Sports & Openly Gay Athletes

Posted on by

1

Let’s talk about Jason Collins, shall we?

For the record, I am not here to advocate or oppose homosexuality (although, if you’re asking, I say love/date/etc whomever you want – if you want the gray hair and wrinkles that come with a relationship, who am I to stop you? :) ).  I simply want to talk about homosexuality in sport.

Don’t worry, I am prepared for people to yell at me about this.  Please, let me know how I do addressing a sensitive topic.

Everyone is saying Jason Collin is the first openly gay athlete in American professional sports which is a big deal because being gay in America is a big deal (apparently…). If you’re new to this, check out a story here.

I want to be clear that he’s not the first openly gay athlete.  There are several gay female athletes (although no one seems to care about them – I won’t get into my feminist rant right now, though) and word on the street is that baseballer Glenn Burke, of the LA Dodgers, was out to his teammates when he played in the 70s. I’m not sure if you can count that since no one, especially the media, didn’t know and therefore wasn’t really ‘openly’ gay…

The reason that this is a”big deal” is because of the perception of gay people (I’m not saying it’s right – I’m saying that’s what the perception is).  Gay women are seen as more masculine, so when a female athlete is gay, people think, “Oh, well, that makes sense,” because she is already doing something ‘masculine’: playing sport.  The flip side of this is that gay men are seen as more feminine and since athlete’s are supposed to be hyper-masculine, being gay is contradictory to their image.  Unfair, isn’t it?

That’s why people thought it would be a long time before there was an openly gay athlete in the big three leagues (because, really? Who watches soccer?).  But then along came Jason Collins and BANG. Ideas shattered.

I have a few thoughts on this…

I was very proud of the NBA, and David Stern (I love/want to be him), in the way they handled this.  For that matter, I’m proud of the US in general.  In a recent Twitter chat (#sbchat, on Mondays for those of us in Aus – check it out) we discussed whether the US was “ready” for an openly gay athlete.  Now, it’s pretty obvious they are.  When the news broke, at first I thought, “Okay. He’s gay. How funny that we were just talking about that on #sbchat…”  But then I thought, “WAIT. What are people going to say?”  It’s not that I wanted them to say anything, I just assumed they would.  But they didn’t.  Everyone was… nice.  And I don’t think I’ve ever been so proud to be a sports fan.

However, I have to wonder if it would have been different with a bigger name. Yes, people know Jason Collins and I don’t mean to discount his courage but would the reaction had been different if it would have been a Jeter, a Manning, or a Howard (no, I am not implying that any of them are gay, I am just saying that they’re big names)?  I wonder if people would have been more or less accepting.  It’s “easy” to accept someone who hasn’t been in the spotlight that much, but it will be interesting to see how people handle it when it’s someone iconic.

For instance, the other day I was writing a post about women who should be WAGs and trying to pair them up with AFL players I thought might be good for them (hypothetically, of course).  I realised that Buddy Franklin (for the Americans who read my blog – HI MOM! – Buddy is one of the best players in the AFL… although he’s killing my dream team right now, so I might debate that point).  He’s iconic.  When I Googled whether he had a girlfriend, a thread came up that discussed that he was gay.  I cannot tell you how many comments I read that were ADAMANT that he was not.  People could not even fathom the notion that their Buddy could be gay (there were also comments of support an indifference, but the anti-gay comments were prevalent and the most passionate).  Alas, no one knows if he is and frankly (ha ha, name joke!) it’s none of our business.  But I was surprised at how many people seemed downright angry at the assertion that he was gay.

But back to business, I am excited to see how this all plays out.  Collins and the NBA have a unique opportunity here to support gay rights and be role models for other gay athletes (or even gay youth – they need some love).  While I can’t stand insincere displays for publicity, I would love to see some action on the part of Collins and the NBA.

That’s all… how did I do?

My Review Of Essendon’s Review

Posted on by

3

I will start with a noise:  UGHHHHHHHHHHH.

I know I am late on this but, like I mentioned, I had finals so here it (finally) is.

