Mergers don’t always have to resemble an episode of The Hills with Carl Icahn starring instead of Lauren Conrad. Often mergers benefit the companies and its customers. Such success could have been found in the recently approved acquisition of XM Radio by Sirius.
Since satellite radio took off in 2001 the two rivals have battled back and forth to be the leader in sports radio programming. But due to licensing agreements the sports audience was split: XM landed exclusive rights to MLB, PGA and Sirius had broadcasting rights to NASCAR, the NFL and the NBA. Add to that the fact that both companies used different transmission technologies meaning that customers had their hands forced and you get one divided customer base. Sports fans were frustrated that they couldn’t switch back and forth between the gridiron and the diamond.
Sirius looked to solve these issues with their $3.3 billion dollar acquisition of XM. But the deal was almost struck down by federal regulators. Consumer advocates and traditional radio stations contended that the merger amounted to a monopoly. Ultimately it took the FCC sixteen months and a narrow 3-2 vote to approve the deal and pave the way to a technology that will deliver sports content with greater continuity.
In the fall the new company will offer an array of attractive packages that will certainly be an improvement over the days of old. Fans will be able to choose one of three options: a new “Best of Both Worlds” option that combines each companies programming for $16.99 per month, an à la carte menu that allows users to choose 50 channels from Sirius/XM for $6.99 per month, or users can keep either the old XM or Sirius lineups for $12.95 per month. Now fans will have much more freedom in selecting their programming.
But not all is in the clear. Because of the acquisition Sirius now carries $3.4 billion in corporate debt. They also are facing increasing assaults from new technologies such as the iPhone and streaming radio stations found online. Nevertheless, this merger should give consumers greater control and choice over their programming. This usually turns out to be a good thing.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
More Than Just an Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 2)
This is the second installment of a mini series on Tiger Woods. If you have yet to read part one you can find that here.
Before delving too deep into Tiger and what he has meant to the game, it would be prudent and necessary to look at the history of African-Americans in golf. Ever since the game crossed the Atlantic from Scotland in the late 19th century, golf has existed primarily within the exclusive domain of white America. Until the PGA dropped its color barriers in 1962, golf was surrounded by impenetrable walls of race and classist exclusivity. Furthermore, it was not until the early 1990’s that most private country clubs began opening their doors to blacks. Yet despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles faced by blacks, they hardly stopped many from enjoying the game. Indeed, there is a rich history of blacks in golf. It is a history of a great number of black golfers who overcame racial prejudice to assimilate the game for themselves. From their efforts, a special and unique heritage of blacks in golf would emerge.
Despite shoddy historical golfing records, there is ample evidence to consider George Franklin Grant to be the first African-American golfer in the United States. It is not known exactly when Grant took up the game, but records from his daughter Frances indicate that she caddied for him during the mid-1880s.[1] Though Grant is known as America’s first black golfer, he is more famous for one of the game’s greatest inventions: the golf tee. In 1899, Grant was given patent number 638,920 for his invention that moved the game in a modern direction.[2]
Golf grew in popularity rapidly amongst whites but it was slow to catch on with post Civil War African-Americans. Indeed, it seems that from the very outset, White America would not welcome blacks on their golf courses. When the U.S. Open was set to be played at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club on Long Island, white golfers came close to a boycott. They were acting out against the idea of competing against John Shippen, and African-American, and Oscar Bunn, a full-blooded Shinnecock Indian. Eventually, when the US Golfing Association threatened to hold the tournament with just Shippen and Bunn, the white players relented and reluctantly played.[3] By this time, blacks were enjoying the game with the same fervor as whites. But in the years following World War I, xenophobic and racist sentiment, combined with Jim Crow laws and socio-economic realities saw blacks excluded from nearly all municipal golf courses and private country clubs.[4]
Reacting to the joint restrictions of the USGA and all-white country clubs, Robert Hawkins, a golf enthusiast from Massachusetts, founded the United Golf Association Tour to foster competition among black amateurs and professionals.[5] The UGA was golf’s equivalent to baseball’s Negro Leagues and the Tour was a resounding success in the black golfing community. The UGA sponsored events throughout the summers, culminating with their major championship equivalent, the Negro National Open. Known affectionately in those days as the “Chittlin’ Circuit,” the UGA was home to golfers such as Teddy Rhodes, Pete Brown, Charlie Sifford and Lee Elder. “It launched my career. Without the UGA, I never would have played competitive golf,” said Pete Brown, who won the National Negro Open four times and would later go on the capture two victories on the PGA Tour.[6] Brown described the Tour as “a good time. It was not dog-eat-dog thing.” Indeed the UGA was a community, born out of racial times to provide blacks their own opportunity to enjoy the game they loved.
Charlie Sifford was certainly one of the Tour’s most popular stars. He was fun-loving and outstanding at golf, winning the Negro Open five consecutive times from 1952-56. Sifford ultimately bridged two eras by becoming the first black golfer on the PGA Tour. Sifford lobbied long and hard for over nine years before getting his Approved Tournament Player’s card in 1961 and full PGA Tour Membership in 1964. Sifford was courageous and a pioneer. He persevered through hecklers and death-threats to become the first black to win a PGA event—the Hartford Open in 1967.[7] Indeed, Sifford’s actions opened up the game for blacks due to his insistence that he be treated equally and fairly. Eight years after Sifford’s first victory, Lee Elder became the first African-American to tee it up at the Masters in 1975, the same year that Tiger Woods was born. Indeed, our pas is not as distant as we sometimes make it to be. The story of blacks in golf is a history rich in community, perseverance and courage. Indeed, men like Sifford and Elder did much of the foundational work that would allow Tiger to build an empire.
[1] Venita Robinson, “African American Culture and Physical Skill Development Programs: The Effect on Golf After Tiger Woods,” Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 33, No. 6, (July, 2003) 807.
[2] Ibid, 811.
[3] __ “Teeing Off: The History of Blacks in Golf,” Black Enterprise, (September 1, 1994)
[4] __ “Tiger Woods Cards a Bogey,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 37 (Autumn, 2002) 60.
[5] __ “Remembering the old UGA Tour—All Black United Golf Association,” Black Enterprise, (September 1, 1997)
[6] Pete Brown, quoted in “Remembering the old UGA Tour”
[7] Ron Sirack, “Charlie Sifford to be the First Black Voted Into the World Golf Hall of Fame,” 14 June 2003, (4 May 2008)
Before delving too deep into Tiger and what he has meant to the game, it would be prudent and necessary to look at the history of African-Americans in golf. Ever since the game crossed the Atlantic from Scotland in the late 19th century, golf has existed primarily within the exclusive domain of white America. Until the PGA dropped its color barriers in 1962, golf was surrounded by impenetrable walls of race and classist exclusivity. Furthermore, it was not until the early 1990’s that most private country clubs began opening their doors to blacks. Yet despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles faced by blacks, they hardly stopped many from enjoying the game. Indeed, there is a rich history of blacks in golf. It is a history of a great number of black golfers who overcame racial prejudice to assimilate the game for themselves. From their efforts, a special and unique heritage of blacks in golf would emerge.
