the commodification of sport - sewart.pdf

http://irs.sagepub.com

Sociology of Sport International Review for the

DOI: 10.1177/101269028702200303 1987; 22; 171 International Review for the Sociology of Sport

John J. Sewart The Commodification of Sport

http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/171 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: International Sociology of Sport Association

can be found at:International Review for the Sociology of Sport Additional services and information for

http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://irs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/22/3/171 Citations

at Stanford University on March 17, 2009 http://irs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.issa.fr.fm

http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://irs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/22/3/171


The Commodification of Sport

JOHN J. SEWART

Department of Sociology, University of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, CA 95053, U.S.A.

Abstract

This paper examines a series of changes experienced within sport as it undergoes a processof commodification. It is argued that this process constitutes a degradation of athleticactivity. The interpretations of such changes are examined in light of the debate over massculture and the popular arts. This controversy has centered on whether the nature ofmodern sport has become debauched as it is subsumed to the logic of the marketplace. It issuggested that puerility has come to dominate sport as modern culture becomesstandardised and administered as a commodity. Sport is thus viewed in terms of the tensionsbetween its emancipatory potential and its function as a commodity for social consumption.

Introduction: The Social Hegemony of the Commodity Form in Sport

&dquo;The men of early times,&dquo; thought Plato, &dquo;were better than we and nearer to theGods.&dquo; Similarly, Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel asked, &dquo;Where have you gone,Joe Di Maggio?&dquo; These concerns are expressed by many critics today in regard tothe character of modern sport in American society. The current situation iscontrasted with a vaguely defined &dquo;Golden Age&dquo; of sport not contaminated by thecrass commercialization and sensationalization that characterizes modern

professional sport. Today we find exploding scoreboards, nickel beer night,market-induced rule changes governing the playing of sport, directives issued tofans on multimillion dollar electronic video screens instructing them when tocheer, the fixing of competitions, gratutitous fan and player violence, the cult ofthe star, the cult of winning, extreme specialization of athletic talent, anddangerous medical practices. This paper will: (1) present empirical evidence ofthe corruption of sport, and (2) critically assess the central theoretical issuesraised in the consideration of the nature and character of modern sport.

In order to accomplish these tasks, I will single out the significant elements ofthe debate which has centered around the problem of art versus entertainment.As it applies to sport, the debate over mass culture and popular arts centersaround the problem of manipulation versus personal enrichment and

development. This discussion is a necessary first step toward providing a broaderbase for the study of perhaps the most popular of popular cultures in

contemporary American society - professional sport. It is suggested that thecorruption and dehumanization of sport is a result of both the commodification ofathletic activity and the social character and consciousness of sporting fans/consumers. It is further suggested that this process is best understood from thetheoretical vantage point of the instrumental rationalization and concomitantconsumerization of the life world. Before discussing these points it is necessary toexamine what is valuable in sport and what has been lost and dehumanized in theprocess of commodification.



172

Sport is a social phenomenon related to the intersubjective moral order. Asopposed to the utilitarian and technical dimensions of life, sport has beenidentified as a moral, aesthetic, and dramatic phenomenon as well as a medium ofindividual self-fulfillment (Huizinga 1955; Weiss 1969; James 1963). As a moralphenomenon, sport is oriented to the dimension of interpersonal bonding.Children’s games are considered by G. H. Mead (1932), Jean Piaget (1934), andLawrence Kholberg (1969) to be the crucible of social development and theconstitution of the social self through symbolic interaction. Since intersubjectivityand symbolic communication are at the center of culture, sport has long beenvalorized as an important medium enabling social actors to &dquo;practice&dquo; and &dquo;learn&dquo;a sense of fair play, justice, conflict and dispute resolution, sublimating egoisticdesires to group needs, as well as generating sociability, solidarity and communaleffort. In this context social behavior is shaped by norms and values informed byintersubjective communication rather than norms and values of a purelyinstrumental and technical nature’. In short, sport is seen as providing a contextwhere authenticity and self and society may be realized.

This idealized vision of sport is severely deficient insofar as it reduces sport to aseparate reality whose meanings, metaphoric qualities, and regulating structuresare disembodied from its material context. However, this paper takes theseidealized values as providing a potential basis for redeeming those very idealswhich have been corrupted in modern society. The analysis suggested hereexamines the contradictions and discontinuities between sport and theirsocioeconomic context rather than the continuities. This requires an immanentcritique; i.e., an examination of the norms, values, and ideals of sport as they are&dquo;supposed to be&dquo; and their actual practice in society. Immanent criticismevaluates sport according to its own standards (described above) and confronts itwith the consequences as actually practiced in a commodified form.’- The point ofsuch an analysis directs us to a critical evaluation of those social conditions whichblock the realization of sport’s emancipatory and liberative values.The starting point of such an analysis is an examination of the extent to which

the structure and practice of sport are increasingly shaped by a market rationality.As shown in the following sections, when sport becomes a commodity governedby market principles there is little or no regard for its intrinsic content or form.This is not to say that sport was once pure and pristine, uncontaminated by anyconcern for market success. Several observers have shown, however, that untilthe twentieth century profit was sought after for the most part only indirectly(E.g., Crepeau 1980; Vincent 1981). What is new today is the direct and

undisguised primacy of the profit motive. Accordingly, the direction of changeswithin sport is thoroughly and precisely calculated with the market (especially themarket for electronic media) as the normative touchstone. As will be shown,traditional meanings and practices are foreclosed and replaced by a puerile andBarnumesque ethic of display, titillation, and theatricality.The social hegemony of the commodity form is apparent as the practice of sport

is shaped and dominated by the values and instrumentalities of a market ethic. Aswill be shown, the idealized model of sport, along with its traditional ritualisticmeanings, metaphysical aura, and skill democracy, is destroyed as sport becomesjust another item to be trafficed as a commodity. The following three sections ofthis paper examines the various ways in which a market mentality has intrudedinto and subsequently debauched various sports. The commodification of sport is



173

evidenced in the following arenas: (1) changes in rules, format and scheduling; (2)the abandonment of the ethic of skill democracy (it’s not who you know but whatyou do); and (3) the inclination to spectacle and theatricality. After consideringthese three arenas, the paper assesses various theoretical interpretations of theseintrusions.

Changes in Rules, Format, and Scheduling

According to Howard Cosell (1973:343) television executives view sport asmerely entertainment and will exert tremendous pressure upon the governingbodies of sport in order to attract ever larger advertizing revenues. This translatesinto changing the rules of the game which profoundly alter the character ofcompetition, scheduling changes (e.g., playing World Series games in the snow),absurdly long playing seasons, more playoff games, bowls and tournaments, etc.Although the association between television and sport begins with the inceptionof broadcasting, television was relatively unimportant until the end of the 1950s(Horowitz 1977). The owners of professional and intercollegiate sportincreasingly began to look to television as the major source of revenue. Forexample, the growth in broadcast revenues from 1956 to 1976 increased over 1000percent (from $10 million to over $112 million). Some more recent figuresindicate the financial dependency of sport upon the television industry: in 1982,the National Football league signed a television contract for $2.1 billion over fiveyears; in 1984, NBC and ABC paid between them over $1.1 billion for the rightsto broadcast major league baseball; ABC paid $225 million to broadcast the 1984Summer Olympics; in 1983, ABC paid the National Collegiate AthleticAssociation $238.5 million for the rights to televise college football - each teamcompeting in a telecast receives $550,000. The fact that sport has become heavilydependent on the commercial broadcast media is evidenced in the comments ofBrian Bruns, director of broadcasting for major league baseball: &dquo;Our people areleaving behind bats, balls, and gloves and are starting to worry about satellites,transponders, and cable&dquo; (Huffman 1984).During the early 1970s professional football was criticized as a &dquo;boring&dquo; game

due to the lack of high scoring games. Stadia across the country became onlypartially filled and television rating dropped to an all-time low. The NationalFootball League Rules Committee responded with a series of rule changes andtechnical innovations which cumulatively increased the game’s scoring andheightened the action for the television audience:

1) goal posts were moved to the back of the end zones which would cut down on &dquo;boringfield goal kicking&dquo;,

2) the ball was returned to the line of scrimmage, or out to the 20 yard line after a missedfield goal;