Firstly, I almost started reading when I read this: a number of individuals key to a full analysis of this period, have been unavailable for interview.  Now, I am going to assume they meant Stephen Dank, but who knows?  There could have been many, many more people unavailable.

Secondly, I have talked about this topic before and you all know my opinion on the situation.  I think everyone is to blame: players, coaches, medical staff, presidents and GMs.  I can’t imagine that no one had an issue with injections and if no one did… then the AFL needs to talk to someone about that because that is pure stupidity.  Also, one of the things dominate in the review is the lack of documentation.  Let me tell you something: I HATE WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT DOCUMENT THINGS. One of my favourite jobs was at a medical supplies company and they documented EVERYTHING. While it was a pain to enter information into four. separate. programs… I could always find information later because it had been documented. That’s the point – to be able to trace ANYTHING. And if I had to do it even to sell some paper to a hospital, why shouldn’t they have to do it for ADMINISTERING DRUGS? (I love my caps lock button – can you tell?)

So here’s my thoughts. Here we go. (Oh, here’s the review)

They wrote: “… rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalization of traditional medical staff etc combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review.”

I think: All of this is sketchy, to say the least. I am honestly shocked that no one spoke up. As much as I love (and I really do love) Jobe Watson, how idiodic can your player be that they participated in something like this?  And for the record, that “players have to do what coaches and staff tell they to do” argument is so stupid.  Are they not grown men? Can they not think for themselves?  Everyone feels as though they can question the government and other countries’ motives but not the man with the needle in an off-site facility who can’t adequately explain what he’s injecting? Yea, sure. Sounds legit.

They wrote: “Football clubs are changing and growing… The EFC employs 75 people full time across all its functions and another 35 in part time roles. Annual revenues, and costs, surpass $50 million, and some clubs are considerably bigger.”

I think: OF COURSE football clubs are changing and growing. That’s supposed to be a good thing.  And yes, there are lots of clubs that are considerably bigger. And yet… those clubs can managed their people.

They wrote: “Significant staff changes in a period of transition and growth led to risk…  In the period under review, a number of management processes broke down, failed or were short- circuited.
Problems occurred in:
• Selection and Recruitment processes
• Induction processes
• Management of contractors
• Hierarchy and decision making in the Football Department
• Administration”

I think: Having a sound structure is what keeps businesses from, well, this situation. Sure, it’s unfortunate that things broke down, but where was the boss in all of this?  How is it possible that the CEO had no idea that his football department (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is sort of essential to the existence of a FOOTBALL CLUB) was basically falling apart?  Turnover is normal and so is transition so when it happens in a club, it shouldn’t be a big deal.  So how is it responsible for a doctor administering illegal substances?

They wrote: “In particular, there was a lack of clarity about who was in charge of the Football Department. There were two separate roles, with fuzzy lines of responsibility. The responsibilities of two key staff overlapped, and the new fitness team was able to largely ignore their attempts at direct management. Added to this is a senior coach in his first coaching role.”

I think: Okay, so you had two people who overlapped in role and neither of them thought to sort out the medical staff? Those people probably shouldn’t be working for you… Neither should a fitness team that ignores managements. Now, James Hird.  He is easily one of my favourite coaches and one I respect very much (seriously, I can’t enough nice things).  But he should have been paying attention. And there should have been someone there to tell him he needed to.

They wrote: “The following key issues led to a breakdown in oversight:
i) An assumption was made by the Senior Coach that his instructions would be followed to the letter. In early 2012, there appears to have been no structured follow up, monitoring or recording of compliance with the wishes of the coach.”

I think: You know what they say about assuming?  Well. Case in point.

They wrote: “Institutions are often judged by how well they respond to crises. Post February 2013, the EFC response seems textbook correct. But the best organizations are judged by how well they anticipate and prevent crises. Risk assessment and mitigation, while already part of the core board agenda, should be re examined.”

I think: Yes, good for Essendon. They actually did a great job with the crisis.  The players, coaches and everyone (Stephen Dank excepted) did very well with this situation.