Despite shoddy historical golfing records, there is ample evidence to consider George Franklin Grant to be the first African-American golfer in the United States. It is not known exactly when Grant took up the game, but records from his daughter Frances indicate that she caddied for him during the mid-1880s.[1] Though Grant is known as America’s first black golfer, he is more famous for one of the game’s greatest inventions: the golf tee. In 1899, Grant was given patent number 638,920 for his invention that moved the game in a modern direction.[2]
Golf grew in popularity rapidly amongst whites but it was slow to catch on with post Civil War African-Americans. Indeed, it seems that from the very outset, White America would not welcome blacks on their golf courses. When the U.S. Open was set to be played at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club on Long Island, white golfers came close to a boycott. They were acting out against the idea of competing against John Shippen, and African-American, and Oscar Bunn, a full-blooded Shinnecock Indian. Eventually, when the US Golfing Association threatened to hold the tournament with just Shippen and Bunn, the white players relented and reluctantly played.[3] By this time, blacks were enjoying the game with the same fervor as whites. But in the years following World War I, xenophobic and racist sentiment, combined with Jim Crow laws and socio-economic realities saw blacks excluded from nearly all municipal golf courses and private country clubs.[4]
Reacting to the joint restrictions of the USGA and all-white country clubs, Robert Hawkins, a golf enthusiast from Massachusetts, founded the United Golf Association Tour to foster competition among black amateurs and professionals.[5] The UGA was golf’s equivalent to baseball’s Negro Leagues and the Tour was a resounding success in the black golfing community. The UGA sponsored events throughout the summers, culminating with their major championship equivalent, the Negro National Open. Known affectionately in those days as the “Chittlin’ Circuit,” the UGA was home to golfers such as Teddy Rhodes, Pete Brown, Charlie Sifford and Lee Elder. “It launched my career. Without the UGA, I never would have played competitive golf,” said Pete Brown, who won the National Negro Open four times and would later go on the capture two victories on the PGA Tour.[6] Brown described the Tour as “a good time. It was not dog-eat-dog thing.” Indeed the UGA was a community, born out of racial times to provide blacks their own opportunity to enjoy the game they loved.
Charlie Sifford was certainly one of the Tour’s most popular stars. He was fun-loving and outstanding at golf, winning the Negro Open five consecutive times from 1952-56. Sifford ultimately bridged two eras by becoming the first black golfer on the PGA Tour. Sifford lobbied long and hard for over nine years before getting his Approved Tournament Player’s card in 1961 and full PGA Tour Membership in 1964. Sifford was courageous and a pioneer. He persevered through hecklers and death-threats to become the first black to win a PGA event—the Hartford Open in 1967.[7] Indeed, Sifford’s actions opened up the game for blacks due to his insistence that he be treated equally and fairly. Eight years after Sifford’s first victory, Lee Elder became the first African-American to tee it up at the Masters in 1975, the same year that Tiger Woods was born. Indeed, our pas is not as distant as we sometimes make it to be. The story of blacks in golf is a history rich in community, perseverance and courage. Indeed, men like Sifford and Elder did much of the foundational work that would allow Tiger to build an empire.
[1] Venita Robinson, “African American Culture and Physical Skill Development Programs: The Effect on Golf After Tiger Woods,” Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 33, No. 6, (July, 2003) 807.
[2] Ibid, 811.
[3] __ “Teeing Off: The History of Blacks in Golf,” Black Enterprise, (September 1, 1994)
[4] __ “Tiger Woods Cards a Bogey,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 37 (Autumn, 2002) 60.
[5] __ “Remembering the old UGA Tour—All Black United Golf Association,” Black Enterprise, (September 1, 1997)
[6] Pete Brown, quoted in “Remembering the old UGA Tour”
[7] Ron Sirack, “Charlie Sifford to be the First Black Voted Into the World Golf Hall of Fame,” 14 June 2003,
Not an Inch to Spare
A while back I wrote about sponsorships across different sports. I made the claim that NASCAR is probably the most excessive when it comes to selling signage and ad space for sponsors. Well I now stand corrected. I ran across the Czech Extraliga hockey team, HC Slavia Praha. While NASCAR gets hits with criticism for selling space on everything from car hoods to the infield grass, HC Slavia has taken the sponsorship model to a whole new level.
Not only have they sold space on the ice itself, they’ve also begun opening up signage on the ring-side glass to sponsors. The team has over 75 official sponsors and there is not an inch of wasted space anywhere. Sure it’s cluttered, sure it’s ridiculous. Hopefully it won’t get to that point here anytime soon, but the idea of selling glass space is an idea not yet seen in the United States. It’s a new inventory space that could be taken up by the NHL or even other sports (logos on a backboard or on the field goal netting perhaps). My only concern is that such signage on the glass is somewhat obtrusive to spectators and might be even more so on a television broadcast.
Not only have they sold space on the ice itself, they’ve also begun opening up signage on the ring-side glass to sponsors. The team has over 75 official sponsors and there is not an inch of wasted space anywhere. Sure it’s cluttered, sure it’s ridiculous. Hopefully it won’t get to that point here anytime soon, but the idea of selling glass space is an idea not yet seen in the United States. It’s a new inventory space that could be taken up by the NHL or even other sports (logos on a backboard or on the field goal netting perhaps). My only concern is that such signage on the glass is somewhat obtrusive to spectators and might be even more so on a television broadcast.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 1)
Over the next several days, I'll be posting portions of a longer article that I wrote on Tiger Woods. The article breaks up nicely into segments which will give the series continuity. The posts will look at the history of blacks in a stereotypically white game, and will of course discuss Woods' accomplishments on and off the golf course and how he has changed the game of golf. But in a larger sense, the article looks to tackle questions that go beyond sport and into issues of how our society looks at and handles race and the expectations we have of our heroes. I hope you'll enjoy it.As Tiger Woods capped off a third win in as many years at the U.S. Amateur, Woods began the transition from a ‘golfing’ name to a ‘household’ name. Though he had yet to even join the PGA Tour ranks, he already had signed a thirty-seven million dollar contract with Nike. Other endorsements flew at his door constantly. The media was hailing him as a “Great Black Hope” as they expected Woods to tear down the racial walls that continued to haunt the Tour and private country clubs around the country. Tiger’s father, Earl, was his biggest supporter and believer. In the winter of 1996, Earl offered this prediction: “Tiger will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity…I don’t know exactly what form this will take. But he is the Chosen One. He’ll have the power to impact nations. Not people. Nations. The world is just getting a taste of his power.”[1] This endorsement may not have been worth thirty-seven-million dollars, but it helped to capture to an extraordinary degree the hopes and dreams that many had for Woods on the brink of his professional career.
Indeed, Woods’ career so far has been almost indescribably successful. He has been on top of the money leader’s list for seven of the past nine years. At only 32 he has amassed a total of 64 wins, an average of 5.2 per year, and with thirteen major championships under his belt he is seriously threatening Jack Nicklaus’ record of eighteen. Yet Tiger’s success as a golfer does not stop with broken records or overflowing trophy cases. In many ways, Woods has transcended the game of golf. As an African-American (although this description is misleading and complex as will be pointed out later) he has shattered many of golf’s racial barriers to entry. More blacks have taken up the game than ever before. A study compiled by the National Golf Federation found that in 1996 an estimated 360,000 African-Americans were playing golf. By 2007, they found that that number had eclipsed 820,000. Indeed, Tiger’s impact has been felt far and wide.