3) on kickoffs, the ball was moved from the 40 to 35 yard line to prevent kickers fromkicking the ball out of the end zone;;

4) on punts, only the end men are permitted to release downfield before the ball is kicked- thus increasing the returner’s chances for a successful run-back;

5) a sudden death period is added to break ties in regular season games;6) the head slap (striking an opponent above the shoulders) was made illegal during the

initial charge of a defensive lineman - thus increasing the advantage of the offensiveunit;



174

7) the defense is limited to one chuck or hit on potential pass receivers - this contact has totake place within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage;

8) pass blockers on the offensive unit are pcrmitted to use extended arms and open hands;9) inbounds markers were progressivcly moved from where the ball carrier was downed

(even if 1/2 inch from the sidelines) to five feet, to sixty feet, to seventy feet nine inches,Thus evolved the current hash marks - which follow the vertical lines of the goal posts-that allow the quarterback and kicker to be virtually in the middle of the field at alltimes;

10) many penalties were reduced from fifteen to ten and five yards;11) half time was reduced from twenty to fifteen minutes - increasing the program’s

saleability to sponsors;12) increase of the player limit;13) the two-minute warning and additional time outs were introduced to allow for more

commercial time. Television required that fourteen time outs in 3-4-3-4 per quartersequence be taken for commercials and referees began carrying electronic beepers toreceive a signal to put the ball back in play after a commercial;

14) rescheduling of games on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays for a wider televisionaudience. Since the turn of the century held that high schools played football on Fridaynight, colleges play on Saturday afternoon, and professionals play on Sundayafternoon;

’

15) in 1976, the Superbowl was played for the first time in the evening in order to get higherNielsen ratings;

16) numerous packaging devices were introduced by television networks to make the gamemore entertaining-microphones on officials so that fans could understand penalty callsinstead of learning the complex system of hand signals, directional microphones, slow-motion and stop-motion videotape, instant replays and isolated cameras, split screens,blimp cameras, close-ups of cheerleaders and fans. These innovations were designed tofill so-called dead time. The result has been a reversal where many fans prefer therecorded replays to the live action.

The result of the above changes is a radically altered game of football whichattracts huge television audiences. 4

Similar changes can be identified in other sports - changes which seek to

increase ’action’ and scoring. Professional basketball has recently implementedthe abolition of the zone defense, a three point shot, and the twenty four secondclock. Professional baseball has witnessed the lowering of the height of thepitcher’s mound which reduces the velocity of the baseball and thus assists thebatter; a larger strike zone to encourage more hitting; fewer warmup pitches forrelievers; a livelier ball; the limiting of managers’ trips to the mound to talk withthe pitcher; a designated hitter; umpires who keep games moving at a faster pace:more night games; and artificial playing surfaces.The effort to attract large audiences also degrades the quality of play in a

variety of ways. For example, several baseball parks have moved the fences incloser to home plate in order to increase homerun output. A debauched versionof sideshow baseball became especially evident during the 1982 baseball seasonwhen the Oakland A’s Rickey Henderson was in quest of Lou Brock’s base-stealing record. His baseball efforts defied strategy in many situations when hewould not stay put at first base in order to chalk up another steal. He was, amidsttremendous media fanfare, trying to break the record. Side-show ball becameespecially apparent on August 24, 1982 in a game with the Detroit Tigers.Henderson had stolen bases 116 and 117 in the first inning (the record at this timewas 118). A sports writer for the San Francisco Chronicle documents the eventswhich followed: -



175

~ &dquo;When Henderson singled to left in the eigth, magic number 118 was only 90feet away. Unfortunately, so was Fred (Chicken) Stanley, who had walked to leadoff the inning. He was standing on second base and Rickey was all dressed up withnowhere to steal. Suddenly, Stanley was caught in a rundown between second andthird bases. He did not run hard. When Lou Whitaker tagged him out, Stanleyjogged briskly off the field, and when he reached the dugout, his teammateswelcomed him with warm handshakes. How convenient! Despite [A’s manager]Martin’s denials, Stanley was picked off on purpose - which means that he andMartin cheapened baseball ... They weren’t the only guilty ones. Stanley hadgotten on first base when Tiger pitcher Jerry Udjur walked him on four straightballs. None of the pitches was close. It is hard to imagine that Udjur needed to becareful with Chicken, who came into the game batting a measly. 189. It is obviousthat Tiger manager Sparky Anderson ordered Udjur to put Stanley on base toprevent Henderson from tying the record against Detroit.&dquo; (Cohn 1982)A similar instance of degradation was also evident in the 1980 National

Football League season when the Philadelphia Eagles’ Harold Carmichael set arecord of pass catching in 123 consecutive games. In the eleventh week of theseason (game number 124) Carmichael was shut out until the fourth quarter whenthe Eagles ran a special pattern to keep the streak alive. In the twelveth week ofthe season, the Eagles made certain that did not happen again by opening the firstplay of the game with a strategically unsound two yard completion. This type ofdebauchery also leads to the fixing of games. Throughout the years exathletes,coaches and trainers periodically reveal instances of fixing. The most recentallegation came from All-Pro Bubba Smith with regard to the 1969 Super Bowl IIIwhen the New York Jets defeated his Baltimore ColtS.5

The manipulation of sport is not limited to professional athletics. The LosAngeles Olympic Organizing Committee (LAOOC) has scheduled the marathonto begin as close to prime television time as possible - 5:30 p.m. PST.~ This iswhen heat and smog have built up and usually envelop Los Angeles. To makematters worse, marathoners will have to run the last 45 minutes of the 1984

Olympics in the heart of the downtown’s heat and smog because the LAOOC,under pressure from ABC-TV, wants to have them finish at the L.A. Coliseum,site of the 1932 Games. Australia’s Rob de Castella, who has run the world’ssecond fastest marathon (2:08:18), was incensed when learning of the 5:30starting time: &dquo;I am very disappointed to have to run the best marathon in theworld under adverse conditions. The temperature will be extremely high, andwe’ll be in dire straits. The race should be run early in the morning or later atnight, or at a course near the ocean which is cooler and freer of smog&dquo; (McCoy1984). Four-time Boston Marathon winner Bill Rodgers has suggested that themarathon be held elsewhere: &dquo;I think it would be a good idea to hold themarathon in San Francisco ... but it wouldn’t be good for TV. Athletes inAmerica have zero, absolutely zero clout ... Given ABC’s commitment tomoney, they won’t change&dquo; (Broughton 1983). This situation has been succinctlysummarized by Steve Scott, runner of the second fastest time in the history of themile race: &dquo;The Olympics are just a staging ground for someone’s commercialinterests. The Games are no longer an event to bring the best athletes together ...they’re a TV extravaganza to sell McDonald’s and Xerox&dquo; (Cohn 1984).

In the mid-1960s ABC-TV began showing documentaries on surfing. Theseprograms attained sufficiently high audience ratings so that network executives



176

attempted to televize/market surfing competitions. However, this required thatthe competitions had to be held on a specific site at a prearranged time and date.Regardless of surf and weather conditions, surfers were instructed to beginsurfing on cue from television producers. The market orientation of commercialtelevision violated the traditional participatory and democratic norms and rulesof surfing competitions which were normally scheduled over a week’s period.Each morning surfers would gather at the beach and vote on whether they felt theconditions were appropriate for the contest to begin. If the vote was negative,they would meet for another vote in the early afternoon. This process would berepeated until the competitors reached a consensus. If a good surf had not comeup during the seven-day period, the contest would be cancelled. In the face ofcapitulating to market demands, many world class surfers withdrew from these&dquo;staged&dquo; competitions in order to preserve the creative and self-expressivedimensions of the sport/art form of surfing (Scott 1971).

