what have we learned? Reform like this almost never starts with institutional authorities: they want to maintain the status quo. Instead, reform in today’s world is more likely to come by way of dynamic interaction—the people, the press, and social media.
It’s so utterly democratic. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