Nevertheless, there exists another line of thought that approaches doubt with regard to Woods’ career. This perspective looks beyond Tiger’s accomplishments on the course to a more complex and nuanced take on Woods and his role not simply as a golfer but as a social leader. Adherents to this point of view criticize Tiger for not being more outspoken on social issues, especially those involving race. They point out that, despite all that Woods has done for the game, he remains the only African-American on the PGA Tour.
Tiger Woods may well go down in history as the game’s greatest golfer. But what is more remarkable and illuminating is how Woods has been received, subsequently handled, and finally embraced by the golfing world. It is a complex story of racial definitions and societal transformations. This paper will address the multi-faceted interpretations of Woods as a golfer; exactly what impact has he had on a historically white sport? Is this impact on the whole more positive or negative? It will also explore Woods beyond golf by addressing the widespread confusion over his race when he entered the sport, the meaning of Woods being heralded as a “great black hope,” and how Tiger’s career is a reflection of the increasing importance of the entertainment and leisure industries.
[1] Earl Woods, as quoted in, Gary Smith, “The Chosen One,” Sports Illustrated (December 23, 1996)
Lightning Strikes Twice
So I’ve been out of town the last few days and as such haven’t had the chance to blog as I would have liked. But I’m back now and am happy to post a new video, even though it’s a little late.
Like most everyone I’m sure, I’m loving watching the Olympics. It’s inspirational yet humbling, and patriotic yet at the same time is a chance to celebrate with the world over. My favorite events are the track and field competitions. Sheer athleticism shines brightest here, in my opinion, and shown brightest in the men’s 100M and 200M where Usain Bolt took both races in world record fashion. He actually reminded me of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont Stakes. This man is a beast, an absolute specimen in fact. I thought Michael Phelps was impressive but Bolt is just ridiculous.
Watch this video of him taking the 100M and the 200M. (you may have to download the free plug-in). Enjoy!
Like most everyone I’m sure, I’m loving watching the Olympics. It’s inspirational yet humbling, and patriotic yet at the same time is a chance to celebrate with the world over. My favorite events are the track and field competitions. Sheer athleticism shines brightest here, in my opinion, and shown brightest in the men’s 100M and 200M where Usain Bolt took both races in world record fashion. He actually reminded me of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont Stakes. This man is a beast, an absolute specimen in fact. I thought Michael Phelps was impressive but Bolt is just ridiculous.
Watch this video of him taking the 100M and the 200M. (you may have to download the free plug-in). Enjoy!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Agents Speak About Olympians' Marketability
Darren Rovell, author of a great blog called Sports Biz, conducted an interview with Evan Morgenstein, the sports agent for Dara Torres, Nastia Liukin and Jason Lezak. The two discussed the business of sports in the context of the Olympics. Its focus on the future marketability of Olympians is what really drew me to post about it as it follows nicely with my post on former Olympians forking for their own slice of the endorsement pie. Here is the link to the full interview. Below are parts of the interview that I found particularly interesting.
Darren: She scored a 16.9 on the uneven bars today that was the highest score of anyone in any event. Mary Lou Retton is always that bar that 10 on the vault in 1984. What type of breakout performance do you really need to last beyond the normal 4 to 6 months that Olympians have before we start thinking about football season, and World Series and everything else?
Evan: Well it's funny, I look at Nastia as someone, sort of how I look at Magic Johnson and basketball, he redefined the position and I look as Nastia as someone that can redefine being a gymnast in the United States. Because of how she does what she does, the number of medals she can win, and the fact that she really has a pre-disposition to wanna go out there and do a lot of things for a lot of people.
Darren: Dara Torres, she's got the silver medal from her relay, she'll be in the 50-meter free that's her event this weekend. She's a 41 year old wonder child if you can say that, has deals with Toyota and Speedo, a book deal, reported $3M for two books. Does she have to win gold in order to really really cash in?
Evan: Not even a little bit. The fact that a 41-year-old mom showed up at the Olympics and is kicking the young kids butts? I mean, I love it. I get emails every single day from women in the 30-plus category who are dying to know Dara Torres. She's starting a revolution, she's going to be someone you never see and have an impact on that group of people before. And she is going to take this for the next 20 years and do some great things for women.
Darren: Is it just the U.S. market? Alot of people say coming to China -- maybe China falls after the Olympics in terms of where it is in this frenzied business height. But if she wins gold in the 50-meter free, does she have a chance to do stuff worldwide not only in the U.S. but here?
Evan: Well I hate to say this, but Americans aren't the only people getting old, so I think she's got opportunities all over the world.
-------
And here are a couple questions from Rovell’s interview with Michael Phelps’ agent Peter Carlisle.
Darren: Over time, what could [Phelps' efforts] be worth in between that seven and eight [gold medals]?
Peter: Well, I think he becomes a legend, if he gets to seven or eight. At that point, you've got to extrapolate the value out over the years and obviously you're talking hundreds of millions.
Darren: The percentage increase in terms of the deals. Some of his deals are up after these games. How does that change some things?
Peter: Annually, I would say that you're essentially doubling income annually. But again, the interesting thing will be if he's able to do the incredible, the value that will play out over the years. Some of those deals obviously will become longer term deals.
Darren: She scored a 16.9 on the uneven bars today that was the highest score of anyone in any event. Mary Lou Retton is always that bar that 10 on the vault in 1984. What type of breakout performance do you really need to last beyond the normal 4 to 6 months that Olympians have before we start thinking about football season, and World Series and everything else?
Evan: Well it's funny, I look at Nastia as someone, sort of how I look at Magic Johnson and basketball, he redefined the position and I look as Nastia as someone that can redefine being a gymnast in the United States. Because of how she does what she does, the number of medals she can win, and the fact that she really has a pre-disposition to wanna go out there and do a lot of things for a lot of people.
Darren: Dara Torres, she's got the silver medal from her relay, she'll be in the 50-meter free that's her event this weekend. She's a 41 year old wonder child if you can say that, has deals with Toyota and Speedo, a book deal, reported $3M for two books. Does she have to win gold in order to really really cash in?
Evan: Not even a little bit. The fact that a 41-year-old mom showed up at the Olympics and is kicking the young kids butts? I mean, I love it. I get emails every single day from women in the 30-plus category who are dying to know Dara Torres. She's starting a revolution, she's going to be someone you never see and have an impact on that group of people before. And she is going to take this for the next 20 years and do some great things for women.
Darren: Is it just the U.S. market? Alot of people say coming to China -- maybe China falls after the Olympics in terms of where it is in this frenzied business height. But if she wins gold in the 50-meter free, does she have a chance to do stuff worldwide not only in the U.S. but here?
Evan: Well I hate to say this, but Americans aren't the only people getting old, so I think she's got opportunities all over the world.
-------
And here are a couple questions from Rovell’s interview with Michael Phelps’ agent Peter Carlisle.
Darren: Over time, what could [Phelps' efforts] be worth in between that seven and eight [gold medals]?
Peter: Well, I think he becomes a legend, if he gets to seven or eight. At that point, you've got to extrapolate the value out over the years and obviously you're talking hundreds of millions.
Darren: The percentage increase in terms of the deals. Some of his deals are up after these games. How does that change some things?