The Abandonment of the Ethic of Skill Democracy

Sport has long been singled out as one of the few spheres of social life whererational meritocratic values are truly operational. The most consistentcharacteristic of sport is that an individual’s status is objectively measured interms of performance or merit according to an agreed upon set of norms.Subjective factors, family connections, or political influence are of no

consequence on the playing field or in the arena: one can hit or catch a ball or not.Commercialization and commodification have steadily eroded the ethic of skilldemocracy.The replacement of meritocratic principles by market principles and the canons

of entertainment is evident in the sport of tennis. For example: players often tankmatches so that they can quit a tournament and speed off to another tournamentwhich offers more money; players accomodate to network broadcasting demandsfor certainty in &dquo;air time&dquo; - i.e., players will split the first two sets and play an&dquo;honest&dquo; third to ensure filling a time slot and thus guaranteeing ad revenue forthe television networks; players will make advance arrangements to evenly splitprize money regardless of the outcome of the match; and preferential treatmentin officiating is accorded to big-name players by match umpires who are underheavy pressure from tournament directors to treat them well. Things havebecome so bad in tournament tennis that M. M. Happer III, administrator oftennis’ Pro Council, says &dquo;I think all exhibition matches are fixed&dquo; (Mewshaw(1983:228). In a series of interview conducted by a sports journalist, these

practices are defended by athletes and tennis administrators in the name of tennisbeing entertainment (Mewshaw 1983). Exactly the problem.~ 7

The quest for profit and its destructive impact upon the ethic of skill

democracy is especially evident in the sport of professional boxing. The

scheduling of opponents is ideally determined by an objective selection of thechallenger with the best record. However, in the quest to sign lucrative contractswith the television networks, the two boxing associations (the World BoxingCouncil and the World Boxing Association) unabashedly manipulate theirrankings of boxers regardless of skill, experience, or competence. Because a titleholder has name recognition and can command lucrative contracts, the choice of



177

opponents often involves bypassing ranked contenders for unknown and

unproven boxers who have financial backing. In order to get a title shot, a boxermust be rated in the top 10 contenders in his respective weight division. However,to get into the top 10 ratings of the WBC or WBA it is not necessary to beatanybody, merely to know the right people and grease the right palms.For example: after signing a multi-million dollar package with NBC-TV for a

two fight package with Heavyweight Champ Larry Holmes - his opponents beingthe unranked Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier - the following events ensued. Atthe time of the signing, Frank and Frazier were both absent from the top 10 list.However, the rules required that these fighters be rated by the time of the fights(September and November 1983) if Holmes was to meet the titleholder’s

obligation to defend his title a minimum number of times per year. Frank (20-0-1), a fighter whose only fight against a rated fighter turned up a draw, suddenlyappeared in the top 10 ratings of the WBA and WBC. Similarly, Frazier receivedhis rating in time for the fight. A particularly striking example of athletic skillbeing subsumed to non-athletic criteria is the case of boxer John Mugabe whoknocked out Gary Guiden in July of 1983 to increase his record to 16-0 (allknockouts). Before the fight, Mugabe was ranked number 11 in the WBC andWBA ratings. After the fight, Guiden is number 6 with the WBA; Mugabe (thewinner of his match with Guiden) has dropped off the charts.Another example from boxing is found in Pete Rademacher’s certification to

fight Floyd Patterson for the heavyweight crown in 1957 without benefit of asingle previous professional fight. As Patterson’s manager at the time, GusD’Amato, argued:

&dquo;Professional boxing is like the theater, a business. It’s to make money and itdoesn’t have to be a contest if the public decides to see it. I maintain that a fight isput on to make money. It’s no business of any commission - who are only there tosee that the rules and regulations are carried out, to see that the fighters arephysically and medically fit, that no fraud exists and that the public is notmisinformed&dquo; (Fiske 1983).The sport of golf has also undergone similar changes where match play has been

replaced by medal play. Until television began setting the criteria of

performance, most tournaments were decided by match play. This meant that bythe time television cameras came to watch the final action, the Sneads, Palmersand other stars of that generation could have been eliminated (if they failed toperform adequately) and two &dquo;unknowns&dquo; would play for the title. Televisionratings, of course, would drop accordingly. Medal play always guarantees &dquo;thestars&dquo; a position in the final competitions - regardless of their performance.That the name of the game is the box office and Nielsen ratings - rather than

performance - was especially obvious in the selection for the 1983 college footballpost-season bowl games. The Southern Methodist University (SMU) Mustangs,with an outstanding 9-1 record against top-ranked opponents (and a 30-2-1 recordover the past three years), were not tendered an invitation to any of four majorbowls (Sugar, Cotton, Orange, or Fiesta). While SMU was passed over, namerecognition teams with mediocre records such as Notre Dame receivedinvitations. The reason, as an executive vice president of Entertainment andSports Programming Network noted, is that SMU lacks &dquo;marquee value&dquo; (SportsIllustrated 1983).



178

In spite of isolated protests from sportswirters concerned with ethical standardsof fairness and meritocracy, sport is increasingly dominated by market concerns.Just as the old saw holds for the occupational world, &dquo;it’s not what you know, butwho you know&dquo;, so it now holds for the athletic world. The modern sportingpublic fatalistically accepts this situation. However, things have not always beenthis way. In 1928, for example, the Boston Braves constructed new bleachers inleft and center fields in order to shorten the distance required for the newlyacquired Rogers Hornsby to hit home runs. One columnist called this action &dquo;oneof the cheapest things ever done in the National League&dquo;. A similar outcryerupted among the fans in Boston. After this outcry the Braves repented andannounced they would move the bleachers back (Crepeau 1980:44). The modernfan views such events quite differently. For example, a fan’s response to the base-stealing debauchery (described on p. 7 above) is indicative of the consumeristattitude toward sport as spectacle: &dquo;What’s all the fuss about Fred Stanley gettingpicked off base on purpose ... Baseball is entertainment ... I went to the A’s gameto see a record broken ... I don’t care how it happens&dquo; (S. F. Chronicle SpottingGreen 1982).8

The Inclination to Spectacle and Theatricality

The logic of the market is dominant insofar as the commercial media selectsbetween sports for those which make good entertainment as well as selectingwithin a particular event for those moments which make for maximum viewerinterest. Attention is given to the dramatic, the spectacular, and the theatrical -the thrills and spills, the knockout punch, the winning hit, the brawls in the standsand on the field. Accordingly, sport caters and shapes itself to the interest of &dquo;hewho pays the piper&dquo;. The commercial reconstruction of sport into a spectacle andthe consequent debauching and trivialization are examined in the followingexamples. Instead of athletic contests which happen to be broadcast on television.the process of commodification has given us television events which happen toinvolve athletes.

With the rapid expansion of pay television and the proliferation of baseballthroughout North America on the broadcast media, baseball has been shaped tothe needs and advantage of the broadcast industry. Baseball was able to

overcome its slump in popularity during the 1970s not by enriching the skill levelof the sport, but through the application of marketing techniques. As BowieKuhn, the former commisioner of baseball put it: &dquo;the reason baseball has doneso well is we’ve learned to market the product better and we’re going to do aneven better job at marketing than we are doing now&dquo; (Kuhn 1983:17).9 EbbetsField, the Polo Grounds, and Sportsman’s Park have been replaced by&dquo;entertainment centers&dquo; featuring: paid cheerleaders and mascots (KrazyGeorge, The San Diego Chicken) who make their entrance in helicopters orparachutes; giant &dquo;Diamond Vision&dquo; video screens showing replays, the speed ofballs thrown by the pitcherz3-D soft porn images of players, advertisements andcommercial lyrics and jingles; wall-mounted television at concession stands and inbathrooms. In addition, rock music and Las Vegas sytle cheerleaders havereplaced the time-honored park organist as between inning pasttime. Live rockbands (instead of baseball players) perform as the second &dquo;game&dquo; of baseball and



179

rock &dquo;double-headers&dquo;. The umpire’s traditional game-beginning invocation of&dquo;Play Ball&dquo; has been replaced by human cannonballs shot from center field into anet at the pitcher’s mound.