My final thoughts: I have no idea what the AFL will do, but here’s what I think they should do. Fine ‘em. I think a few million (maybe ten or fifteen?) dollars sounds about right. You can’t blame just one person.  As the report says, there were breakdowns everywhere and I agree.  But you also can’t punish everyone, particularly the players that didn’t take part. Essendon didn’t win the premiership anyway, so what’s the difference, really? and for the love of all things… GET THEE AN ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEM.

And finally, at the risk of making this entire article stupid, I am going address the key people (Ian Robson, James Hird, and Andrew Demetriou) by quoting the greatest fictional man I know, Harvey Specter. In an episode of Suits (start watching, now – season 3 starts in July) Harvey has to bust a company for insider trading.  It turns out the be the vice-president and the owner/president of the company says he swears he didn’t know.  Harvey tells him a story, “When I was 13 years old, my little brother was getting bullied by a kid in the neighbourhood.  One day I confronted the kid’s father. He told me he didn’t know anything about it. You know what his problem was? It was his god**** job to know.“

Why You Can’t Pay Players Based On Performance

Posted on by

0

Yesterday, boyfriend and I got into a heated (heated is an understatement – I almost drove away and left him at the park) discussion.

You see, he seems to think that you should pay players based on performance. He was talking about Melbourne and the hot mess that makes up their club (I mean honestly – losing to the Gold Coast by 60 points AT THE MCG? You have got to be kidding).   I will write a post about what I think Melbourne needs to do to get back on track (spoiler alert: A LOT) but in the meantime, I am going to address boyfriend’s concern.  Because if he thinks this is a possibility, he can’t be the only one.

Now, I’m not saying it’s not a good idea. I’m saying it is too difficult to implement.  There are too many issues… as you will see (and honestly, I shortened this post because I care about your eyes).

NOTE: It wasn’t until after I wrote this post that I realised I wrote it about AFL.  But if you take out the stuff about the CBA, it’s applicable about to any sport.

It won’t change things anyway
Studies show that performance based pay makes no difference when employees are committed to the company.  Therefore, you can already say that it won’t work, because we know that players are dedicated to their club.  “But Kayla!” you say, “what about players who aren’t dedicated to their club?”  Well, anonymous reader, that’s a great point.  You show me a professional athlete who doesn’t want to win games and a Grand Final… and I’ll show you a player who shouldn’t be a professional anyway. Don’t worry about those idiots – drop ‘em.  There are 1,000 more ready to take his place.

It’s (almost) not quantifiable
People get payed based on performance all the time, right? That’s what sales is – there are entire industries built like this.  In those instances, however, it’s easy to see who is performing best.  You typically get a percentage of your sales/billables as a bonus, or everyone at each level gets the same amount (i.e., seniors get $x, juniors get $y, and so on and so forth).  Obviously, the latter is not what we’re talking about here.  The problem is: how do you quantify contribution? It may be easy for one game.  Let’s say you have Ryan Crowley tagging Gary Ablett (sound familiar?) and because of him, Ablett only gets three touches (this was the example my boyfriend gave).  Okay, sure, he had an impact on the game.  But let’s say in that same game, Fremantle wins by ten goals and Nathan Fyfe scored six.  Who was more valuable to the team?  Who do you pay more?  And if you pay them both the same because of their contribution, then what about the rest of the team?

Not only is it hard to quantify it each game, but how do you quantify it over an entire season?  If someone dominates at the start of the season, but gets injured and can’t play in the last  games, are they less valuable?  Or what if you have a player that dominates when it doesn’t matter (like Tom Lynch scoring 10 goals against GWS yesterday) but crumbles under the pressure of playing a top-of-the-ladder team?  Are they effective… or not?

Of course, you can always take the Dream Team approach and play them per goal, or per touch, but as we all know… that doesn’t tell you how valuable a person is to a team and those taggers who dominate their opponent?  Well, don’t expect them to be noticed or paid more.