Peter: Annually, I would say that you're essentially doubling income annually. But again, the interesting thing will be if he's able to do the incredible, the value that will play out over the years. Some of those deals obviously will become longer term deals.
Collectivism vs. Individualism: Olympics Provide Insight
Sport is an integral part of societies all over the world. What's so great and interesting about this relationship is that oftentimes we can use sport as an opportunity to make observations about the world around us. Sport can indicate changing trends in society and can enable comparisons to be made between different societies. The Olympics in China have provided great insight into China as a country and a people.
One of my favorite writers, David Brooks, used the occasion of the Olympics as a means to comment on China and to compare its collectivist mentality to the individualistic mentality of the United States. Here is a link to that article. Below are some key graphs and some observations.
The ceremony drew from China’s long history, but surely the most striking features were the images of thousands of Chinese moving as one — drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting on precise formations without ever stumbling or colliding. We’ve seen displays of mass conformity before, but this was collectivism of the present — a high-tech vision of the harmonious society performed in the context of China’s miraculous growth.
The rise of China isn’t only an economic event. It’s a cultural one. The ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream.
If Asia’s success reopens the debate between individualism and collectivism (which seemed closed after the cold war), then it’s unlikely that the forces of individualism will sweep the field or even gain an edge.
I definitely noticed the collectivist mindset when I spent a month in China back in 2005 when they were ramping up efforts to prepare for the games. Everyone was doing their part in a collective effort to make these games the best ever—not only was that their goal, they seemed to know that it would happen. The confidence was impressive. Maybe it’s the nature of living in an authoritarian environment, but the Chinese certainly seemed to subjugate their own self-interests for the interests of the nation. When I visited a school in the early morning all of the children were outside singing the national anthem (which is hugely nationalistic and actually kind of brutal) loud and proud—and collectively. At my school, you couldn’t say the pledge of allegiance without an atheist expressing his displeasure with our nation’s choice of words. China may have atheists, but the nation’s unity, and thus its success, takes priority.
Brooks is brilliant and there’s not much to add to what he has written. Indeed, it is spot on in my opinion. A successful person in the US is likely to attribute his accomplishments to his own hard work and commitment to his goals whereas a Chinese person will point to collective efforts and a commitment to goals in their societal context. For these reasons collectivist societies tend to be more self-deprecating that individualistic ones. We can see this play out in the Olympics where the US tends to excel in individual events while China often performs better in team events. By and large, we in the West have been brought up to think that, in general, success comes from the individual’s hard-work and his dedication to capitalism. But as Brooks asserts, “The opening ceremony in Beijing was a statement in that conversation. It was part of China’s assertion that development doesn’t come only through Western, liberal means, but also through Eastern and collective ones.”
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Retired Olympians Making Money Too
For better or worse, the days of the Olympics being about amateurs and sport-for-the-sake-of-sport are over (for a great account of this shift read Rome 1960: The Olympics That Changed the World by David Maraniss). Today the Olympics is a huge money maker, both for advertisers and, increasingly so, for the athletes themselves. Octagon, a major sports management agency, represents numerous Olympians such as Michael Phelps and Natalie Coughlin and works with them to line up lucrative marketing strategies. But it’s not just current Olympians who are cashing in on their athletic superiority—former Olympians are getting their slice of the endorsement pie too. Stephanie Clifford, of the online version of the NY Times, has a good article outlining this trend.
Endorsement and sponsorship money flow at the Olympics largely due to the fact that the games draw a worldwide audience (1 billion peopled watched the opening ceremony) giving sponsors a wide reach and high sound of voice. So whether it is at corporate sponsored meet-and-greets or arranged meetings by an athlete’s agent, the Olympics offer numerous opportunities to spark a relationship. Of course, for former athletes, this process is cyclical and peaks every four years as advertisers take advantage of showcasing certain athletes while their sport is on the minds of many. But in some cases, partnerships forged at the games can turn into long term relationships.
By and large, using former athletes in marketing and endorsement deals gives advertisers a way to tap into the nostalgia that a former Olympian can offer. Putting up an ad showcasing Mark Spitz’ record of seven gold medals not only conjures up nostalgic excitement, it also draws attention to, and puts into historical context, Michael Phelps’ own current attempt to break Spitz’ record. Older athletes can sign on to endorse products whose market demographics match that of the athlete. Fifty-eight year old Spitz and 46-year old Nadia Comaneci are both sponsors for Botox, whose target market aligns closely with the two athletes.
Endorsement and sponsorship money flow at the Olympics largely due to the fact that the games draw a worldwide audience (1 billion peopled watched the opening ceremony) giving sponsors a wide reach and high sound of voice. So whether it is at corporate sponsored meet-and-greets or arranged meetings by an athlete’s agent, the Olympics offer numerous opportunities to spark a relationship. Of course, for former athletes, this process is cyclical and peaks every four years as advertisers take advantage of showcasing certain athletes while their sport is on the minds of many. But in some cases, partnerships forged at the games can turn into long term relationships.
By and large, using former athletes in marketing and endorsement deals gives advertisers a way to tap into the nostalgia that a former Olympian can offer. Putting up an ad showcasing Mark Spitz’ record of seven gold medals not only conjures up nostalgic excitement, it also draws attention to, and puts into historical context, Michael Phelps’ own current attempt to break Spitz’ record. Older athletes can sign on to endorse products whose market demographics match that of the athlete. Fifty-eight year old Spitz and 46-year old Nadia Comaneci are both sponsors for Botox, whose target market aligns closely with the two athletes.
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Origins of Modern Sport Pt. 3
This is the final installment in my series on the origins of modern sport in the United States. If you need to catch up, you can find part 1 here, and part 2 here. I hope you've enjoyed the series and remember, all comments are welcome!
Though the backing of the Protestant Church and the upper class added a great impetus, “modern” sport never would have taken off without the support of the middle and working classes. Many advancements in society abetted the growth of sports. Chiefly, improvements in communications and transportation made sports more accessible. Trains and steamboats traveling longer distances made it easier to gather in cities and news and results of sporting events could be communicated effortlessly, especially with the invention of the telegraph. Mass production of watches made scheduling and advertising sporting events possible. Furthermore, the proliferation of the daily newspaper and other specialty sports sheets made results of competitions more-widely known than ever before.[1] All of these advancements made sports more accessible and welcoming to all in American society.
But the transformations were not limited to technological advancements. New conditions in the workplace led to a different mindset, especially amongst the working class. The decline of artisanship gave way to the factory system where work processes were broken down into ever-smaller tasks. The factory, becoming more and more concerned with efficiency, employed strict guidelines and rules. Changes in the white-collar world mirrored those in the blue-collared one.[2] Once seen as an ideal apprenticeship for sons of the upper class to ride their way to professional life, the breaking down of work operations and the invention of the typewriter resulted in the replacement of male clerks with female ones.[3]
One of the working class’ favorite sporting indulgences was prizefighting. Nowhere else in sporting trends, not in basketball nor cricket, can the counterculture against Victorian ideals be so clearly visible. No sport is more vicious, crass, or unrestrained. Early on, prizefighting eschewed rules for entertainment and shock value. Rounds lacked time limits and the bell only rang once a fighter was downed by fists or gave up. Unrestrained rules led to unrestrained audiences. The fights attracted hustlers, ruffians, drunks and thieves. Drinking and gambling were both permitted. Gambling, especially, inverted Victorian morals of money and success.[4] Whereas Victorians viewed the accumulation of money as the result of hard work and self-sacrifice, the wheeling-and-dealing nature of gambling stood entirely opposed such ideals. The never-ending exchange of money after lost and won bets signaled the fact that audiences enjoyed money for the momentary thrill instead of the Victorian method of life-long accumulation of wealth as a sign of hard work. Betting only took guts, not a hard-work ethic.