College football is also adopting a sport-cum-live-entertainment &dquo;line-up&dquo; inorder to market its product. For example, the 1983 Wake Forest football scheduleincluded fireworks, Bob Hope, the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, The FourTops, The Temptations, Tanya Tucker, and Firefall.The North American Soccer League (NASL), established in 1968, has

continually struggled for survival in the sport marketplace. Accordingly, thissport has been subjected to the associated processes of commercialization andtheatricality. Unable to attract American fans, the owners of soccer have tried to&dquo;spice-up&dquo; the game. The major obstacle to corporatization has come from theinability of the sport to capture the television audience. This is a result of the sportnot being suited for television. There are no time-outs in soccer and if the ballgoes out of bounds, it is immediately thrown back into action. There is no &dquo;stopand go&dquo; action as there is in football, baseball and basketball. In addition, socceris a skillful, defensively oriented, low-scoring game. Soccer matches can goseveral minutes without an offensive attempt to acquire a score - scores of 1-0 or2-1 are very common. To make things worse, the code of sportsmanship amongsoccer players is deeply rooted and strictly followed. As a result, violence is

relatively rare in matches. This, of course, makes for a &dquo;dull&dquo; sport.In order to add some &dquo;excitement&dquo; to the game, the NASL tampered with the

world soccer code by eliminating tie games with - what was marketed in typicallyAmerican style - a &dquo;Shoot Out&dquo;. The Shoot Out was devised to be added after theovertime periods. The NASL declared that American spectators needed theadded &dquo;thrill&dquo; of a Matt Dillon type show-down at high noon (1982 SoccerEncyclopedia: 508-512). Other alterations of the sport included moving the off-sides line from the 50 yard line to an arbitrary line 35 yards from the goal. Thereare also many proposals to widen the goal in order to increase scoring.’°

In its struggle to market a traditionally &dquo;foreign&dquo; sport, the NASL has adopteda wide variety of promotional techniques. Under the terms of the 1981 collectivebargaining agreement between the NASL Players’ Association and the NASL it isstipulated that each club can require a player to make 48 promotionalappearances per season. In 1983, the NASL issued a 280-page PlayerAppearanceManual with detailed image-making devices instructing teams as to how to bestmarket their player/commodities. A favorite marketing strategy, devised by theTampa Bay Rowdies and adopted by the league, enrolls players in classes

instructing them how to deliver a winning speech and bring in members of theToastmasters International to critique the players’ efforts. The manual alsomakes reference to a professional agency that offers instruction in how to comfortoneself during the &dquo;impromptu&dquo; interview. So much for Knute Rockne’s

inspirational speeches and Lou Gerigh’s emotional farewall to baseball at YankeeStadium. Such practices mark the complete penetration of corporate imagemakers into the formerly non-utilitarian world of sport.Although the above changes have been made in the NASL, the League has lost

millions of dollars on the premise that American fans will learn the subtleties ofthe outdoor game. The strategy taken up by these frustrated corporate mogulswas to invent &dquo;the sport of the 80s&dquo; - indoor soccer. This game is extremely simple



180

to understand. Played with a bright orange ball, on a compressed pitch the size ofa hockey rink (200 feet long), the game pits six players on a side and the idea is tokick the ball into a 12 by 61/2 foot goal. There are time outs, penalty boxes, andunlimited substitutions. Athletes enter the field of play like rock stars: the lightsgo off and a spotlight is trained on each player as he is introduced and emergesthrough a fog fueled by dry ice while the entire arena shakes to the &dquo;Eye of theTiger&dquo; blasted over the public address system at a deafening volume. There is a lotof physical contact, the pace of the game is extremely fast and scoring is high. Theend result is a staccato mix of speeding crashing bodies and ricocheting brightorange balls. As one goalie in the Major Indoor Soccer League put it, &dquo;the game islike a human pin-ball machine&dquo; (S. F. Chronicle Sporting Green, Feb. 4, 1983).

In the effort to carve out a new market, a tremendous emphasis has been placedon commercialized sex. The executive Vice-President of the Chicago Sting notedthe change in emphasis from soccer to indoor soccer: &dquo;I used to say there were 3S’s: speed, scoring, and skill. Now I say show, sex, and suburbs&dquo; (sportsIllustrated, February 28, 1983). A radio.spot for the Pittsburg Spirit says: &dquo;Hot

legs, hot time, hot action - just too hot to handle; we’ve got 20 guys in shorts whogo all night&dquo;.The Major Indoor League is the first sport to come into existence with the

unmediated view to market itself as any other new commodity in the

marketplace. The audience is carefully targeted, the show professionallychoreographed, and the entire image marketed according to the technique ofscientific management. In New York, the PA announcer constantly advises thewomen in attendance as to which bar they can visit after the game to meet players.Players in the MISL are encouraged to coat their legs with baby oil before a gameto make them glisten.&dquo; A cologne manufacturer sponsors a &dquo;10~/z&dquo; competition,wherein female fans are asked to rate the players’ sexuality. Sex, not skillfulsport, sells. According to Godfrey Ingram, a player on the Golden BayEarthquakes, &dquo;You’ve got have more skills to play outdoor soccer. You can getaway with deficiencies playing indoors. Outdoors, for example, you’ve go to beable to score from 18-20 yards away; you’ve got to be able to pass long balls andshort balls. You don’t get that indoors. All goals are from about five yards. Yousee a little square in front of you and try to hit it. With outdoor, you have to placeit, look for the corners of the goal and try to beat the keeper. That involves a hellof a lot more skill than getting 10 yards away from a little goal and just blastingaway&dquo; (Fitzgerald 1984:69). It is interesting to note that while there has been adecline in athletic skill, attendance has doubled in the five years since the leaguewas founded. 12 The market approach to &dquo;the sport of the 80s&dquo; has been summedup by a player owned by an agribusiness firm: &dquo;The Ralston Purina Companvtreated us as though we were a division of green beans and puppy chow&dquo; (TheSporting News, November 28, 1983).The quest for spectacle and theatricality has worked against an authentic

presentation of many dimensions of the newly-found interest in women’sathleticism. For example, in 1979, Grete Waitz set a world record in the NewYork City Marathon (2:27:33). While one might expect to see considerable media ¡coverage of this spectacular event - since it was being covered live - the dictates ofthe Nielsen ratings resulted in a total neglect of Waitz’s athletic skills. Instead.&dquo;the live coverage ended without so much as a syllable about Waitz. The network



181

signed off at 2:27:00 into the race. Astute tube watchers were able to view a worldrecord being set during the closing credits&dquo; (Niedermann 1980:54). Thus,supreme athletic excellence does not qualify as deserving of the eye of thespectacle unless it sells.This lack of coverage is due not only to traditional male supremicist views

regarding the inferiority of women’s athleticism but, in addition, to the inabilityof sweaty, haggard-looking athletes finishing such a gruelling event to attract anaudience. This type of visual imagery does not attract the television audience andadvertising monies as the socially &dquo;acceptable&dquo; women’s sports such as ice

skating, swimming, diving, tennis, gymnastics and golf. Broadcast executives aremuch more interested in close-ups of women swimmers and divers in wet bathingsuits, Jane Fonda performing leg splits, and pixie-like gymnasts’ pelvicmovements than the world class displays of aggressive and powerful physicality ofwomen. Accordingly, women athletes who participate in traditionallyunacceptable sports which involve aggression and power are neglected. Women’steam and contact sports such as rugby, softball, crew, volleyball, field hockey,and basketball - sports with long traditions and large followings - are neglected byathletic entrepreneurs because of their mass unmarketability.While many regular season competitions of women’s sporting leagues are

neglected, women athletes are reduced to side-show freaks when they &dquo;compete&dquo;in made-for-TV counterfeit sporting events (such as &dquo;Women Superstars&dquo; and the&dquo;Challenge of the Sexes&dquo;) which have little or no relation to the athletic skills thatthey seriously compete in. The largest attention given to women’s sport has beenthe 1973 tennis &dquo;match&dquo; between the world class 29-years-old Billie Jean King andthe semi-retired 55-year-old Bobby Riggs. Hyped as a &dquo;battle of the sexes&dquo;, this 3-million-dollar &dquo;competition&dquo; was promoted and broadcast as a circus event. Inthe process, the full range of women’s athleticism is neglected and the integrity ofathletic skill is reduced to that which is commodifiable and sold as entertainment.

