When Sports and Politics Collide - with Dave Zirin

Dave Zirin, the sports editor of the Nation magazine (who you've probably seen on TV or heard on the radio at some point) joins Ibrahim Abdul-Matin and Fouad Pervez from the No Spoon team to discuss several recent sports events and the political issues underpinning them. In this episode, we discuss Florida Athletic University's decision to sell their stadium's naming rights to a private prison company, the problems with the NCAA as an institution, the role of big money in college sports, baseball academies as sweatshops in Latin America (arguably the most under-covered sports story in the past few weeks, related to Hugo Chavez's death), and the NCAA basketball tournament. Be sure to get Dave's new must-read book, "Game Over: How Politics Has Turned the Sports World Upside Down", which recently received a glowing review in Sports Illustrated. We had technical issues (when taping, Dave's video was frozen and inverted in black and white, hence the references to Ghostface Zirin - YouTube apparently just gave him a blank screen in the final cut), but Google couldn't stop the latest No Spoon episode!

Podcast Episode 7: Sports, the Lockouts, and Politics

On this episode of the There is No Spoon show, we talk about sports and politics, from connections between owners and the media, the labor politics in the NFL and NBA lockouts, the role of fans, and the connection between American society and the conflicts raging between owners and players in sports. Joining host Fouad Pervez are Dave Zirin and Brian Fredrick. Dave writes for The Nation, The Progressive, SLAM Magazine, and Sports Illustrated. He hosts the Edge of Sports radio show on Sirius XM, has appeared on numerous media outlets (including the Rachel Maddow Show, Last Call with Carson Daly, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Democracy Now!, All Things Considered, amongst many others) and has written several books, most recently Bad Sports and The John Carlos Story (collaborating with John Carlos). Brian is the Executive Director of the Sports Fans Coalition, a national non-profit organization dedicated to giving sports fans a voice on public policy issues, including public subsidies for stadiums, TV blackouts, the NFL and NBA lockouts, and a college football playoff. Brian has a PhD in Communications and was a senior editor at Media Matters for America. Check out this cool New York Times article about Brian here.

All sports fans (liberal, conservative, or barely interested in politics) should join the Sports Fans Coalition's email list, like them on Facebook, and follow them on Twitter. It's an important group, and really the only one advocating on behalf of sports fans. You can email Brian directly if you have ideas or want to get more directly involved: brian@sportsfans.org. Follow Dave and Brian on Twitter as well.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Download this episode (right click and save)
You can subscribe to the No Spoon Podcast via itunes by clicking here.

Dictatorship, Transparency, and the NBA (or: How Chairman Stern has destroyed pro basketball)

So, one of the potentially great NBA Finals series just ended, with the Lakers topping the Celtics. The series, however, was a huge disappointment, largely because of the one issue that has plagued the NBA for the past few seasons: the officiating. The timing is interesting, to say the least. The league has lost a lot of money the past few years, and each extra playoff game, particularly a Celtics-Lakers NBA Finals game, generates a decent amount of change for the league. Throw in the fact that NBA Commissioner David Stern runs the league like a dictator, allowing no real dissent or questioning about anything, particularly refs, and allows essentially no transparency in the process, and it's not hard to see why there is a mounting view that there is a conspiracy in place, whereby the league does what it can with the refs to extend playoff series as much as possible to make sure they get as much money as they can. Even my mom, who doesn't follow basketball, called me up to tell me she thought the Lakers huge free throw advantage in Game 7 was very suspicious. But those who don't believe there is a conspiracy, read the whole post - I don't know that I believe in it myself!

Politics and the World Cup

So, the World Cup is upon us. The great celebration of soccer/football (depending on if you live in the US or not - I will just go ahead and call it soccer in the rest of this piece...don't take it personally, non-Americans, because I don't get the name, either) across the globe that comes around every four years. Everyone gets into it. I was in Pakistan in 2002, and people were out in public places extra late at night to see some of the games - and they didn't even have a team in the tourney! Of course, there's a lot of mainstream discussion about how soccer brings the world together. You've possibly seen the Bono-voiced commercials about this...man, is that guy promoting everything??? ESPN has had a bunch of segments suggesting the same theme - unity and peace from the game. I don't doubt it has some effect, actually. But, these games are also being held in South Africa. That by itself makes it a really big deal, even for the World Cup. There's also the whole FIFA-is-a-thug-gangsta thing, which is really wreaking havoc on South Africa, and might do the same in Brazil in 2014. Yeah, that's right, there are TONS of politics in the World Cup coming up! Shocker, right?