The ring was also a chance to praise manliness. The ideal Victorian man worked hard, restrained himself and sacrificed himself for the family. But as the household moved away from an economically productive unit into a more feminized arena meant for raising a family, opportunities to prove one’s manhood became fewer and farther between. In the same way that wealthy men escaped to their single-sex country clubs, working and middle class men found refuge in saloons and other enclaves of prizefighting society. Rader describes this dynamic particularly well when he asserts:
Disenchanted with their place in American industry, many turned away from Victorian self-restraint and moderation. Sports and other leisure activities often bestowed more fun, fulfillment and social belonging than did their work. Advertisers picked up on this growing trend and offered products that would deliver “the good life.” Salesmen flew in the face of Victorian thrift and prudence and encouraged people to “buy now and pay later,” and to “live in the moment.”[6]
Americans underwent dramatic and profound change at the turn of the 20th century. The changing landscape of the economy, along with many technological advancements, precipitated much of the change that we see in the public’s opinion towards sports and physical exertion. But despite the institutional changes we cannot neglect the underlying changes in the American psyche. Well healed after the Civil War, and riding high on the confidence of the successes of the Industrial Revolution, many Americans yearned for greater freedom of activity and conscious. Self-assured and prideful of such successes perhaps inclined more and more Americans be more adventurous, adopt a greater penchant for risk, and shed any guilt over various forms of self-indulgence.
[1] Mrozek, 52.
[2] Benjamin Rader, American Ways, (Dallas: Harcourt Publishers, 2001) 191.
[3] Ibid, 27.
[4] Rader, Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports, 43.
[5] Ibid, 44.
[6] Quotes from R.W. Fox and T.J.J Lears, eds., The Culture of Consumption, (New York: Pantheon, 1983), 32.
Though the backing of the Protestant Church and the upper class added a great impetus, “modern” sport never would have taken off without the support of the middle and working classes. Many advancements in society abetted the growth of sports. Chiefly, improvements in communications and transportation made sports more accessible. Trains and steamboats traveling longer distances made it easier to gather in cities and news and results of sporting events could be communicated effortlessly, especially with the invention of the telegraph. Mass production of watches made scheduling and advertising sporting events possible. Furthermore, the proliferation of the daily newspaper and other specialty sports sheets made results of competitions more-widely known than ever before.[1] All of these advancements made sports more accessible and welcoming to all in American society.
But the transformations were not limited to technological advancements. New conditions in the workplace led to a different mindset, especially amongst the working class. The decline of artisanship gave way to the factory system where work processes were broken down into ever-smaller tasks. The factory, becoming more and more concerned with efficiency, employed strict guidelines and rules. Changes in the white-collar world mirrored those in the blue-collared one.[2] Once seen as an ideal apprenticeship for sons of the upper class to ride their way to professional life, the breaking down of work operations and the invention of the typewriter resulted in the replacement of male clerks with female ones.[3]
One of the working class’ favorite sporting indulgences was prizefighting. Nowhere else in sporting trends, not in basketball nor cricket, can the counterculture against Victorian ideals be so clearly visible. No sport is more vicious, crass, or unrestrained. Early on, prizefighting eschewed rules for entertainment and shock value. Rounds lacked time limits and the bell only rang once a fighter was downed by fists or gave up. Unrestrained rules led to unrestrained audiences. The fights attracted hustlers, ruffians, drunks and thieves. Drinking and gambling were both permitted. Gambling, especially, inverted Victorian morals of money and success.[4] Whereas Victorians viewed the accumulation of money as the result of hard work and self-sacrifice, the wheeling-and-dealing nature of gambling stood entirely opposed such ideals. The never-ending exchange of money after lost and won bets signaled the fact that audiences enjoyed money for the momentary thrill instead of the Victorian method of life-long accumulation of wealth as a sign of hard work. Betting only took guts, not a hard-work ethic.
The ring was also a chance to praise manliness. The ideal Victorian man worked hard, restrained himself and sacrificed himself for the family. But as the household moved away from an economically productive unit into a more feminized arena meant for raising a family, opportunities to prove one’s manhood became fewer and farther between. In the same way that wealthy men escaped to their single-sex country clubs, working and middle class men found refuge in saloons and other enclaves of prizefighting society. Rader describes this dynamic particularly well when he asserts:
In gender-segregated leisure activities, they exhibited toughness, physical
prowess, and generosity. To these men, the prizefighter, with his immense
strength, muscular body and swift, decisive answers, represented and appealing
alternative to the effeminate, self-effacing Victorian ideal of manhood.[5]
Disenchanted with their place in American industry, many turned away from Victorian self-restraint and moderation. Sports and other leisure activities often bestowed more fun, fulfillment and social belonging than did their work. Advertisers picked up on this growing trend and offered products that would deliver “the good life.” Salesmen flew in the face of Victorian thrift and prudence and encouraged people to “buy now and pay later,” and to “live in the moment.”[6]
Americans underwent dramatic and profound change at the turn of the 20th century. The changing landscape of the economy, along with many technological advancements, precipitated much of the change that we see in the public’s opinion towards sports and physical exertion. But despite the institutional changes we cannot neglect the underlying changes in the American psyche. Well healed after the Civil War, and riding high on the confidence of the successes of the Industrial Revolution, many Americans yearned for greater freedom of activity and conscious. Self-assured and prideful of such successes perhaps inclined more and more Americans be more adventurous, adopt a greater penchant for risk, and shed any guilt over various forms of self-indulgence.
[1] Mrozek, 52.
[2] Benjamin Rader, American Ways, (Dallas: Harcourt Publishers, 2001) 191.
[3] Ibid, 27.
[4] Rader, Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports, 43.
[5] Ibid, 44.
[6] Quotes from R.W. Fox and T.J.J Lears, eds., The Culture of Consumption, (New York: Pantheon, 1983), 32.
Happy Monday!
Sometimes it feels like we take things too seriously—school, job, relationships, life! Even though it’s a Monday, I’m in a great mood and thought I’d link to some great sports photos. True, they have nothing to do with the business of sports. But they’ll definitely put a smile on your face.
Check some out here, and here.
Check some out here, and here.
Happy Monday!
Video of the Week: U-S-A! U-S-A!
So the Olympics began this past Friday. It’s been truly exciting stuff so far. Barring any overly oppressive Beijing smog or panda attacks I think these games should be a success and will turn into quite the coming out party for China. The thing I love so much about the Olympics is that you not only get excited about the world coming together to engage in hard-fought sport but you get to root all-out for your country. These events are bigger than the Mets-Yankees or Giants-Dodgers rivalries. This is hardcore country on country action—and the nationalist in me couldn’t love it more.