The logical conclusion of the market inclination to spectacle and theatricality isthe creation of &dquo;competition&dquo; of television in the form of &dquo;trash sport&dquo;. Anexample of trash sport is found in motorcycle collision distance jumpingtournaments. This &dquo;sport&dquo; entails driving a motorcyle into a row of parked cars.The object is to see how many parked cars &dquo;athletes&dquo; can clear before they(hopefully) tumble onto a mat. To add to the excitement, all contestants wearburning flares attached to their pants. Recently, the ante has been upped for thissport - due to flagging fan interest - by clearing buses, instead of cars, fordistance. Fans can also attend the Annual World Belly Flop and CannonballDiving Championships. A perennial winner in this competition is a 423 pound&dquo;athlete&dquo; who sets himself on fire as he dives into the water. Or, fans can watch&dquo;athletes&dquo; try to pummel themselves unconscious with their own fists in KnockYourself Out competitions.The supreme trash sport competition is found in All-Star Big-Time

Professional Wrestling. This sport is populated by &dquo;athletes such as Skull

Murphy, Gorilla Monsoon, Abdullah the Butcher, Killer Kowalski, Dick theBruiser, The Destroyer, The Mongolian Stomper, and Dr. X. These athletescompete in a wide variety of competitions including Texas Bull-Rope Matches,Strap Matches, Indian Death Matches, Chain Matches, 22-Man Battle Royals,Roman Gladiator Matches, and, of course, Steel Cage Matches. The premier



182

competition, however, is the Sicilian Stretcher Death Match which has thefollowing &dquo;rules&dquo;: No count-out; no pin falls; no holds barred; no referee; norules; no surrender; doctor cannot stop bout; loser must be carried out; loser mustleave town.

A distortion of the liberal ideals of individual growth and creative expressiontakes place when sport becomes part of a system of entertainment. As a reflectionof the single most powerful force in American society - viz., the market principle- the meaning of athletic skill is confined and reduced to that of providingentertainment for money. This state of affairs is directly responsible for the widevariety of abuses and scandals that have periodically erupted into media/publicconsciousness since athletics became a matter of big business. The list of theseabuses and corruptions is virtually endless: the fix of the 1919 World Seriesbetween the Chicago White Sox and Cincinatti Reds; the pointshaving scandalsthat continually surface in the world of intercollegiate basketball since the famous1951 scandal involving Brooklyn College and Long Island University in NewYork City; altered transcripts, bribery, and death threats involving the collegerecruitment of high school athletes; the mafia-like control of intercollegiate sportprograms exercised by alumni; the dangerous experimentation with

performance-assisting drugs and experimental medical procedures; the frequentallegations of &dquo;fix&dquo; heard in the world of professional sport; the bestial-likebehavior of fans; and the emphasis placed on &dquo;winning at any cost&dquo; and thedecline of the traditional canons of sportsmanship.What we are witnessing is the reduction of athletic skill, competition and

contest to a commodified spectacle sold in the market for mass entertainment.The only guiding principle becomes the highest rate of return on one’sinvestment. This instrumental orientation of today’s entrepreneurs of sportstands in sharp contrast with the player-orientation to sport as evidenced in thestatement of the original creators of the sport of basketball. In the firstIntroduction to the Basket Ball Cooperating Committee Rule Book of 1898 isstated: &dquo;The function of the rules committee is not only to consider and adoptrules that ideally shall be the best for the sport, but the rules committee must, bycarefully weighing the evidence and acquaintance with the field, formulate thatwhich represents the best judgment off the players of the country; for the gamesare not the product of the makers of the rules&dquo; (Gulick 1898: 5).The process of commodification is not limited to sport and athletics. No social

practice is immune from the corrosive impact of commodification. The

accompanying abuses repeatedly documented in the world of professional sporthave also penetrated the world of ballet: extreme pressures to perform wheninjured; rampant anorexia nervosa and bulimia as a result of the stringent weightrequirements; economic exploitation; widespread use of dangerousperformance-assisting drugs; fiercely competitive environments inhabited byyoung child performers; permanent physical disabilities inflicted by the athleticregimen that chews up bodies; and intense pressure to conform to the companydirector’s discipline. The commercialization of ballet brought on in recent yearsby a boom at the box office has heightened the market pressures leading to theabove-mentioned abuses. With the increased corporate control of ballet

companies in major performing arts centers across the nation, ballet is repeatedlysubordinated to a market mentality. As Eugene Loveland, president of the Board



183

of the Houston Ballet, and a former vice-president of Shell Oil Company andpresident of his own oil company noted: &dquo;I wanted to know what we were selling.If what we wanted was to be the strongest regional company, I knew that we hadto stay in the black. Because you can’t succeed without money. I looked at this asI would at any new business ... What we needed was to develop a product; that’swhat sells ... So I saw it as a company, a manufacturing organization, a salesorganization, and a finance organization ... To develop our product we needed amanufacturing unit with a head of manufacturing being an artistic director ... andto sell and finance our product we need a marketing unit&dquo; (Gordon 1983:197-8).This unabashedly commercial approach to human beings and their creative

expressions (whether ballet or football) as &dquo;products&dquo; which need to be

&dquo;manufactured&dquo;, &dquo;developed&dquo;, and &dquo;marketed&dquo; inevitably results in a

debauchery of both artists and the art or athletes and athletics.

Commodified Sport: Capitalist Ideology, Vox Populi, or Dehumanization?

What are we to make of the nature and character of sport as described above?This section of the paper will consider three theoretical positions regarding theemergence of commodified sport : (1) the Marxist critique of sport as a derivativeof class relations; (2) the popular cultural &dquo;clap-o-meter&dquo; approach to sport; and(3) a critical theory of sport. It is argued that critical theory best illuminates thenature and trajectory of changes observed in sport.The Marxist problematic has been explored in studies of sport by Brohm

(1978), Rigauer (1981), and Hoch (1972). In these analyses sport is subjected to amaterialist critique where the ideology of bourgeois social and economic relationsis exposed and demystified. The reader learns how sport glorifies meritocraticstandards of hierachy, emulates militaristic modes of discipline, as well as all theother values of the capitalist jungle: virility, sexual athleticism, physicaldominance, the superman, muscle worship, fascistic male chauvinism, racism,sexism, and ageism. In addition to sport being a capitalist Gulag, its socio-

political meanings serve important ideological-reproductive functions for statemonopoly capitalism.Insofar as the Marxist critique thoroughly explores the linkages and

embeddedness of sport within capitalist social processes it has provided a usefulcorrective to naive and romanticized accounts of sport. However, this type ofMarxist sociologizing - the reduction of sport to a derivative of specific socio-economic conditions - would deny any positive role to sport. Such an

interpretation of Marx’s work is inadequate in light of his approach to classicalart: &dquo;The difficulty is in not in grasping the idea that Greek art and epos are boundup with certain forms of social development. It lies rather in understanding whythey still constitute for us a source of aesthetic enjoyment and in certain respectsprevail as the standard and model beyond attainment&dquo; (Marx 1971:45). In otherwords, the analyst must eschew historicism in order to non-reductively analyzethe permanent aesthetic enjoyment afforded by sport. What is valuable does notmerely appear and disappear with changing historical circumstances.Not all Marxist commentators have reduced sport to a monolithic, unified set of

ideologies. Instead of identifying sport as the site where fundamental class and



184

ideological are defused, some analysts from within the Marxist tradition haveperceived a subversive social content to various form of sport found in workingclass culture (Willis 1978, 1981; Lipsitz 1982; Goodmann 1979; Aronowitz 1973;Hargreaves 1982). Sports which originate out of working class communities areseen as forms of utopian resistance to the oppressive social conditions: e.g., rollerderby, professional wrestling, low rider’s vertical car jumping, boxing, body-building, power-lifting, strength exhibitions, tractor-pulls, stock car racing, anddemolition derbies. Reinforcing group solidarity, indigenous working class sportthus preserves social collectivity, anti-utilitarian, and pre-industrial values, as

well as providing a critique of the day-to-day demands of the workplace. ’3

This valorization of non-commercialized forms of sport is useful insofar as it

provides a point of comparison in order to better understand the mechanisms bywhich commercialized sport functions as well as providing a critical touchstonefor the analysis of dehumanized athletic practices. However, where these Marxistcritics hear grinding and grating in the machinery of sport which merely requiresoil and new parts, the critical theoretical perspective offered in this paper arguesthat the hum of the machinery itself is offensive.