Boyfriend says you can just have the coach decide.  But then, how much room does that leave for favouritism?  LOTS.

There’s already a bonus in place for this
Clubs are allowed to award bonuses to players who are in the top ten best and fairest of the club.  This is not part of the salary cap (at least, I don’t think it is).  The best players – taggers, scorers, defenders… – will likely find themselves in the top ten, anyway.  What’s the point of doing it twice?

They may not reach TPP
The CBA says that clubs must spend at least 92.5% of the salary cap on salaries.  If you plan on usig bonuses as part of salaries, there is no way that you can start the season having spent that much.  You’d have to spend more like… 50% (at the most).  But what if you go through the season and everyone does terribly? You’ll probably have money left over which means that you’ll have to divide it – equitably – amongst the players.  That’s all well and good, but it also defeats the purpose of this idea: don’t pay players that don’t perform.

Requirements will be unclear
If you want merit pay to work, requirements have to be made clear to the employee (the player) by the employer (the coach).  In sales jobs, for instance, it’s easy: you get 5% commission of what you sell.  But if you implement this system, you can’t say to a player, “You’ll get money based on how much you impact each game in relation to your teammates.”  You will literally be able to see question marks forming over their heads.

Players will compete against each  other
As we know, each club has a limited amount of funds (duh, we call it the salary cap).  This means that, like it or not, in this system players would be paid relative to his teammates.  Therefore, you can expect that they will try and outperform their competition – their teammates.  This makes for terrible play, and even worse club culture.  Players will be selfish with the ball, try and hit ridiculous shots and it will give the club a generally negative vibe.

Not to mention, although the AFL does not release player salaries, eventually  estimates get out.  If you think you did better than your teammate and he gets paid more at the end of the year… well.  I can’t imagine you’ll be handing him that ball so readily next season, will you?

It’s against the CBA
This may be the most important one.  The CBA basically dictates everything about money in the AFL and it lays out what can be a ‘bonus’ and performance isn’t one of them.  According to the CBA, bonuses can be awarded for the number of senior matches played, for being in the club’s top ten best and fairest, and for competing in the grand final.  Bonuses based on performance are not included and therefore, (at least until 2017 when the CBA is renegotiated) is not allowed. The end.

Not to mention, there are caps on how much you can pay each player (usually based on the number of years they’ve played or the list they’re on) and it’s not fair for a rookie, say, if he’s killing it every week, to be paid less than a senior player who does a mediocre job, just because he’s a rookie.  That would happen in this case.

Lance Franklin
My last point. Buddy is MIND-NUMBINGLY amazing. Everyone knows that. But how do you pay someone like him based on their performance? It’s an impossibility.

Like I said… it can’t actually be done. Agree?

Although, I think this might be a fun assignment for me for the end of the year… Anyone interested in seeing what I’d pay players based on their performance at the end of the season? I’ll keep that one in the pipeline.

Want to know more? Read this.

Finals Are Over!

Posted on by

0

I really do hate abandoning you.

After all, when I’m away, who else is going to give you your weekly dose of sport peppered with spastic, feminine, mildly conceited, ramblings? It’s almost cruel to leave you without them…

But I finished this finals this week (thank you for praying for me) and I shall be back in full force on Monday.

Here’s a sneak peek of the posts I have in store:

- My review of the Essendon review (spoiler alert: what a load of bull)
- Openly gay athletes
- Do Australians prefer foreign, versus domestic, talent?
- The amazingness that is Kieran Jack
- NRL and Holden sponsorship agreement
- Wollongong Hawks GM, Mili Simic, leaves (spoiler alert: I am sad)
- Why Hawthorn is the best team in the comp (or are they? …)

I am also considering starting a new feature (it’ll be so short, I’m not sure you can even call it that) but stay tuned. I am so over doing best of the week posts.  There are too many articles to just choose a top five.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go get some consolation sushi. I am in mourning over the Sydney Swans loss last night, and the pathetic-ness of my Dream Team.

Oh, I have missed you.