Last night’s coverage provided a great “U-S-A” moment when the French found a size 12 foot in their mouth after the US swim team came back in literally the last 5 meters to snatch the gold in the 400M freestyle relay. Before the race, French anchor-man Alain Bernard was quoted in a French publication as saying: “The Americans? We will smash them. That’s what we came here for.” Oh really? You don’t say? All fired up, the US team swam their hearts out and upset the favored French team as Jason Lezak hit the wall before Bernard. The race was so fast the US set a new world record by over four seconds!
This is the stuff we live for. Watch the video of the week here!
Last night’s coverage provided a great “U-S-A” moment when the French found a size 12 foot in their mouth after the US swim team came back in literally the last 5 meters to snatch the gold in the 400M freestyle relay. Before the race, French anchor-man Alain Bernard was quoted in a French publication as saying: “The Americans? We will smash them. That’s what we came here for.” Oh really? You don’t say? All fired up, the US team swam their hearts out and upset the favored French team as Jason Lezak hit the wall before Bernard. The race was so fast the US set a new world record by over four seconds!
This is the stuff we live for. Watch the video of the week here!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Origins of Modern Sport Pt. 2
The following post is the second part of a three part series examining the origins of modern sport in the United States. If you haven’t read Pt. 1 you can do so here. Enjoy!
The Protestant Church was not the only realm of society that began to buck Victorian modes of life during the latter half of the 19th century. The wealth developed by the Industrial Revolution and the rise to dominance of large corporations had the effect of creating a larger and revitalized upper class. As a result, sport became an arena where the nouveau riche could exercise their wealth in a manner contradictory to the ideals of Victorian America. No longer did the rules of self-restraint and humble solitude apply. The upper class bucked values of frugality once revered by Victorians and indulged in attending sporting events available only to the superrich. As historian Benjamin Rader notes, “Expensive sports promoted their consciousness as an elite social group and varnished them with a vehicle of self-advertisement.”[1] Such indulgences and behavior would have been considered deplorable no more than twenty years earlier. But armed with wealth and political and social connections, the newly ascended upper class refused to abide by what they considered to be an outmoded form of living.[2]
The nouveau riche looked to distinguish themselves from the masses by associating with and following sports only accessible to those with the necessary means. Sports that merely required a simple field and ball were too ruffian for the “parvenu” who started off looking upon sports like baseball and soccer with a particular classist disdain. Instead, the upper class patronized sports like thoroughbred horse racing, golf, tennis, yachting, track and field, and polo. Each of these sports dictated the use of large and lavish grounds, lots of free time, expensive equipment and, oftentimes, travel to far away venues.[3]
One of the more indispensable tools employed by the new upper class was the proliferation of private country clubs. Though the country’s first club, the New York Athletic Club founded in 1866, began with modest ambitions, it slowly morphed into an arena of exclusivity whose doors only opened for the highest in the social strata.[4] Though exercise and athletics were offered at the clubs, they had their greatest value in being leisure spots where the rich and famous could socialize and use the networks to gain access to other, more exclusive clubs. This type of idle leisure and excessive indulgence clashed heavily with Victorian ideals of active work and moderation. But America was becoming increasingly less reliant on production and evermore so on materialism and consumption.[5]
Similar in purpose to the urban athletic clubs were country clubs. Here, especially around Philadelphia, the sport of cricket became quite popular. Not only were the clubs expensive to join, but the time required to play the game restricted membership from the ordinary working class.[6] Though the socializing at clubs stood antithetical to Victorian values, cricket was not a valueless game. While winning or losing hardly mattered, playing with proper etiquette, grace and style were the games fundamental values. As Rader notes, “The country clubs of the rich eased the process by which the wealthy shed lingering Victorian suspicions of play-for-play’s-sake.”[7] In the privacy of country retreats, members could lounge and relax without as great a fear of public exposure. Moreover, the rich began to feel less and less inclined to justify play, and simply started to enjoy it inutility. Men-only clubs also afforded men to socialize amongst themselves in an effort to regain the masculinity lost during the Victorian period. Personal freedom was enjoyed in a guilt-free environment where pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake reigned.
[1][1] Benjamin Rader, American Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports, (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2004) 73.
[2] Mrozek, 127.
[3] Rader, 68.
[4] Ibid, 76.
[5] Torstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1919), 167.
[6] Rader, 80.
[7] Ibid, 81.
The Protestant Church was not the only realm of society that began to buck Victorian modes of life during the latter half of the 19th century. The wealth developed by the Industrial Revolution and the rise to dominance of large corporations had the effect of creating a larger and revitalized upper class. As a result, sport became an arena where the nouveau riche could exercise their wealth in a manner contradictory to the ideals of Victorian America. No longer did the rules of self-restraint and humble solitude apply. The upper class bucked values of frugality once revered by Victorians and indulged in attending sporting events available only to the superrich. As historian Benjamin Rader notes, “Expensive sports promoted their consciousness as an elite social group and varnished them with a vehicle of self-advertisement.”[1] Such indulgences and behavior would have been considered deplorable no more than twenty years earlier. But armed with wealth and political and social connections, the newly ascended upper class refused to abide by what they considered to be an outmoded form of living.[2]
The nouveau riche looked to distinguish themselves from the masses by associating with and following sports only accessible to those with the necessary means. Sports that merely required a simple field and ball were too ruffian for the “parvenu” who started off looking upon sports like baseball and soccer with a particular classist disdain. Instead, the upper class patronized sports like thoroughbred horse racing, golf, tennis, yachting, track and field, and polo. Each of these sports dictated the use of large and lavish grounds, lots of free time, expensive equipment and, oftentimes, travel to far away venues.[3]
One of the more indispensable tools employed by the new upper class was the proliferation of private country clubs. Though the country’s first club, the New York Athletic Club founded in 1866, began with modest ambitions, it slowly morphed into an arena of exclusivity whose doors only opened for the highest in the social strata.[4] Though exercise and athletics were offered at the clubs, they had their greatest value in being leisure spots where the rich and famous could socialize and use the networks to gain access to other, more exclusive clubs. This type of idle leisure and excessive indulgence clashed heavily with Victorian ideals of active work and moderation. But America was becoming increasingly less reliant on production and evermore so on materialism and consumption.[5]
Similar in purpose to the urban athletic clubs were country clubs. Here, especially around Philadelphia, the sport of cricket became quite popular. Not only were the clubs expensive to join, but the time required to play the game restricted membership from the ordinary working class.[6] Though the socializing at clubs stood antithetical to Victorian values, cricket was not a valueless game. While winning or losing hardly mattered, playing with proper etiquette, grace and style were the games fundamental values. As Rader notes, “The country clubs of the rich eased the process by which the wealthy shed lingering Victorian suspicions of play-for-play’s-sake.”[7] In the privacy of country retreats, members could lounge and relax without as great a fear of public exposure. Moreover, the rich began to feel less and less inclined to justify play, and simply started to enjoy it inutility. Men-only clubs also afforded men to socialize amongst themselves in an effort to regain the masculinity lost during the Victorian period. Personal freedom was enjoyed in a guilt-free environment where pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake reigned.
[1][1] Benjamin Rader, American Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports, (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2004) 73.
[2] Mrozek, 127.
[3] Rader, 68.
