Gender Issues in Sports

In light of the panel discussion we have this week, I thought I would pose some questions about current gender issues in sports media. Unfortunately, due to the lack of coverage on women’s sports, it’s been a bit of a task to find anything incredibly recent. So what I decided to focus on was the idea of Title IX and how it has helped mold the sports world for women, particularly young female athletes. For those who may not know, Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Prior to the Title IX act being passed which supports equality for women in sports, there were countless cases of unfair circumstances for female athletes. As an athlete in high school, I am aware that not all of the inequalities can be solved with the snap of a finger, but the surge in efforts has made a huge difference. I had two female friends in high school who participated in sports targeted towards males. One of them was a wrestler and the other played football and men’s lacrosse. This obviously brought a fair amount of controversy to my high school, as it put into question their femininity. As it is pointed out in the Handbook, “while male athletes are objectified as well, the character of the objectification is quite different when it comes to female athletes.” For instance, male athletes are able to flaunt their masculinity and the more they do so, the more empowering it is for them. On the other hand, women who flaunt their bodies, even if it is to exhibit their athleticism, can be seen as more degrading.
I don’t want to make it seem as if there aren’t gender issues for men in sports, that aren’t based in appearance, however. Title IX also protects male athletes, who wish to participate in sports targeted toward females. My high school also had a male athlete who played field hockey. Sure enough, this sparked controversy, as well. I must say though, the ridicule that he received was more from the student standpoint, based on the fact that he had to wear a skirt, as it was part of the uniform. It was a concern to the athletic department for the fact that he may have more strength, which could in turn injure a female more. With the female athletes playing football or wrestling, the worry was that they would be hurt by the majority of male athletes, or that they may damage the team’s ability to function at their highest potential out of fear that they may hurt one of the females.
For further reading on representation of women in sports
http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgibin/iowa/issues/media/article.html?record=881

All of this being said, what are your thoughts on equality in seemingly “gender-specific” sports? Should the men be allowed to play with the women’s teams, or is the risk too intense? Do the same rules apply when a woman wants to play in a man’s game? Where should the line be drawn?

Fortunately, there is an uprising in the contact sport field for women, with the popularization of rugby and even the leeway for contact in women’s soccer is increasing. Personally, I wish I had the opportunity to play, so I wouldn’t have to slide tackle girls on the basketball court to get out that pent up frustration. Apparently they frown upon that.

Fanship and Marriage

As I was reading chapter 15 in Media Sport about issues regarding audience experience (gender, fanship & marriage), the first thing that jumped out at me was that the authors of the book included a section specific to marriage. I think such an inclusion just goes to show the dramatic social effects that sports viewership and especially fanship/fandom have. The auhors mentioned the "football widow myth," a reference to wives of devoted football fan(atics). This hit home because just last weekend I had an argument with my boyfriend over football Sundays. Not to divulge too much personal information, but our relationship is a pretty good example of relationship/fansom issues. With our busy schedules, Sundays have, for nearly two years, been "our day." However, since the start of this football season, Sundays have become football days and if I don't want to get together with "the guys" to watch the Pats or the Giants or whoever else is playing, I don't see my boyfriend until about 11 pm. His defense, "but I always invite you." My response- "but I hate football!" I do, I'm sorry. I can get excited about any other sport- I'm an avid baseball fan; I enjoy basketball and hockey; I'll even watch golf. I just can't get into football. Ironically, our mutual love for baseball has brought us closer together. We exchange tickets for birthdays and holidays, watch the games together on TV and have long heated debates about things like who the next Yankees manager should be. Football, on the other hand, is not something I expected to come between us. I'm sure lots of confused women wonder how their boyfriends/husbands could seem to be more interested in a sport than them, and without studying fandom I might have been wondering the same thing myself this football season.
I'm linking an article I found from "Christianity Today." I don't normally read this online magazine but it highlights very well some gender differnces in sports viewing between men and women. Also noteworthy is that the article is in a particular section of the e-zine devoted to issues/advice for couples who have recently married. http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/2003/003/15.12.html
A couple things to note discussed in the chapter that are also discussed in the article- women's fanship is more strongly correlated to learn more about the players and the sport, womens' fanship is more stronly correlated to pre-game preparations (including tuning in early, preparing drinks/food, discussing upcoming games), also the different dimensions of sports viewership can be seen in the article- the husband (and eventually the wife's) fanship, the learning dimension, release dimension, companionship dimension, and filler dimension.

