Whitlock Revises And Extends His Remarks

What Mr. Whitlock said was heartbreaking, but true.

An example: My belief is that when African-Americans did not have civil rights, the community was tighter and more close knit. Why? Bonded by struggle. Of course, now that African Americans have more freedom, and are making more money than ever before, the community is much more fractured. I'm not suggesting African Americans shouldn't have civil rights, but people tend to stand together and for something when they are united by a common struggle. Take the struggle away and we all come up with separate agendas.

Athletes don't really have to struggle for anything these days. Everything is given to them from the time they are 5-6 years old. The fact there are articles being written on the next great 11-year-old lets you know how self-entitled and absurd our society has become.

When you have nothing to lose, it's much easier to take a stand. Today, too many athletes are worried about endorsements, contracts, image, to really put their neck out. We can think of some exceptions, of course. But the rule is make the money today because it won't be here tomorrow.

I personally am saddened by this. Athletes have such a unique platform and are in such a rare position financially that I believe it is their responsibility to be the light of our culture. I have that expectation for all businessmen, journalists, etc. -- all those who have been blessed with financial security. I'm an idealist because I believe the best way to get a blessing is to bless someone else. Once you get to where you've wanted to be, reach back and pull someone else up.

But realistically, most people don't think this way. Mr. Whitlock is right in that we're in love with an ideal that simply does not/cannot exist in today's economic structure for athletes. Sure, athletes have camps and charity events, but very few are like David Robinson and Andre Agassi.  

Let's use our common sense, instead of our emotions. How can you expect a college athlete not to take money when most have never seen that type of money before? How can you expect a college coach not to cheat when he's getting paid $2 million a year to win? How can you expect an Olympic athlete not to dope when he/she only gets real recognition every four years and only if they win? How can you expect an NFL player not to take steroids under a system where the most guaranteed money goes to the best players?

When this much money is involved in sports, it has no room for idealism.

 

He's bigger than most of us....

 

This is just more back-in-the-day revisonism. Athletes were very much the same 25 years ago and 50 years ago. There are just as many socially conscious athletes as ever, just as many dumbasses, just as many introverts, just as many extroverts. Just like every other cross-section of society. It's no different now then when you were a kid. It's just that people, for whatever reason, idealize the period of their youth.

 

JW is missing the point here. It's not about heroes and role models. I could care less about that. It's about the fairness of the competition. It's all about that.

 

Not that the United States is devoid of racism in 2006, but haven't things changed for the better in the last 30-40 years? I'm young and white, so I have a skewed view. It just seems that we don't need a Muhammad Ali. It seems that African-American athletes donating time and money without being so outspoken will suffice. Maybe I'm a bit naive.

 

They have changed for the better. A lot better. Don't let people tell you otherwise.

There is still a long way to go. And some people will never be satisfied until they get what they want right that second.

But a lot of progress has been made in many areas.

 

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I just don't believe there are just many athletes taking a stand as there were 30-40-50 years ago.

I don't count having camps, donating to causes, etc. Yes, there are probably just as many of those now as there were then.

But did I miss the 2006 Ali? What athlete today would ever defy the federal government that way? I say none.

 

Don't forget Agassi's tennis schools, an idea that might go national soon.

 

We don't need an Ali to battle racism, which still exists but isn't what it once was, but we don't have any athlete battling anything that might cost them dollars. And sure, cranberry, there were athletes 25 or 50 years ago who were like today's, but there are few if any athletes now like some from back then. No one will take a stand for or against something without first asking how it will affect their pocketbook. So, you don't get war protests. You don't get criticism of Congress or the president. You get a lot of money given to good causes, but no one sticks their neck out like some athletes (not all) used to.

 

The young Ali didn't battle racism, he was a racist. Until 1975 he advocated separatism as taught and preached by the Nation of Islam under the dictatorship of Elijah Muhammad. Only Elijah Muhammad's death changed that.

And we can't extrapolate from Ali's example the belief that even a handful of athletes protested Vietnam in a way that cost them anything. Name one more athlete who gave up any part of his career. Athletes are followers, not leaders. They reflect their times, they don't make them. When the '60s created Ali, it was almost obligatory for anti-authoritarians to stand with him. Along came Jim Brown, Kareem, Russell. In the fat-cat 21st century, Carlos Delgado protested another American military misadventure. Who came to his side? No one.

 

jared, you miss my point. Sure, they didn't give up part of their careers. I never said they did. They wouldn't now either if they spoke out. The key is endorsement money. It didn't play the role it does in athletes' lives nowadays, and athletes know that they won't get it if they make controversial statements.

 

I got your point. That's why I referred to the "fat-cat 21st century." The money then was just as important to athletes psychologically as it is now, it's just that the decimal point has moved right a few places.