[4] Ibid, 76.
[5] Torstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1919), 167.
[6] Rader, 80.
[7] Ibid, 81.
Talk About An Incentive
For the second Summer Games in a row, Michael Phelps stands to take home a $1 million dollar prize from Speedo should he tie Mark Spitz’s Olympic record of seven gold medals set back in 1972. It’s a pretty cool incentive package much like those given to NFL players.
This year prize is the same, but the source of the money isn’t. At Athens in 2004, Speedo was able to insure the prize policy such that had Phelps won seven gold medals (he ended up with six) the swimsuit maker only would have had to shell out $300K. But given Phelps’ continued utter dominance Speedo couldn’t find an agency willing to issue a policy!
Said Speedo’s VP of marketing Craig Brommers, “Unfortunately, due to Michael's performance at the Melbourne World Championships and the probability that he might reach that million dollar bonus, Speedo was unable to secure insurance this time around.”
This is awesome. Insurance companies take deals like this all the time. But with Phelps, no insurance company sees a reasonable upside to propping the bonus. As part of the deal, Phelps will wear a different Speedo swimsuit for each race.
My prediction: as long as Phelps shaves that Fu Man Chu before diving in the pool at the Water Cube (sickest stadium ever!), he’ll take seven gold medals. He’s good, but he can’t afford that drag.
This year prize is the same, but the source of the money isn’t. At Athens in 2004, Speedo was able to insure the prize policy such that had Phelps won seven gold medals (he ended up with six) the swimsuit maker only would have had to shell out $300K. But given Phelps’ continued utter dominance Speedo couldn’t find an agency willing to issue a policy!
Said Speedo’s VP of marketing Craig Brommers, “Unfortunately, due to Michael's performance at the Melbourne World Championships and the probability that he might reach that million dollar bonus, Speedo was unable to secure insurance this time around.”
This is awesome. Insurance companies take deals like this all the time. But with Phelps, no insurance company sees a reasonable upside to propping the bonus. As part of the deal, Phelps will wear a different Speedo swimsuit for each race.
My prediction: as long as Phelps shaves that Fu Man Chu before diving in the pool at the Water Cube (sickest stadium ever!), he’ll take seven gold medals. He’s good, but he can’t afford that drag.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A-Rod Looks to Expand His Brand
I recently stumbled upon an article that follows up nicely to my post on the relatively small amount of endorsement money that baseball players bring in. In that post, I brought up the case of Alex Rodriguez and how even though he’s the game’s best player, his $6 million in endorsements pales in comparison to golf’s best player Tiger Woods, who rakes in over $100 per year. It now appears that Rodriguez is stepping up his efforts to attract new and bigger endorsement deals.
About two weeks ago, Rodriguez signed with the William Morris Agency. Scott Boras will still represent Rodriguez in contract negotiations but William Morris will be handling over his marketing and brand management strategies. A-Rod is one of sports’ best-paid athletes ($275 million over 10 years) but his $6 million in endorsements trails far behind other athletes of equal stature (and I’ve read that a more accurate number for A-Rod hovers around $2 million due to Speed Stick, Pepsi, Kraft, and Topps dropping him).
Why is A-Rod doing this? The “Us-Weekly” answer would be to patch up his public image which took a beating during his very public divorce proceedings that included rumors of infidelity involving Madonna. This could be part of the equation but it certainly isn’t all of it. William Morris, who represents a few athletes such as Dwayne Wade and Vince Young, has been around since 1898 and is better known for their talent and literary management. A-Rod’s selection of a firm that has ties in and beyond the sports industry is noteworthy. It shows the growing trend of athletes and the major agencies that are managing them that they see the potential for an athlete’s brand to go beyond sports and into general life. Just look at Tiger Woods: he endorses more non-sports products than sports products.
A-Rod even seems to admit as much:
Lon Rosen, a vice president at William Morris, hinted at the expanding scope and long-term nature of Rodriguez’s future brand. Apparently, Rodriguez has “asked us to look for opportunities with corporations which will last for many, many years,” Rosen said. "He is very focused on his life after baseball.”
For the time being, A-Rod is still a baseball player. Barring injury, he is well on pace to break Barry Bonds’ home-run record. But while A-Rod is keeping a steady eye on the ball, he’s also keeping a watchful eye on his future.
About two weeks ago, Rodriguez signed with the William Morris Agency. Scott Boras will still represent Rodriguez in contract negotiations but William Morris will be handling over his marketing and brand management strategies. A-Rod is one of sports’ best-paid athletes ($275 million over 10 years) but his $6 million in endorsements trails far behind other athletes of equal stature (and I’ve read that a more accurate number for A-Rod hovers around $2 million due to Speed Stick, Pepsi, Kraft, and Topps dropping him).
Why is A-Rod doing this? The “Us-Weekly” answer would be to patch up his public image which took a beating during his very public divorce proceedings that included rumors of infidelity involving Madonna. This could be part of the equation but it certainly isn’t all of it. William Morris, who represents a few athletes such as Dwayne Wade and Vince Young, has been around since 1898 and is better known for their talent and literary management. A-Rod’s selection of a firm that has ties in and beyond the sports industry is noteworthy. It shows the growing trend of athletes and the major agencies that are managing them that they see the potential for an athlete’s brand to go beyond sports and into general life. Just look at Tiger Woods: he endorses more non-sports products than sports products.
A-Rod even seems to admit as much:
Partnering with William Morris will enable me to broaden the scope of my career
in creative and innovative ways. I'm excited to see what we'll be able to
accomplish together, both domestically and abroad.
Lon Rosen, a vice president at William Morris, hinted at the expanding scope and long-term nature of Rodriguez’s future brand. Apparently, Rodriguez has “asked us to look for opportunities with corporations which will last for many, many years,” Rosen said. "He is very focused on his life after baseball.”
For the time being, A-Rod is still a baseball player. Barring injury, he is well on pace to break Barry Bonds’ home-run record. But while A-Rod is keeping a steady eye on the ball, he’s also keeping a watchful eye on his future.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Origins of Modern Sport Pt. 1
The following will be the first in a series of posts (approximately 4) outlining and examining the origins of modern sport in the United States. The series is taken from a longer article that I wrote, which is why it has been broken up into parts.
In 1842, Christopher Lilly and Thomas McCoy punched, pummeled and pulverized one another for over 150 minutes before the bell rang. Had McCoy not fallen over dead, drowning in his own blood, the bell would not have rung and the two most certainly would have continued fighting. The prevailing Victorian mindset that held the nation would have been horrified at such an event. Championing values of self-restraint and pious hard work, Victorian ideology was particularly antithetical to sports. Though Victorian folk aspired to have these values take root in America, other forces countered them.
