An Opposition to 'Combat'

A couple of posts ago, I paid some attention to Nike's Pro Combat Uniforms, noting the overwhelming militaristic sense of the name "Combat" especially in regards to the truck on Virginia Tech's campus reading: "Prepare for Combat."

Now, it seems that I've overlooked Nike's plan to implement "Combat" uniforms in other sports.  In this case, the notable example is with regards to basketball...specifically, Lebron James.

Over the past few years in the city of Cleveland, Nike has used ten stories of an office building near Quicken Loans Arena to display Lebron James murals/advertising.  The most recent of these billboards features "Jesus" Lebron, arms spread wide with the tag line "We Are All Witnesses."

Just this week, Nike proposed a new advertisement for the space.  As part of the "Combat" line of apparel, the new mural echoes the VT truck and implores us to "Prepare for Combat."

Yet the proposed billboard was rejected by the Cleveland Planning Commission because they believe the new billboard represents pure advertising while the current billboard is civic art.  According to a Cleveland Plain Dealer article, CPC leaders not only thought Nike was "going over the line to market a Nike product," but were also dismayed by "the lack of a 'Cleveland' or 'Cavaliers' presence on the mural."

More importantly, however, commission Chairman Tony Coyne "said he felt the 'combat' reference is also inappropriate, at a time when U.S. soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq."

It is interesting to see Nike's militarism recognized and rejected in Cleveland, but accepted and celebrated in Blacksburg, VA (and other college campuses around the nation).  The truck seems so much more overt, and yet VT officials and students seemed to accept it so readily.  Does this have more to do with the nature of the relationship between Nike and its affiliated universities?  Can the truck be called 'civic art' in any way?  I'm not sure, but I do see it as encouraging that Cleveland commissioners took a stand, for Cleveland and for the nature and idea of sport: a game and just a game.

Going Once, Going Twice..., Or, the Hauntings of Eric Wynalda...

From the especially recession-stricken state of Michigan this week, an interesting development in former-stadia news.  The Pontiac Silverdome, namesake of the Detroit-area suburb, was auctioned off this week to a Toronto-based investment group for $583,000.  This is good news because selling the Silverdome will save the city nearly $1.5 million per year in upkeep.

The problem?  The facility, which opened in 1975 and cost taxpayers $55.7 million to build, was estimated (by local realty experts) to sell for double or nearly triple the paltry amount of $583,000 that won the city of Pontiac's auction.  This, one year after a $20 million contract for the facility fell through.  A steal of a deal?  Yes.  A sign of the times in Detroit?  Sadly, yes.


The same arena that served as the venue for Barry Sanders' magical football prowess was more memorable to me, as a soccer fan, for hosting several games during the 1994 World Cup.  A crowd of over 73,000 was there to witness the first indoor World Cup game ever, a match between Switzerland and the United States (it was the US' first World Cup game on home soil).  Don't you remember the real grass they had to, literally, wheel in?

That game ended in a 1-1 draw, with a notable Eric Wynalda free kick in the 45th minute that tied the contest and gave the U.S. their first points in a World Cup since 1950.  Just listen to the crowd reaction...and, as a bonus, look for the god-awful jerseys the U.S. are wearing.

Now, rumors are swirling that the Toronto-based investment group plan to refurbish the Silverdome and use it to lure an expansion Major League Soccer franchise to the city.  That kind of activity would be a welcome change from the dormancy that has plagued the building since the Lions moved to downtown Detroit's Ford Field to start the 2002 NFL season (the city was so desperate that it tried - and failed - to use the Silverdome parking lots for a drive-in movie theater).

But, if those plans don't come through (MLS is not currently entertaining expansion in Detroit), there will be questions surrounding what can be done with such an historic building.  Unfortunately, nostalgia doesn't pay Pontiac's bills, but I can't help but feel sad to see historic stadia destroyed, nay, wiped from existence on this planet.  Yet, without a use for these former stadia - like Detroit's Tiger Stadium or Baltimore's Memorial Stadium - and given the current economic climate (no funds for redevelopment), demolitions are imminent. 

Baltimore's Memorial Stadium Then

Baltimore's Memorial Stadium Now

The biggest question, I think, is if these are historic structures - why aren't we keeping them around?  Certainly, historical societies, religions, and local and national governments have done the work to maintain certain historical sites...why is sport different?  Wouldn't the aura or presence one feels walking the halls of Monticello, perusing the cannons at Fort McHenry, or hoisting the sails of the USS Constellation the same that one feels when entering the Silverdome?  And if so, isn't that worth preserving?