The South Africa angle by itself makes for a really conflicting story, actually. On the one hand, there is a general feeling of pride, especially in the global South, and with non-white folks around the world, that this is a huge deal. It is. A World Cup in a formerly-colonized land? A non-white country? South Africans have to be very proud of this, and I can attest that lots of people around the globe are as well. And if an African team can make a good run, like Senegal in 2002, that would be incredible. So, yeah, lots of positive vibes about South Africa being the site.

Of course, South Africa isn't a well-off country, either, and FIFA does some serious dirty work on those countries. 24% of the population is unemployed, and 50% live below the poverty line. It's also got a decent amount of debt right now - almost 40% of its GDP. So, not exactly a fantastic economic story. Now, this is where Babyface Nelson...er...FIFA comes in.

So, South Africa actually had pretty good stadiums. I mean, they hosted the Confederations Cup there in 2009 for two weeks and didn't seem to have many problems. But, for the World Cup, they had to build new stadiums, on their own dime. Total costs? 1.12 billion dollars. The costs for building new transportation systems? 1.2 billion dollars. Not cheap at all, and seemingly an insane amount of money to spend when nothing seemed terribly bad the previous year for a major soccer tournament. These are MAJOR expenses, especially for a country that doesn't have a lot of money to throw around. I get that FIFA wants to ensure everything is top-notch for the World Cup, but come on - I remember games in Giants Stadium (which, btw, is in New Jersey, not New York - Jersey represent!) in 1994, and Giants Stadium wasn't a Rolls Royce by any means. There had to be a much cheaper way - upgrades on the stadiums from the previous year seemed reasonable. This doesn't. It's like the debate on public financing for US sports stadiums, a hot-topic at all times. These sweetheart deals usually cost the public dearly - no real economic analysis shows building a stadium improves the local economy, even though advocates always claim that's the case. In this case, these new stadiums are even more costly, given South Africa's economy, compared to the US. For a good discussion about public financing of stadiums in America, check out Field of Schemes.

People were displaced from their homes to make way for the new stadiums. FIFA tried to brush away any signs of poverty from sight. As Dave Zirin points out, "thousands have been forced from their homes into makeshift shantytowns, to both make way for stadiums and make sure that tourists don't have to see any depressing scenes of poverty. The United Nations even issued a complaint on behalf of the 20,000 people removed from the Joe Slovo settlement in Cape Town, called an "eyesore" by World Cup organizers."

FIFA has also cracked down on the informal economy around the stadium. Many people work right around the stadiums, selling food, drinks, souvenirs, etc., to make a living. In light of the World Cup, many had been increasing their sales slightly. However, FIFA has made all of that illegal. They have set up a 1 kilometer barrier - merchants unlicensed by them cannot operate within 1 km of the stadiums now. Those who run stores around the stadiums also cannot make any money off the event, unless they are willing to pay a steep price to become authorized to sell items. No merchants can use any World Cup logos without paying a large fee as well. So, FIFA essentially killed off the chance for poor South Africans merchants to make some money off the World Cup by getting the government to change the laws for them.

There's also the issue of labor. Instead of using South Africans to formulate and produce the merchandise, FIFA farmed most of that out to foreign firms, despite its claim to want to distribute the economic gains from the World Cup to ordinary South Africans. There's the issue of soccer ball production, largely done in foreign countries, particularly Pakistan and India, where labor laws have been ignored. Not a huge concern to FIFA. There's the fact that the mascot toys for the World Cup were also not produced in South Africa, which would have been a boost to their economy, but rather in a Chinese sweatshop via a subcontract from Global Brands Group.