As the country stood poised to enter a new millennia and profit from the new wealth created by the Industrial Revolution, many Americans saw their fellow man as ill-equipped for the years to come. Many felt that Americans, particularly men, had become sissified and had lost their “manliness.” An especially strong outcry came from various denominations of the American Protestant Church who began preaching a strain of religiosity called “muscular Christianity” around the late 1800’s. The movement was due to a reaction against the churches in the antebellum and Victorian periods that fostered poor health as they viewed exercise as an immoral waste of time. Muscular Christians felt that their church was becoming overly tolerant of effeminacy and physical weakness, especially in light of a growing disproportion of female to male members[1]. Alleged one “muscular Christian,” even the church clergy looked sickly to the point of ineffectiveness:
Many leaders in American society around the turn of the century adopted the “muscular” ecumenicalism as a means to thwart the enfeebling effects of urban and post-industrial life. Among such converts were the likes of Josiah Strong, G. Stanley Hall and even President Teddy Roosevelt. Each believed that a strenuous religion would prepare men to succeed in the “strenuous life” that was the early 20th century.[3] To be sure, of all the organizations looking to bridge religion with physical activity and ensure preparation for the “strenuous life,” the YMCA had the greatest influence.
The first YMCA to spring up in America was in Boston in 1851. Soon after, other cities followed suit, and by 1860 there were more than 250 YMCAs.[4] Consistent with the ideals of the “strenuous life,” the YMCA espoused and looked to instill values of vigorous action, physical hardness and the rejection of many genteel controls. These values stood diametrically opposed to those of the Victorian age. Central to the YMCAs goals was physical exercise. The idea behind this goal was that strengthening the body physically would enhance its capacity for spiritual and moral good. As the YMCA made gains in popularity, it expanded its services from improvised affairs to organized gyms with exercise machines and other sports equipment.[5]
The YMCA even invented two sports: volleyball and basketball. Basketball, developed in 1891 by the Reverend James Naismith, was an indoor substitute for football. Volleyball, in turn, was a substitute for basketball, which was more physical and harder to play than volleyball.[6] The sports stressed teamwork, hard physical exertion, determination, sacrifice, and sociability; all things associated with “muscular Christianity” and not Victorian America.
As Clifford Putney astutely stresses; “Freeing the body from the prejudices of the past was a significant accomplishment for the YMCA, which had worked since the late 1860s to break down the barrier between religion and sport.”[7] Indeed, the reform movement in American Protestant churches succeeded in making religion compatible with sport, as well as the larger accomplishment of revitalizing many Americans to engage the “strenuous life” that would have engulfed them had the prevailing Victorian ideals persisted.
[1] Donald Mrozek, Sport and American Mentality, 1880-1910, (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1983), 39.
[2] Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 54.
[3] Ibid, 57.
[4] Ibid, 65.
[5] Ibid, 67.
[6] Chris Armstrong, “College Sports: Prodigal Son of Muscular Christianity,” Christian History and Biography, http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/aug15/html, posted August 15 2003, (Accessed February 22 2008).
[7] Putney, 72.
In 1842, Christopher Lilly and Thomas McCoy punched, pummeled and pulverized one another for over 150 minutes before the bell rang. Had McCoy not fallen over dead, drowning in his own blood, the bell would not have rung and the two most certainly would have continued fighting. The prevailing Victorian mindset that held the nation would have been horrified at such an event. Championing values of self-restraint and pious hard work, Victorian ideology was particularly antithetical to sports. Though Victorian folk aspired to have these values take root in America, other forces countered them.
As the country stood poised to enter a new millennia and profit from the new wealth created by the Industrial Revolution, many Americans saw their fellow man as ill-equipped for the years to come. Many felt that Americans, particularly men, had become sissified and had lost their “manliness.” An especially strong outcry came from various denominations of the American Protestant Church who began preaching a strain of religiosity called “muscular Christianity” around the late 1800’s. The movement was due to a reaction against the churches in the antebellum and Victorian periods that fostered poor health as they viewed exercise as an immoral waste of time. Muscular Christians felt that their church was becoming overly tolerant of effeminacy and physical weakness, especially in light of a growing disproportion of female to male members[1]. Alleged one “muscular Christian,” even the church clergy looked sickly to the point of ineffectiveness:
He [the pastor] is in this condition through neglect of exercise, improperThe reaction to the apparent demise of manliness in the church sparked a movement that began to acknowledge and even encourage physical activity as a means to character-building and re-invigorating the church.
eating, etc. The saints must have stronger and more enduring bodies than they
have to bear the burdens and heat of the day that soul-winning and earning their
daily bread and butter cast upon their shoulders.[2]
Many leaders in American society around the turn of the century adopted the “muscular” ecumenicalism as a means to thwart the enfeebling effects of urban and post-industrial life. Among such converts were the likes of Josiah Strong, G. Stanley Hall and even President Teddy Roosevelt. Each believed that a strenuous religion would prepare men to succeed in the “strenuous life” that was the early 20th century.[3] To be sure, of all the organizations looking to bridge religion with physical activity and ensure preparation for the “strenuous life,” the YMCA had the greatest influence.
The first YMCA to spring up in America was in Boston in 1851. Soon after, other cities followed suit, and by 1860 there were more than 250 YMCAs.[4] Consistent with the ideals of the “strenuous life,” the YMCA espoused and looked to instill values of vigorous action, physical hardness and the rejection of many genteel controls. These values stood diametrically opposed to those of the Victorian age. Central to the YMCAs goals was physical exercise. The idea behind this goal was that strengthening the body physically would enhance its capacity for spiritual and moral good. As the YMCA made gains in popularity, it expanded its services from improvised affairs to organized gyms with exercise machines and other sports equipment.[5]
The YMCA even invented two sports: volleyball and basketball. Basketball, developed in 1891 by the Reverend James Naismith, was an indoor substitute for football. Volleyball, in turn, was a substitute for basketball, which was more physical and harder to play than volleyball.[6] The sports stressed teamwork, hard physical exertion, determination, sacrifice, and sociability; all things associated with “muscular Christianity” and not Victorian America.
As Clifford Putney astutely stresses; “Freeing the body from the prejudices of the past was a significant accomplishment for the YMCA, which had worked since the late 1860s to break down the barrier between religion and sport.”[7] Indeed, the reform movement in American Protestant churches succeeded in making religion compatible with sport, as well as the larger accomplishment of revitalizing many Americans to engage the “strenuous life” that would have engulfed them had the prevailing Victorian ideals persisted.
[1] Donald Mrozek, Sport and American Mentality, 1880-1910, (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1983), 39.
[2] Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 54.
[3] Ibid, 57.
[4] Ibid, 65.
[5] Ibid, 67.
[6] Chris Armstrong, “College Sports: Prodigal Son of Muscular Christianity,” Christian History and Biography, http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/aug15/html, posted August 15 2003, (Accessed February 22 2008).
[7] Putney, 72.
Video of the Week: No. 4 Pencils are Ridiculous!
This week’s video installment does not depict actual athletic prowess. But it is hilarious, and it showcases the world’s greatest athlete and perhaps one of its best comedians. Everything Will Ferrell touches is comedic genius, including his acceptance of Tiger Woods' ESPY. Ferrell is an inspiration. He taught us how to chug as Frank The Tank, set the bar for journalistic objectivity as Ron Burgundy, and shows us how to treat ones' sponsors here as Tiger Woods. The video also serves as a fun and humorous segue to a multi-post series on Tiger Woods which I will begin posting later in the week.
So until the Tiger Woods series launches, enjoy the Video of the Week here!
---
Here’s another great clip of Will Ferrell on golf. Truly great stuff.
So until the Tiger Woods series launches, enjoy the Video of the Week here!
---
Here’s another great clip of Will Ferrell on golf. Truly great stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