In contrast to the Marxist analysis, the popular culturist argues that masscommodified sport is merely an expression of &dquo;the people&dquo; - vox popesli(Guttmann 1978, 1980, 1981; Rollings 1975). The sports fan and participant aremerely drummers marching to their own inner drumbeat. Accordingly, whenconfronted with the allegations of dehumanization and debauchery, the popularculturist’s response is to reject this thesis on &dquo;empirical grounds&dquo;. If we wish toresolve the riddle of dehumanization, according to the popular culturists, all wemust do is ask the participants and fan themselves whether or not they aredehumanized. After extensive research &dquo;using the most sophisticatedpsychological techniques and other devices from the toolship of modern

psychology&dquo;, a noted popular culturist (Guttmann 1981:xxiv) concludes thatathletes and fans are not dehumanized because they say they are not. Casesettled.

This analysis pivots on a methodological individualism which claims that allexplanations of social phenomena are ultimately phrased in statements aboutindividual behavior, not as statements about social totalities. Narrowly defining&dquo;the proper study&dquo; of sport to what is empirically ascertainable, the

methodological position ignores the negative dimensions of commodified sport.The unquestioned presupposition is that tastes and forms in sport are merereflections of the values of people - never asking where these tastes come from orhow they are acquired. The analysis of the social meaning of sport is thus reducedto the measurement of participant or observer attitudes (Peterson 1977; Wilensky1964). It is not that statistical analysis is a priori incorrect. Rather, the statisticalanalysis of subjective experience mandates a more exhaustive examination.The alternative position advocated in this paper, drawing upon the analysis of

modernity by the Frankfurt School of critical theory (Horkheimer & Adorno

1972), critically evaluates sport in relation to the character of mass society whichfails to meet the human needs of relatedness, identity, and rootedness. Whenconfronted with the reality of sensationalism, spectacle, and the predominance ofa market mentality in sport, critical theory highlights the extent to which sport haslost its previous autonomy (as represented in the idealized version described



185

above). This autonomy was rooted in a social position where spurt was free fromthe immediate context of use and exchange. In the process of being subsumed tocommodity exchange and instrumental rationalization, sport thus looses its

autonomy. Whereas sport had previously presented a partial critique of

modernity by virtue of its non-utilitarian form and content, in its new,

commodified and degraded version, sport serves to reproduce the modern world.This is not to deny the extent to which sport has always played a legitimating rolein society. By contrast, however, modern commercialized sport has lost its

(potential) critical function. It has become increasingly &dquo;functionalized&dquo; for theexisting social order and is valorized by that order precisely for its role as

entertainment, distraction and diversion. Under commodified conditions theform of sport is determined by its value in exchange.That the meaning of sport is altered by the medium of commodity exchange is

evident in the &dquo;regression of viewing&dquo; sport. Technical standards of intelligibilityheld by knowledgeable fans are diminished when sport attempts to obtain thewidest market possible - i.e., appealing and uninformed eyes. Given the currentmode of exchange and distribution of sport, sport is adjusted to attain the greatestmarket. Such &dquo;regression&dquo; or &dquo;standardization&dquo; shifts the reception of sport awayfrom a totalistic understanding to atomized modes of viewing. The modern fan,ripped from the wholeness of athletic culture, seeks only stimulation andsensation. 14 The commercialized form of sport, although operating as if it is freelychosen by the consumer, determines the way in which sport is received and

viewed by the fan. As Adorno noted in his study of music, &dquo;the composition hearsfor the listener&dquo; (1941:22).

Against critical theory’s critique of commodified sport, many argue that thepublic should determine the nature and character of sport in American society(Gans 1974). On the surface this seems to be sound democratic theory. However,the authentic fulfillment of democratic theory requires that: (1) popular taste andjudgement be informed and unconstrained; (2) there must be a means by whichsuch judgement be voiced and implemented. Obviously there is a great disparitybetween theory and practice in present-day democratic society. The claim thatthe sports industry only gives the public what it wants is a dangerous andmisleading half-truth.

In point of fact the sporting public is by and large totally ignorant of what itmight be getting if the profit interests of owners, professional sportingorganizations, and the electronic media were different from what they presentlyare. The human palate is sensitive to a virtually inexhaustable variety of tastes insport. But it is only as we sample different fares that we are capable of exercisingpreferences and making discriminatory judgements among them. Today we find asystem in which the formulation, refinement, and dissemination of tastes is undera virtual monopoly of commercial and corporate interests. The public’s taste inthus shaped with these commercial and corporate interests in mind; secondarily,if at all, is sport’s interest taken into account. Unaware of what they might betasting, it is hardly surprising the most of the public expresses a desire for whatthey get. And if one is dissatisfied, what are one’s options? In sum, the public’sverdict rests on insufficient, distorted, and manipulated evidence. If we are tounderstand the nature of mass sport, the remarks made by Goethe must beconsidered: Formerly there was one taste, now there are many tastes. But tell me,where are these tastes tasted?



186

For the critical theorist it is not a matter of letting the market decide the fate ofsport. It is ironic that those who criticize the critics of commodified sport in thename of anti-elitism and democracy take up a position which constitutes thedegradation of true democratic life. If we take the naive democratic view thatwhat people are interested in is all that concerns us and all that ought to concernus, then we are accepting the values that have been inculcated, either by accidentor, more often, deliberately by vested interests. These tastes are often the onlyones people have had any chance to develop. They are unconsciously acquiredhabits rather than autonomous choices. For the critics of the mass commodified

sport thesis, democracy is thus reduced to the definition of economic success inthe market. Applied to sport, this means that the worth or value of a particularsport is measurable only according to market criteria.

Democracy entails the liberation of the creative possibilities of all individuals.Similarly, sport - as a manifestation of the play element in human activity - meansthe liberation of creative potentialities. The operative words in this context are&dquo;creative&dquo; and &dquo;all&dquo; individuals - the meanings of which are profoundly anti-elitist in their import. The critique of commodified sport offered here is the heir tothe democratic tradition and the opponend of elitism. The concern is with theextent to which the emancipatory potentialities of sport are compromised andcheapened by commodification. It is only a false sense of piety and politicalcorrectness which makes it taboo to contemptuously refer to mass cultural formsas &dquo;debauched&dquo;.

The critique of commodified sport offered in this paper objects not merely to itscontent, but to its tones, atmosphere, manners and attidudes which constitute thedegradation of autonomous and non-utilitarian values. Sport is accordinglydepicted as a representation of the mental set of mass society - a society ofdomination and manipulation (Montagu & Matson 1983). As Erich Frommobserved: &dquo;If a man works without genuine relatedness to what he is doing, if hebuys and consumes commodities in an abstractified and alienated way, how canhe make use of his leisure time in an active and meaningful way? He alwaysremains the passive and alienated consumer. He ’consumes’ ball games, movingpictures, newspapers, and magazines, books, lectures, natural scenery, socialgatherings ... he wants to ’take in’ all there is to be had ... Actually, he is not freeto enjoy ’his’ leisure; his leisure-time consumption is determined by industry ...

entertainment is an industry like any other, the customer is made to buy fun as heis made to buy dresses and shoes&dquo; (Fromm 1955:136-7). The point of viewcontained in Fromm’s critique is the furthest thing possible from a position ofsnobbish elitism. It is instead a resistance to the modern world which defines

everything in functional or utilitarian terms.The starting point of this analysis is the proposition that all of modern culture

becomes part of modern industry. Marx noted this process in his discussion of theenormous transformative power of the market: &dquo;All that is holy is profaned ...The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every activity hitherto honored andlooked up to with reverent awe. It has transformed the doctor, the lawyer, thepriest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers&dquo; (Marx 1978:476).Marx goes on to discuss the economic situation of intellectual and artists andnotes that they are able to &dquo;live only so long as they find work, and ... find workonly so long as their labor increases capital. These workers, who must sell