I can only be thankful that the Silverdome hasn't been razed...yet.  There is something inside that building that beckons.  Barry Sanders and Eric Wynalda await.

The Sexiness of the Nike Swoosh...

I have to carry this idea of sexiness over from my earlier post.  Instead, however, of discussing the issue of sex and female basketball players, something else from the photos on the FSU website caught my attention: namely, the prodigious placement of the Nike Swoosh.

In each shot, the basketball is an equal subject to the body.  And, even though these basketballs also feature the FSU logo, it is the Nike Swoosh that is given prominence.  Just another example of Nike's careful image management...which, also happens to marginalize the school in favor of the corporation.

So, is this for us, the ticket-buying populace, or for future student-athletes, this affirmation of FSU's connection to Nike?  That affirmation has made its presence known on FSU football, with the recent launch of the FSU Pro Combat jersey...

With nearly a dozen Nike Swoosh logos on the uniform above, and with the logo invading every part of student-athlete promotion, will we ever reach Nike overkill?  Or is it simply an accepted part of collegiate sport?  Is it inevitable?  It seems so, because...well...in the words of Horatio Sanz, "it's just too sexy!"

Too Sexy?

There was a fabulous Saturday Night Live skit from a few years back where Chris Kattan would play Antonio Banderas on a show entitled "The How Do You Say, Ah Yes Show."  At various moments throughout the 'show,' the bandleader, played by Horatio Sanz, would exhort Antonio to keep his shirt buttoned and scream, "No, no, it would be too sexy!"

This rambling brings me to a debate about women's college basketball and the issue of sexiness.  Jayda Evans of The Seattle Times asserted in a recent blog post that the Florida State University's women's basketball website (link here):

"...has blatantly...sexualized basketball.  Sure it may draw recruits...but what are they selling?  You do get a sense of the players as people on the site, yet there's not much basketball going on.  And if anything is placed before 'athlete' isn't it supposed to be 'student' not sex?"

Pretty clear, but not the first time that sport - even women's college sport - has used sex to sell tickets...and let's face it - that's what the goal is here.

For Evans, however, these sexualized images are problematic because they may "continue a different, damaging constant in women's hoops - homophobia."  Apparently, the drive to show women athletes as powerful beautiful, and strong, is a veiled attempt to only portray them as heterosexual.  Evans even cites the WNBA as guilty of this trend, holding sessions at rookie orientation about how to wear makeup and offering other fashion tips.

There's an interesting counter to this argument over at Women Talk Pro Sports, in a blog posting from Chantelle Anderson, a former college and pro basketball player.  I think it's obvious to link sports and sex and, while Anderson has her points, I wonder about the issue of implied hetero-normativity in these posters and websites.  (Is there a sport out there that avoids this implication?  The recent rollergirls trend, perhaps?  And no, I'm not talking about Drew Barrymore...)

In either case, underscoring this debate is the notion that a league or a team believes that producing these kinds of "sexy" images is the best way to sell tickets.  And that is an issue that won't go away - especially this year, when officials at Wimbledon pushed more attractive, but lower-ranked (lesser-skilled) players to Centre Court...and the Lingerie Football League was established.  Where is Horatio Sanz when you need him?

Veterans Day...

There is a great post over at The Agon that addresses, appropriately, the many connections between war, politics, and sport.  I responded to Dr. Butterworth over there, but I wanted to bring my thoughts back here as well.

Considering that our culture has acquiesced to militarism, the idea is only strengthened by the desensitization furthered by the numerous commercial interests that subtly (and not so subtly) equate sport with war.

Notably - Nike, Under Armour - blend, all too easily, sport and war. As I mentioned yesterday, within the past few weeks, Nike has created the "Pro Combat" uniform for a number of its college football-affiliated schools.

Yesterday, I mentioned that Virginia Tech happens to be one of Nike's "Pro Combat" schools and, as a part of the product rollout/promotion, Nike dropped off a rather militaristic-looking truck into one of the University's main quads.

The imposing vehicle bears the words, "Prepare for Combat."  (Against who?)