The World Cup will make a hell of a lot of money. The TV deal alone is worth more than the revenue from the previous two World Cup TV deals combined. South Africa will see little of it, while they foot the bill. FIFA only pays the prize money, and expenses for travel and preparation for the teams. FIFA will get up to $4 billion from the event. (This is a lengthy report, but goes through the issues quite thoroughly). South Africa, not so much. For instance, they get ZERO percent of the TV revenue (which is about $2b). FIFA gets to pocket most of the money. Back in 2005, 1 in 3 South Africans hoped to personally benefit from the World Cup. Tellingly, today, that number is at 1%. This is a reason many of them have been protesting so vigorously. Over 70,000 South Africans have taken part in strikes against World Cup related projects since 2007.

So, despite all the warm and fuzzy stories you're likely to hear in the next few days and weeks (and many of them are completely legitimate - a World Cup in an African nation is an incredible thing), don't forget that there are a lot of ugly politics involved in this World Cup. Like most others. FIFA has done what it usually does, act all gangsta and extort everything from a host nation while pocketing most of the money. In this case, the host nation happens to be a poorer one, in the global South, which means the debt it will likely incur, and the expenditures for the World Cup that were diverted from other critical areas of national spending, will have much greater consequences. And guess what - in 2014, FIFA takes its act to Brazil. Don't expect things to get any better - unless people understand what exactly happened in South Africa (and, honestly, most World Cups).

It is an incredible event, no doubt, but FIFA does some horrible things to host nations. When it steps on a poorer country, things can get very bad very quickly. Host governments also go along with this, so it's not like they're not complicit in the problem as well. For all intents and purposes, FIFA rents these governments to do what it pleases. Now, they obviously want the World Cup, so they're sort of held hostage, but is the price worth it? That's what they should ask themselves. If it is not (it doesn't seem to be), then they shouldn't play ball. So, shame on these governments for giving in to FIFA. Of course, you get FIFA to stop being such a bully, the problem goes away. Also, this creates a major advantage for richer countries to host such events, since FIFA's economic extortion doesn't cause as much relative damage in their nations as it does in poorer ones. But, it is a fair point to say the host governments are also responsible for letting FIFA do what it does.

However, if people know what happened, they can raise awareness, watch the games while protesting FIFA through acts of civil disobedience (or simply writing letters to editors, telling their friends, etc.), and supporting those on the ground taking action against FIFA and the South African government. Hey, Chicago residents knew that the IOC for the Olympics work the same way. They wanted no part of that, which they shouldn't. You deal with dirty actors like FIFA and the IOC, you'll get burned. Their protests scared the IOC enough to not bring the games to Chicago. And who knows, with enough pressure and education, maybe we can force corporate sports conglomerates like FIFA and the IOC to stop their game of extortion. There's another way to put on these great events without killing the host nations. We don't need any more sad stories like South Africa, Invictus in reverse, as Zirin calls it.

Edit: For another great piece on the World Cup, read this.

On America's Moral Barometers...

So, Plaxico Burress just got a 2-year jail sentence for carrying a licensed gun into a nightclub and shooting himself in the leg, but nobody else. Michael Vick just got reinstated to the NFL after serving 2 years in jail for his role in financing a dog-fighting racket. In both cases, lots of people have voiced outrage as to the supposed leniency in their cases. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong (though I really think Burress' sentence is kind of crazy), nor am I condoning their actions...but do these people follow the news????


I mean, seriously, is Michael Vick the guy we need to go after? I get it, he played a part in something horrible, especially if you are a dog-lover (I'm indifferent, but can sympathize), but understand that the harm he inflicted, while obviously bad, was limited...and he paid his dues by going to jail and losing his money. Same will happen to Plax, whose football career is essentially over - 2 years in jail for a wide receiver at Burress' age means nobody will sign him when he's out. Barry Bonds, the home-run king, has essentially been blacklisted by Major League Baseball, and the players in general have come under fire for their use of steroids, but nobody is talking about the owners who looked the other way in the 1990s when juice-induced homers were filling the seats and their pockets. Michael Phelps, Olympic hero (and University of Michigan grad - go Blue!), attracted so much criticism for his admission that he had smoked marijuana in the past.