187

themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce ...&dquo;(Marx 1978:479). Similarly, athletes can throw passes, execute sky hooks, and hithome runs only if someone with capital will pay them. In a market society thismeans that no one will pay them unless it pays to pay them. This means thatathletic skill and creativity is evaluated and selected not for its intrinsic qualitiesbut instead &dquo;like every other article of commerce&dquo;. In the process of subsumingsport to the logic of commodities &dquo;what will happen,&dquo; as Berman has noted inanother context, &dquo;is that creative processes and products will be used andtransformed in ways that will dumfound or horrify their creators. But the creatorswill be powerless to resist, because they must sell their labor power in order tolive&dquo; (Berman 1982:117).To argue against commodified forms of sport is not a desire to turn back to a

society of cultural priests who defined culture. Nor is it a point of view whichconsiders mass sport some sort of toxic gas. But it does recognize that there is adanger in a cult of nihilism where &dquo;anything goes&dquo; and all needs are reduces to thesame level. While any mass cultural form is to some extent an expression ofpeople’s needs, it is potentially tyrannically collectivist to accept any and all formsof culture as expressions of equal worth, significance and value. Withoutharkening back to an era of sensus communis - an impossibility given that thereare no homogeneous communities of taste or anything else - the critique of masscommodified sport is an effort to distinguish between that which is facile andshallow and that which is profound and significant. The failure to address thisissue has resulted in an attitude of bafflement when most analysts confront theissue of changes in the form of sport. While this paper does not pretend to offerany definitive resolution of these queries, it points to the necessity of criticallyassessing sport withing the socio-cultural context of a society of industriallydesigned uniformity.The thesis taken up here is not one of total manipulation and delusion. The

manipulative intentions of the designers of culture can never be total in theireffects. There remains a subversive potential within the non-utilitarian dimensionof sport that enable it to be (potentially) the &dquo;antidote to its own lie&dquo; (Adorno1981-2:202). There is a limitation to the process of reification &dquo;because humanbeings, as subjects, still constitute the limit of reification ... Mass culture has torenew its hold over them in an endless series of repititions; the hopeless effort ofrepitition is the only trace of hope that the repitition may be futile, that humanbeings cannot be totally manipulated&dquo; (Adorno, ibid.). Rejecting the thesis ofmonolithic control, the possibility remains of recovering the emancipatorypotential of sport. This potential is located within the absolute practicaluselessness of sport. As Ernst Bloch once remarked, even false, crippled needsare needs and contain a kernel of dream, hope and concrete utopia. The goal of acritical theory of sport is to transform these needs into pressures for changingeveryday life.



188

Notes

1 This vision of sport has found its fullest expression in the work of Novak (1976), Huizinga(1955) and Weiss (1969). These authors have identified the following phenomena asintrinsic to the structure of sport: individual excellence and perfection; equality; liberty,law; fairness; the struggle of the human spirit to persevere in the face of adversity; ademonstration of the power of individual and collective will over natural fate; dramaticspectacle; beauty; tactile values; and movement. In other words, sport embodies a

metaphysic of human empowerment: "athletes are excellence in human form" as well as aconstructive adventure in "self-perfection" (Weiss 1969:17,35).2 For a thorough discussion of the notion of immanent critique, see Adorno’s discussion inPrisms (1981:31-4).3 This change also had the effect of increasing the force of impact of opposing players hittingone another since they have five extra yards to gain momentum.4 The owner-appointed and controlled governing bodies argue that such changes andinnovations have been introduced for the benefit of player safety. But as former All-Proplayer Jack Tatum (1980) has pointed out, the really dangerous aspects of the game are leftuntouched: e.g., zone defenses, the quick slant passing play, blitzing, steel-hard helmets.dangerous medical practices, artificial playing surfaces, and a win-at-all-costs ethic.5 Comments made in a television interview on September 26, 1983. According to Smith: "Ifyou remember, if the AFL didn’t establish credibility by the end of three years, the mergerwas null and void. And if you remember, Kansas City got blown out in the first game,Oakland got blown out in the second, and we were the third game" (San FranciscoChronicle, September 27, 1983).6 Ironically, women marathoners get a break as a result of the sexism of the networks andthe LAOOC. That is to say, the women marathoners start at 8 a.m. and will be finished longbefore the heat and smog build up.7 This sort of corruption goes unreported and unnoticed because press coverage isconducted by reporters who are essentially agents for the sponsors and tournamentdirectors. Not limited to the world of tennis, writers or broadcasters who criticize the conduct of their respective sport will suddenly find themselves banned or unwelcome inteam club houses, practice sessions, locker rooms, training rooms, hotels, have interviewsdenied or "unavailable", or find no space available on team buses and planes. This, ofcourse, spells the end of any career in sports broadcasting or journalism. 8 However, things could be otherwise. The sole exception to the commercial dominance ofsport is found in the Masters Golf Tournament. The Masters is broadcast without

gimmickry, hyperbole, reference to money, crowd size, loud voices or promotions for CBS-TV’s next broadcast. This state of affairs is due to the following factors: (1) the stringentinsistence of the tournament organizers to keep commercialism out of the picture; (2) a verymeagre contract with CBS-TV; and (3) an almost guaranteed viewing audience (small butaffluent) who CBS can easily sell to advertizers.9 Many sports writers interpreted Kuhn’s forced resignation by the 26 corporate owners ofbaseball clubs as a matter of Kuhn’s underdeveloped business sense.10 The international governing body of soccer (FIFA) keeps commercialization in check byrefusing to allow any player to participate in the prestigious and lucrative World Cup andother international matches if he plays in a league not sanctioned by the FIFA.11 MISL crowds are 50% or more women whereas in other professional sports the crowdsare 25-30% women.12 The League’s average attendance per game is 9,000 which compares favorably with itsmature indoor rivals, the National Basketball Association (10,953) and the NationalHockey League (12,751).13 The Marxist valorization of working class sport is due, in part, to a close identificationwith and (implicit) longing to return to folk sport because of its autonomous class basis andits possession of collectivist characteristics. During the 1960s many leftist analyses of sportattempted to theorize youth subcultures as a new revolutionary force (Rowntree &



189

Rowntree 1968). This position gained currency in Britain where soccer riots instigated byworking class youth were seen in the light of a traditional class analysis which conceptualizedthese riots as "class resistance" (Hall et al., 1976; Hebdige 1979). A theoretical parallel isfound in recent East European cultural analysis which wishes to resurrect folk culture as amodel of non-alienated social relations (Marothy 1974).14 The shift in the reception of sport is evidenced in the changed nature of fan violence inrecent years. Whereas fan violence has always been part of athletic competitions, suchviolence was always associated with rabid fan identification with the home team. Incidentswere usually triggered by a contested piece of officiating (especially in importantcompetitions, playoffs, etc.) or by competitions between traditional rivals (e.g., N.Y.Yankees vs. Brooklyn Dodgers or San Francisco teams vs. Los Angeles teams). Morerecently the sporting world has witnessed gratuitous acts of mass fan violence such as thecleveland Indian Nickel Beer Night and the Chicago White Sox Disco Night. An interviewwith a 20-year-old N.Y. Yankee fan indicates this changed attidude: "I’ve waited a long timefor this game ... Those monuments [honoring Gehrig, Higgins and Ruth] mean nothing tome. I’m here to see it happen for myself and get down ... It’s gonna’ happen: kick ass if wewin, kick ass if we lose" (Greenberg 1977:26).

References

ADORNO, T. (1941): "On Popular Music", Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences, 9:2ADORNO, T. (1981): Prisms. Boston: MIT Press.ADORNO, T. (1981-2): "Transparencies On Film", New German Critique, 24-5.ARONOWITZ, S. (1973): False Promises. N.Y.: McGraw Hill.BERMAN, M. (1982): All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity. N.Y.:Simon & Schuster.

BROHM, J. M. (1978): Sport: A Prison of Measured Time. London: Ink Links.BROUGHTON, D. (1983): "Dirty Air: The Biggest Hurdle?" Not Man Apart, July/August.

COHN, L. (1982): "A Game is Smeared", San Francisco Chronicle Sporting Green, August26.

COHN, L. (1984): "Steve Scott’s Path to Glory", San Francisco Chronicle Sporting Green,April 20.

COSELL, H. (1973): Cosell, N.Y.: Pocket Books.CREPEAU, R. (1980): Baseball: America’s Diamon Mind 1919-1941. Orlando: UniversityPresses of Florida.