It is not only surprising considering our current wars abroad, but especially considering the hauntings of the tragedy that befell VT just a few years ago. But, it's their campus, I suppose.  Is this a case of the administration simply bowing to Nike?  Or, are students on-board with this...and perhaps their interpretations have put those events behind them?

Nike Pro Combat Uniforms and Publicity...

In the latest uniform publicity stunt from Nike, the corporate behemoth has released special outfits for college teams to wear in rivalry games later this month.  I say outfits because each school has been given special jerseys, pants, belts, helmets, undershirts, underwear, socks, and shoes. The Nike web site with profiles of the uniforms is here.  The teams involved are:

• Texas Christian University 
• Florida State University
• University of Miami
• University of Texas
• Ohio State University
• University of Missouri
• University of Florida
• Virginia Tech University
• Louisiana State University
• University of Oklahoma

These ridiculous costumes, hailed by Nike as "the lightest ever," feature such game-changing elements as a lighter belt buckle and "engineered high-tenacity yarn."  Further jargon can be found in Nike's press release for the FSU uniforms, available here.

While various bloggers and press outlets that have unabashedly...um, bashed the new "system of dress," I think there are some issues that have yet to be covered.  Initially, however, there are the traditional economic elements to deal with.

First, consider the pool of Nike-affiliated universities that comprise the group of ten receiving these new uniforms.  I would like to say that this is a case in which the tail, Nike, is wagging the dog...as there are no less than 11 Nike logos on FSU's outfit...but the fact of the matter is that to use that analogy would be to misrepresent the tail and the dog.  If there's nothing Andrew Zimbalist has taught us, then it's that the analogy above needs to be reversed.  Nike is the behemoth calling the shots, and all they are really paying to the universities is lip service, "Nike also worked with coaches and administrators at Florida State to bring inspiration..."

Again, this development should come as no surprise.  In fact, it should come as no surprise that these jerseys are ostentatious - or downright ugly - at least they are guaranteed to drum up press - bad, good, or otherwise.  What is somewhat surprising, and something that few have talked about yet, is that Florida State University is even on this list...hasn't the football team fallen so far that it seems out of place on a list with winners of seven out of the last eight BCS Championship games?

Florida State's decreasing relevance aside, at Virginia Tech there is a reason to celebrate these jerseys.  And no, I'm not talking about their all-white kits or the lame Nike slogan (each team has received one...and LSU's is in French) attached: "Good Guys Wear White."  And no, I'm not talking about how that sentiment doesn't seem to jive with a military-style truck that Nike delivered to the Blacksburg campus:

(Shouldn't it be white?)

And I'm even going to withhold exploring the problematic confounding of the idea of combat/violence/war with college football.  These student-athletes are playing a game - a game that has nothing to do with war or combat (I might think Nike would be more sensitive to this idea, given our current state in Afghanistan or even Ft. Hood...).

What I would like to talk about is, unlike Florida State or TCU or many (I suppose) of the other schools on Nike's list, Virginia Tech is using this opportunity for uniform publicity to auction off - for charity - the game worn jerseys after their November 14th meeting with the Maryland Terrapins.  The charity, as noted in this VT press release, is Herma's Readers, a charity that encourages reading and literacy among children between the ages of four and nine.

So, with all of the baggage that these new uniforms bring - and ironically, remember, they are Nike's lightest ever - at least one school is taking the opportunity to do something good for society...which is more than Florida State can say.  And that's sad.  Because when your football program is so bad you can't even sell out a homecoming game, you could really use some good publicity.

Truly, an Empty Stadium...

In Phoenix last night, a mere 5,855 tickets were sold to an NHL hockey game between the Los Angeles Kings and the Phoenix Coyotes.  FYI - the home of the Coyotes, Jobing.com Arena, holds 17,799 (that's a 33% capacity).  Ironically, earlier in the day the Coyotes were relieved from their bankruptcy, so Coyotes fans would have had something to celebrate - one might think.

I've embedded the highlights here - the Kings won an entertaining game 5-3.  But you can hear the echoes resonate throughout the empty arena.  Note the goal horn masking much of the quieted noise.



Please compare that with the audio from the game this past Saturday between the Toronto Maple Leafs and  Montreal Canadiens (below).  Then tell me that Canada doesn't deserve another (or maybe a handful) hockey team.

How American Are You, Mebrahtom Keflezighi?

This has been hashed over at the New York Times (great article here) and Deadspin, but I can't hesitate to throw something together on here.