In conclusion, sports viewership definitely does seem to differ between men and women and some of the more popular differences seem to hold true according to this article.

I'm curious, what do you think are the differences between men and women according to sports viewership. Also, have any of you ever encountered a problem either with a significant other or a friend in terms of sports viewing, for example maybe an argument over what game to watch, or maybe what to do on a Sunday? ;)

p.s. sorry for posting late, for some reason i had it in my head that the lead bloggers were supposed to post before noon monday.

Fans -- We're completely, certifiably, nuts

But, you know what? That's a good thing.

As fans, we are completely nuts. We are absolutely rediculously motivated to watch our teams succeed, come hell or high water. All we want is to see a win, and we want to see it with loyalty, integrity, and a good-natured sense of non entitlement.

But, do the players on our favorite teams really understand us?

Bob Ryan says no:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/10/19/a_striking_difference_in_outlook/

And you know what? I agree with him. Players do not understand what we go through as fans. Players do not understand why we live and die with their team. Players do not understand why the fans fret over a loss in April when there's 153 games left to play.

Hawk Harrelson (in probably the only smart thing he said) has said: "Every team will lose 60 games, every team will win 60 games. It's what you do with those last 40 that determine how your season will go."

I've always appreciated that realism, and as long as your name isn't the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, it's true. So, why do we fret like madmen (and madwomen) over every loss, over every pitching change, over every pinch hitter?

Why do we scream until we can't scream anymore while at the ballpark, even though there's much less enthusiasm on that beautiful patch of grass?

Why do we bond with the players on our teams, even though they come and go with more speed than Lindsay Lohan running to the bar?

No matter how many times a team, a player cheat, why do we come back to them with open arms?

The best part about fan-dom is that there are no clear answers. Everyone is entitled to be a fan in their own special way. How are you a fan? Do you watch the game on your couch, jumping and shouting the entire way? (like me), or do you sit back, relax, and try to enjoy the game? And does that reveal what kind of fan you are? Or does everyone watch the games in their own way?

We are all certifiably insane. But you know what, that's a really, really good thing.

Kristina Pantalone's Blog

One of the challenges in professional sports is creating a level playing field for all teams in order to have a more competitive league. This has been most successful in the NFL where television revenues are the most lucrative. Since there are more television revenues for the NFL, there’s more money to be divided up among the teams. However, what has given the NFL the edge, is the addition of salary caps, which prevent the big market teams from always cornering the market on star players. Does anyone think that the same strategy would work in the MLB in creating a more competitive balance among teams?

The MLB has not been as successful as the NFL in creating a competitive league. The book states that the “perceived competitive balance issue can be largely attributed to the revenue disparity among teams’ local television revenues.” Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox largest revenues come from their own television stations (YES and NESN) where advertising dollars directly pad the wallets of the owners.

If you were Bud Selig how would you leverage revenue disparity among teams? If you are not a big market club how would you go about raising revenues? An argument that the big market teams have is that their revenue is being used to help their competition bolster their teams. Do you think this robin hood approach is fair?

In chapter 17 Mondalo also discusses the economics of collegiate sports. He notes that the NCAA owns the rights to just its championship events. As a result universities and conferences can negotiate their own broadcasting contracts. With the increased exposure of college sports on television the acquisition of star athletes by colleges and universities becomes more important than their academic credentials. If colleges focus more on acquiring “jocks” rather than “brains” do you think colleges academic standards will decline?

Here’s an article from 2005 on the Yankees and revenue thoughts.. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/columnist/bodley/2005-04-07-bodley-revenue-sharing_x.htm

Another article on baseball revenues

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball-team-valuations-cx_mo_0420sports.html

NFL revenues from 04

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-07-05-revenue-cover_x.htm

Sports Business

Hope everyone is having a good weekend with the freezing weather. Reading over the chapter, several topics came to mind. A lot of what was said about the business of sports media had to do with advertising as well as gaining rights to certain sports. MLB, which we have discussed at length in class, does not get the viewings other sports generate. It is hard to translate to television yet it is still fought over by networks. In 2006, Fox paid 2.5 billion for the rights to MLB games. This to me was interesting when on average the annual league value is 4164. Million. The first question I have is why, with the low ratings of baseball in the previous few years, are networks still paying “the big bucks” to have the rights to MLB games?