FISKE, J. (1983): "Boxing Week", San Franciso Chronicle, November 19.FROMM, E. (1955): The Sane Society. N.Y.: Rinehart.GANS, H. (1974): Popular Culture and High Culture. N. Y.: Basic Books.GOODMAN, C. (1979): Choosing Sides: Playground and Street Life on the Lower East

Side. N.Y.: Schocken.GORDON, S. (1983): Off Balance: The Real World of Ballet, N.Y.: Pantheon.GULICK, L. (ed.) (1898): Spalding’s Official Basket Ball Guide, N.Y.: American SportsPublishing.

GUTTMANN, A. (1978): From Ritual To Record: The Nature of Modern Sports. N.Y.:Columbia University Press.

GUTTMANN, A. (1980): "On the Alleged Dehumanization of the Sports Spectator",Journal of Popular Culture, 14.

GUTTMANN, A. (1981): "Introduction", to B. Rigauer, Sport and Work. N.Y.: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

HALL, S. et al. (eds.) (1976): Resistance Through Rituals. London: Hutchinson.HARGREAVES, J. (ed.) (1982): Sport, Culture and Ideology. Boston: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.



190

HEBIDGE, D. (1979): Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Metheun.HOCH, P. (1972): Rip Off the Big Game: The Exploitation of Sports by the Power Elite.

N.Y.: Doubleday.HORKHEIMER, M. & ADORNO, T. (1972): Dialectic of Enlightenment. N.Y. : Seabury.HOROWITZ, T. (1977): "Sports Telecasts", Journal of Communication, 27:1.HUFFMAN, L. (1984): "Pay Ball", The Village Voice, March 27.HUIZINGA, J. (1955): Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element In Culture. London:

Routledge.JAMES, C. L. R. (1963): Beyond A Boundary. London: Stanley Hall.KHOLBERG, L. (1969): "Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Development Approach to

Socialization". In: D. A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research.Chicago: Rand McNally.

KUHN, B. (1983): "An Interview With Bowie Kuhn", Sport, SeptemberLIPSITZ, G. (1982): Class and Culture in Cold War America. N.Y.: J. F. Bergin.MAROTHY, J. (1974): Music and the Bourgeois; Music and Proletarian. Budapest:

Akadémiai Kiadó.

MARX, K. (1971): The Grundrisse. N.Y.: Vintage.MARX, K. (1978): The Communist Manifesto. N.Y.: International Publishers.McCOY, P. (1984): "Marathon Madness", The Sporting News, March 3.MEAD, G. H. (1934): Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University Chicago Press.MEWSHAW, M. (1983): Short Circuit. N.Y.: Atheneum.MONTAGU, A. & MATSON, F. (1983): The Dehumanization of Man. N.Y.: McGraw

Hill.

NEIDERMAN, T. (1980): "Waitz Sets World Record", N. Y. Running News, 21.NOVAK, M. (1976): TheJoy of Sports. N.Y.: Basic Books.PETERSON, R. (1977): "Where the Two Cultures Meet", Journal of Popular Culture, 11.PIAGET, J. (1932): The Moral Judgment of the Child. N.Y.: Free Press.RIGAUER, B. (1981): Sport and Work. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.ROLLINGS, R. (1975): "Against Evaluation: The Role of the Critic in Popular Culture",Journal of Popular Culture, 9:2.

ROWNTREE, B. & ROWNTREE, F. (1968): "The Political Economy of Youth",International Socialist Journal, 7:3.

San Francisco Chronicle Sporting Green (1982): "Letters To The Editor", August 28:51.(1983): "Box Scores", February 11:48.(1983): "Box Scores", September 27:55.SCOTT, J. (1971): The Athletic Revolution. N.Y.: Free Press.Soccer Encyclopedia, (1982): "North American Soccer League (NASL)". N.Y.: Dutton.Sports Illustrated (1983): "Scorecard", February 28:9.The Sporting News (1983): "Keeping Score", November 28:4.TATUM, J. (1980): They Call Me Assasin. N. Y.: Everest House.VINCENT, T. (1981): Mudville’s Revenge: The Rise and Fall of American Sport. N.Y.:

Seabury.WEISS, P. (1969): Sport: A Philosophic Inquiry. Urbana: Southern Illinois University

Press.

WILENSKY, H. (1964): "Mass Society and Mass Culture", American Sociological Review,29.

WILLIS, P. (1978): Profane Culture, Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.WILLIS, P. (1981): Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs.

N.Y.: Columbia University Press.



191

Le sport comme bien de consommation

RésllméCette etude examine une s6rie de changements suite auxquels le sport a 6volud a un bien deconsommation. Il est all6gu6 que ce processus repr6sente une degradation de I’activit6athi6tique. L’interpr6tation de tels changements est examine sous I’aspect de la discusisonsur la culture de masse et l’art populaire. Dans cette controverse, il s’agit de la question si lanature du sport moderne a d6bauch6 depuis qu’il est assujetti A la logique du march6. Lapuerilite et l’impubert6 dominent le sport de plus en plus comme l’art modeme aussi eststandardis6 et administrd comme un bien. Ainsi le sport est regarde dans la contrari6t6 entreson potential dmancipatoire et sa fonction comme un article de consommation sociale.

Sport als Ware

ZusammenfassungDieser Beitrag untersucht eine Reihe von Veranderungen, die den Sport immer mehr zurWare werden lief3en. Es wird behauptet, dieser ProzeB stelle eine Degradierung athleti-scher Aktivitdt dar. Die Interpretation solcher Verdnderungen wird vor dem Hintergrundder Diskussion fber Massenkultur und popul5re Kunst untersucht. Bei dieser Kontroversegeht es um die Frage, ob die Natur des modernen Sports verdorben wurde, seit er der Logikdes Marktes unterworfen wird. Puerilitdt und Unreife beherrschen zunehmend den Sport,wie auch die moderne Kultur standardisiert und wie eine Ware verwaltet wird. So wird der

Sport im Spannungsfeld zwischen seinem emanzipatorischen Potential und seiner Funktionals sozialer Konsumartikel betrachtet.

La Comercializaci6n del Deporte

Resumen

Este aporte examina una serie de transformaciones que Ilevaron a una comercializacion deldeporte cada vez mayor. Se afirma que este proceso respresenta una degradaci6n de laactividad atletica. La interpretaci6n de tales transformaciones se examina ante el trasfondode la discusi6n sobre cultura de masas y arte popular. Esta controversia se centra en que si lanaturaleza del deporte moderno se ha echado a perder desde que es sometido a la 16gica demercado. Puerilidad e inmadurez dominan cada vez mas en el deporte al igual que la culturamoderna es estandarizada y administrada como una mercancia. Asi, el deporte se mira enterminos de las tensiones entre su potencial emancipatorio y su funci6n como articulo deconsumo social.



192

CrIOpT KaK TOBap.

Pe31OMe:3Ta CT3Tbfi paccmaTPXBaeT DEA COCTOYI3IIILIXCfi ~3MeHeHV;M, BCITe~-CTBMe KOTOPBIX cnopTa nOCTeneHHO o6panianeR B TOBap. YTBepKna-eTCH, ~ITO 3TOT npouecc npencTaBnneT co6oiz nerpanaumo aTne-TmqeCK09 fleHTeflbHOCTl4. DIHTeprIpeTaulzq TaKoro pofla M3MeHeHMMBeA2TCfi Ha ~7oxe fll4CKyCCl4£ O KyflbType macc K nonYITHpHOM LIC-

KyccTBe. B 3TOM cnope o6cysnaeTcn Bonpoc B KaKo5 Mepe nop-Tl4flaCB HaTypa cnopTa C Tex rlop, KaK ero nOjl’qMHRRH 3aKOHaM

PBIHKA. npaBJI2HI’fe cnopTOM xapaKTep~3yeTcH He3peITOCTblO. Co-BpeMeHHaR KYRLTypa cTana CTaH~apT~3¡’IpOBaHHoiïi, eIO pacnopn-3KaMTCH KaK TOBapOM. COAHOV~ CTOpOHbI CIIOpT OTJILIL?a2TCFi CTpeM-iieHmeM K 3MaHCHnannn, c apyron CTOPOHbl OH CITY~I1T ripejlfAeTOMCOQI1aITbHOrO nOTpe6ITeH~H.



the commodification of sport - sewart.pdf

Documents