This past Sunday, an American runner by the name of Mebrahtom Keflezighi won the New York City Marathon.  He became the first American to win the race since Alberto Salazar in 1982.  Many, however, including CNBC and SportsBiz reporter Darren Rovell, called it an empty win for the good ol' U.S.A.  In post from Monday, Rovell noted that Meb is not actually American-born and that "takes away from the magnitude of the achievement."

This is because Meb was born in Eritrea and is, by Rovell's standards, only an "American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.  Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league."

This rush to judgment became a serious cause for concern when, on Tuesday, Rovell was forced to backtrack on his words.  In his post, Rovell accepts that "Meb didn't deserve [the ringer] comparison and I apologize for that."

Considering that virtually all of Meb's running training came as an American citizen, the entire episode - chronicled thoroughly by the New York Times article linked above - raises some interesting questions...especially considering the overwhelming negativity of the comments left by some in some online news articles.

These questions range:

• What makes someone American-enough?
• What does Meb's race and birth have to do with his acceptance as an elite athlete?
• Why does society assume that Africans are naturally dominant long-distance runners?

Sadly, it seems that some of the same questions that have haunted President Obama can be applied to Meb, with the undertone of racism coming to the fore.  All of that talk about the post-racial age we thought we entered in November 2008, seems to be just talk.  For while it would be nice to imagine that we live in a different age, the reality is that events such as these continue to occur.  Lest we forget the Birther Movement or the reverse-racism claims against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  Ultimately, it seems that these events allow for racism unspoken to manifest itself in troubling ways.

Ovechkin's Celebrations...

"What I try to do is teach kids the Canadian way."  These are the words of Canadian broadcaster Don Cherry - one of the country's most beloved and recognizable figures - in reference to the celebratory tactics of players in the National Hockey League.  Disgusted with the goal celebrations of Russian-born NHL superstar Alexander Ovechkin, Cherry launches into a segment that is alarmingly xenophobic by juxtaposing Ovechkin with a number of foreign, dark-skinned soccer players swinging their jerseys over their heads, posing for the camera, and, as Cherry proclaims, acting like "goofs."  As a result, Ovechkin is seamlessly coded as "other," framed with the "goofs" that Cherry admonishes for their overly-enthusiastic goal celebrations.  Then, just as seamlessly, Cherry recites a list of Canadian players who celebrate appropriately in what could only be termed "the Canadian way."

While Cherry was ripped for racial insensitivity in the media after his appearance, his bias towards European hockey players has long been documented, frequently referring to foreign players as being soft or (in some cases) "everything that's wrong with the NHL."  Therefore, his criticisms of Ovechkin are not surprising - nor is his threat of imminent physical harm upon the Russian.

However, the debate over goal celebrations and "the Canadian way" underscores a discourse in sport that questions the prioritization of individualism.  In other words, is Cherry just an "old-schooler" who can't handle a new sportsmanship aesthetic (Cunningham, 2008) that embraces individualism?  Is he the victim of nostalgia?  Or is there supposed to be something uniquely dispassionate about Canadians?

Sports leagues deal with the issue of individualism in different ways.  While soccer's governing bodies are tolerant of exuberant behavior, the NFL fines its players for elaborate touchdown celebrations (the NHL, MLB, and NBA lack standardized celebration penalties).  Therefore, is it simply an outdated notion that drives the punishment of Chad Ochocinco or Terrell Owens for harmless celebrations like proposing to cheerleaders or shaking pompoms after they score?  Because, even if you believe Ovechkin is acting like a "goof,"  he is also primarily responsible not just for revitalizing hockey for the Capitals in Washington, D.C. (attendance figures and TV ratings are the highest ever for the franchise), but throughout the entire league as the excitement and passion he brings to the game resonates with fans and often places him on sports' front page or as SportsCenter's lead-in (an extreme rarity for the NHL in recent years).

Responding to Cherry's comments on the CBC broadcast, Ovechkin said, "Old people don't like [it] when people show energy and emotions. So they are like robots."  While Cherry may take pride in instilling a robotic disposition to Canadian athletes, the NHL needs the entertainment value that a dynamic Ovechkin brings to the game.  Ironic, it seems, that some 30 years after the "Miracle on Ice," that a Russian would be chided for showing too much emotion - essentially - for being human. But as long as Ovechkin's celebrations refrain from being derisive, what's the harm in having fun?