The NFL, through Pete Rozelle, was able to take advantage of the bidding for rights between networks. Rozelle negotiated so well that all three networks during the 1970s viewed football as “absolute essentials.” In creating this competition, Rozelle was able to bring in more revenue and force the networks to share the rights. For 2004 alone Fox and CBS agreed to pay 8 billion to broadcast Sunday games. The next question I have is, is it the nature of the game of football or Rozelle that allowed football to force network sharing?



There was a lot more in the chapter about spots business that would have posed interesting questions but in thinking about business in sports I cannot help to think of Joe Torre right now. Yes, it does not have much to do with what the chapter dealt with which was money but it still is part of the business. My thoughts about this are hard as a Yankee fan. I think very highly of Joe Torre. I do not really want to see him leave the Yankees but we won’t know till sometime this week perhaps. However, with a team like the Yankees, whose players receive such high salaries, can the blame really be place on Joe Torre? As we discussed last week in class, for these players this is their job and they are some of the highest paid in the leagues. So why are they not performing? My closing question is should we really blame Joe Torre who cannot get out there and physically play for the Yankees or should the blame be placed on the players?


Some articles about Joe Torre….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228671/site/newsweek/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082007/sports/yankees/the_torre_story_should_continu.htm
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-yankees-torre&prov=ap&type=lgns

Portrayal and Perception of Athletic Heroes in Our Society

Posting from Jen Farrow:

Chapter 9 in our Media Sport text focuses on the sports hero and how media generates celebrity-hood. Television ads, specifically, have used athletes and all that they exemplify to draw attention to and desire for the product being advertised. This advertising mechanism is smart and successful because of how athletes are viewed in our society- as superior figures of physical and mental strength who exemplify significant achievement. But, it is easy for a professional athlete to reach celebrity status, they’ve reached the public eye, and as we’ve discussed in class, sports are extremely dominant in our media. However, there is more to being a so-called “sports hero” than just publicity for playing a professional sport.

Wenner looks at heroism as a cultural phenomenon that has been around since ancient times, when people were considered heroic for significant nobility, bravery, and strength. Wenner then goes on to suggest that modern-day heroes accomplish less significant achievements in relation to life, yet they are constructed by media and society. Think about it: the figures in our society, specifically athletes, are far removed from our day-to-day lives, and according to Wenner, “without communication, there would be no hero.” (135) Our main source of gathering images and information about these figures is provided by the media, therefore they construct our perception of these athletes.

The main difference between a celebrity athlete and a heroic athlete is that celebrities are known by name, image, or a trademark. Heroes are usually known for more than that. Heroes are recognized and celebrated for their outstanding achievements and excellence, and also for demonstrating morality and the kind of social responsibility that is valued in our culture. The chapter offers a description of the modern sports hero that I liked a lot: “Modern sports heroes have outstanding physical abilities, sustain excellence yea after year, overcome adversities, and display individual flair or charisma.” (Smith, Wenner 138) This ESPN article provides a good list of athletes and their attributes that have come to be considered heroic. (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/heroes.html) The chapter provides more modern examples of heroic athletes like Nolan Ryan and Joe Montana who exemplify masculinity, athleticism, success, work ethic, and a wholesome All-American image. My first question for you all is this: what athlete(s) in our society do you think posses these qualities and can be considered a heroic athlete? When answering that question, consider this; a common misconception is that heroic athletes are the most decorated athletes in their sport. In reality, many of these very talented athletes embody only celebrity status, and a lot of them get as much negative publicity off the field as they do publicity for their achievements on the field. Heroes are supposed to be culturally ideal figures that represent social responsibility. Now comes the question of cultural and social ideality and if those ideals change with time. Do you think the qualities of a modern heroic athlete are different than the qualities of Babe Ruth, Vince Lombardi, or Muhammad Ali?
The chapter goes on to talk about these heroic athletes and how the media uses them to advertise on television. Of course, the example that comes to mind and is used in the chapter is “Michael Jordan: Hero as Commodity.” His overall persona as a decorated basketball star, hard-working athlete, and devoted family-man with attractive physique earned him many marketing campaigns for the NBA, Nike, Wheaties, Haynes, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, Chevrolet, and McDonald’s. With these ads came the whole “be like Mike” slogan that outright suggested that viewers strive to be more like this heroic athlete figure. In today’s media, I’d have to say that the modern counterpart for old MJ commercials would have to be either Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning. We don’t know much about these people off the field until the media throws them at us on TV, specifically in advertisements, that suggest we be like these athletes and buy their product. Whether or not these athletes even use their product seems questionable. I wonder if there is even a Master Card in Manning’s wallet. He is clearly an exceptional quarterback who has a wholesome, southern-raised image about him; however he doesn’t really have that manly attractive physique. Do you consider Manning a modern sports celebrity icon, or a modern sports hero? Do advertising companies actually go for heroic figures to sell their product, or just the big names and faces? Here are some of Manning’s commercials that I’m sure you’ve all seen, but are always enjoyable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl8cKN-RxXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G0loI0Jn5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8kMrLx6_aQ