I'm not sure what the hell happened to America, but since when were sports athletes our moral barometers? Seriously. I'm not condoning any of the actions mentioned above, but give me a break. I'd say, at the very least, we should hold our leaders more accountable than the guys we watch throw spirals, right? I get the outrage some people felt when Vick was let back into the league, but, again, he actually paid for his crimes. How many of our leaders have done no such thing? How many people in far more important positions involved in far more serious matters have gotten away with murder? Literally? Yet, America directs more of its outrage at NFL stars doing dumb and horrible things than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR - a former Halliburton subsidiary), who got some sweet contracts from the US government (and who says having friends in high positions, like Dick Cheney, et. al., doesn't pay?) in Iraq, have misused a lot of the money, and most importantly, may have done such a shoddy job on electrical wiring that that this work killed 16 US soldiers due to electrocution this past year. In some of the cases, the Pentagon already announced no criminal charges will be filed. Well, of course not. Paying a company $80 million to wire facilities in Iraq, and then have a number of US soldiers die because they were electrocuted in showers in those facilities, doesn't seem to be a serious matter at all. Totally not linked, you know, wiring and multiple electrocution deaths in showers. Now, if you really want to talk about morality, let me tell you about Michael Vick...

Speculation is that Burress got a pretty harsh sentence because Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make an example out of him. Okay. So, let me see if I got this right. You want to make an example out of somebody for doing something bad. In New York city. Um...do you know Wall Street is in the area? Because, while Plax is a fool for carrying a gun into a club, and he definitely could have potentially done a lot of harm, he actually only shot himself, whereas our "great" business minds on Wall Street ran amuck and broke our economy with their recklessness, causing a hell of a lot of real harm to countless Americans. What some of them did was totally criminal. So...lets throw the book at Plax instead!

How many laws did the Bush administration break? It seems like we're still getting stories every few weeks about something insane and criminal they did to this day. What are the consequences? None, basically, because they were only the leaders of our country. John Yoo teaches at Berkeley. Dick Cheney seems ready for his own prime time television show. Alberto Gonzalez still can't remember a damn thing and will be teaching political science courses (why, god, why?) at Texas Tech. George W. Bush is putting together a think tank (no, that's not a joke). None of them are in jail. None of them went to trial to go to jail. And I doubt any of them will. While this is killing some progressives across the country (and people in general around the world), the general mood in America is, we shouldn't go after these guys. Awesome. We've got bigger fish to fry. Athletes. Rappers. Not guys who lie to Congress in sworn testimony - he totally doesn't deserve to go to jail.

Over time, it seems like the people we should be holding up to higher moral and civic standards in our country are acting in absolutely appalling ways. And, most importantly, they're getting away with it. Rachel Maddow shouldn't be one of the only people reporting on "the Family" at the C St. House, for instance, an institution that includes Congressional leaders who use taxpayer money to learn about coercion from some of the worst dictators around. Why hasn't there been wider coverage of Bobby Jindal using taxpayer dollars to fly to churches all over Louisiana to give communities checks with his name on it that came from the Obama stimulus bill that Jindal so openly deplored? How about really leaning heavily on Governor Sanford for being completely out of touch with everyone while he went down to Argentina to visit his mistress? Forget the affair, a governor of the state can't just leave town (and country) without telling anyone. By the way, he used taxpayer dollars for several of those trips before, and lots of taxpayer dollars in other inappropriate ways. Maybe he will be impeached (there seems to be some movement towards it), but political leaders sure seem to get away with a lot, so I'll believe he's held accountable when I see it. Now, if he was Michael Phelps, different story...

Charles Barkley famously quipped years ago that he wasn't a role model. Well, I think whether they want to be or not, athletes (and lots of other people in the public limelight, like musicians, actors, writers, etc.) have no choice but to be role models. That means acting responsibly, and paying the price when they don't. Oftentimes, they do get away with a lot. But sometimes they don't. On the other hand, there is no doubt our political, civic, and business leaders should be role models, far more than athletes, etc.. They are engaged in far more serious issues than entertaining us. Somewhere along the line, though, we shifted our moral barometers. Guys like Dick Cheney became untouchable, but guys like Barry Bonds became lightning rods for debates about "what was wrong in America." Well, I think the fact that the discussion has moved to that level might begin to tell us what is wrong in America.

Note: I realize I went after a lot of Republicans here...that's just because its easier, given the insane number of ridiculous scandals they've been involved with, but please don't think my point here is a partisan one. It's about the insanity of holding athletes, entertainers, etc., up to be the moral barometers of this country, while giving our actual leaders, in politics, in business, in civic life, a much easier pass.