And to close, I want to ask about your thoughts on the social responsibility of athletes as they are portrayed in our society through many media outlets. Obviously you have your Michael Vicks, who are just outstanding screw ups, but how serious do most of these athletes take their position in the spotlight as role models for so many young athletes, and is it fair to expect social responsibility from them? What are some examples of athletes who do go out of their way to promote social responsibility these days?

Sports Sponsorship

Hello class, hope all of you had a good weekend. Up to this point in the class we have been focusing primarily upon the different mediums of sports. We have focused on sports as entertainment and the many ways it can be brought to you. This blog will change our focus to the business side of sports and focus primarily on Sports Sponsorship and Chapter 18 of the handbook. Sports marketing is a billion dollar per year business and we are all subjected to it each time we watch a sporting event on television.

Working at Octagon, I get to see the creation of sport sponsorships from their earliest stages and how marketing agents go about targeting many different groups throughout the event they are sponsoring. Athletes can also be sponsored and this is very common. For example: Lebron James and Nike, Derek Jeter and Ford, Tiger Woods and Buick. Using athletes for sponsorship can be one of the most effective ways to target a specific audience. If you are a fan of the player being sponsored then you will instantly be focused on the commercial. (Or at least that is the theory)

My First Question to you guys would be: Have you ever bought a product because of the athlete that was used in the marketing campaign? Have you ever not bought a product because of the athlete in the campaign? (As mentioned in class before, this is particularly prevalent when dealing with NASCAR drivers. Fans of NASCAR will show major favortism to the sponsor of their favorite driver. It can almost be gauranteed that a Jeff Gordon fan will not buy any other paint besides Dupont.)

There is a large variety of brands and services trying to associate with sports. Many companies will expand their budgets in order to be associated with sports; particularly major sporting events as a result of the enhanced viewership. Some brands will even use sporting events as their cornerstone of their marketing campaigns. In 2004, sponsorship spending was expected to reach $11.14 billion with about 70% dedicated to sports events. Sporting events can be very expensive and selling sponsorship rights can help to fund the event as well as meet salary demands. As a result, the companies sponsoring an event will have their name placed in different mediums each time the sponsored event is mentioned; hence free advertising for the company. For example, I am a college football fanatic which brings me to my second question.

My second question to you guys is the following: For those who watch college football you will konw at the end of the season there is a "bowl season." Teams who have done well during the year will be invited by the bowl to play in their game. Each bowl is sponsored by a certain company. (Fed Ex Orange Bowl, Nokia Sugar Bowl, etc.) Do you guys think this is a good marketing strategy? Are there any sponsored events that stand out in your mind where you associate a particular brand or service with? (Example: Golf has the Buick Open) Would you be more apt to buy a product because you have seen it so many times during that sporting event?

As a side note to the question above: The reason certain events are sponsored by certain brands and services is because the event depicts the target market for that particular brand or service. Do you guys find this be accurate? For example, do you feel that Buick's biggest market would be golf fans? Are there any other events that stand out to which you feel greatly inhibit the market they sponsor?

One final reason that sports sponsorship is so extensive is because it provides an avenue for certain industries to get around television restrictions. Tobacco and Alcohol are the second and third largest sports event sponsor brands. There are advertising limits on tobacco and alcohol, but due to their sponsorships, they can have "incidental" recognition of their brands which can not be prohibited. Many people call this exploiting the sponsorship and find this as a way to promote underage consumption of alcohol and smoking.

Final Question: Do you guys feel (though not feasible) there should be restrictions of what alcohol and tobacco companies should be able to sponsor and how many sponsorships they can have??


Here is an article pertaining to a large sports agency which was once predominantly a talent agency (CAA) gaining sponsorship rights to a sports team: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article.main&articleId=56554

Here is a second article with a link to a commerical to which an athlete is used in a commercial to promote a certain product: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aXSQy2ATQxk

Feel free to answer any of the questions, certainly not all of them as there a lot. Hope you all enjoyed your weekend.