Sports and politics have been entwined ever since the ancient Greeks and Romans used them as propaganda vehicles.
Let’s set the record straight. I like sports. Sports have been very good to me, both as a sports writer and in my public relations days as the sports marketing guru at two public relations giants.
That said, I also think that too many people are immersed in sports culture at the expense of caring about more important events. Cases in point include people being harassed by masked ICE agents because of the color of their skin, the rising cost of living, the unraveling of commitments to our allies, and a president who “disparages” (and that’s being kind) anyone who disagrees with him about anything.
But there’s at least one thing: the above subjects are sliced and diced every day and night on the political news stations. What doesn’t always happen, though, is the same kind of critical attention to political matters in sports. The good news is that Bill Belichick’s shocking rejection from the Pro Football Hall of Fame is getting the attention it deserves. It’s shining a light on what has always been a feature of sports, the politics of sports.
Should Bill Belichick have been a first-round football Hall of Famer? My opinion is a definite “maybe.” If you believe that an individual is worthy of being inducted into a Hall of Fame based on statistics, and if you believe that statistics tell the entire story (which I don’t), Belichick should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.
But here’s another important part of his story: Belichick had limited success after Tom Brady left the New England Patriots. He went 29-38, reached the playoffs only once, had no postseason wins, and finished his last year (2023) with a 4-13 record. Now, to balance off that string of stats, it’s reasonable to ask: How successful would Tom Brady have been if he played for the woeful New York Giants or Jets?
Much has been written and said about Belichick being snubbed by the Hall of Fame voters (too much, in my opinion). After all, Halls of Fame are nothing but publicity gimmicks for the various leagues, and all too often, voters are asked opinions about players they never personally saw play.
In addition, a strong case can be made that the Hall of Fame keepers are akin to Luddites, refusing to acknowledge that things have changed. How reasonable is it to compare athletes of today with those of the past, given the facts of improved medical and training advancements, space-age equipment, and longer seasons? On a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning they are comparable, I would choose zero.
How athletes are selected for Halls of Fame is outmoded. A new and more realistic system is needed. How?
• Voters should not be permitted to cast a ballot for players that they have never seen play or have seen only a few times.
• Career statistics should not be considered because of the changes over the years in all sports.
• A system of voting for players in a specific time period – maybe a decade or two – should be instituted. That would ensure players are compared to others of the same era rather than to those who played before the voters were born or were being burped by their mothers.
I’m ambivalent about players who have been found guilty – not in the legal sense – of using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDS). On the one hand, honoring them sets a bad example for youngsters who follow sports. Conversely, all the Halls of Fame probably have many inductees who have used PEDS before they came under the Congressional spotlight. I’d also be willing to bet the farm that many of today’s athletes still use them.
Putin at the Sochi Olympics (photo, Moscow Times)
Soon, another sports tradition that needs to be brought into the 21st century will begin — the 2026 Olympic Winter Games in Milan-Cortina, Italy, which will be held from Feb 6 to Feb 22. For as long as I can remember, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been saying that politics has no place in the Olympics.
Really?!
The IOC has awarded its propaganda-rich games to totalitarian countries, including China and Russia, and whitewashed Nazi actions prior to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which provided Hitler with his first worldwide platform. It’s time for the IOC to admit that sports and politics have been entwined ever since the ancient Greeks and Romans used them as propaganda vehicles.
A good start would be for the IOC to only award future Olympics to democratic countries. Of course, doing so would eliminate countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia from hosting future games. So, betting that the IOC will take such a stance would give you as much a chance of winning as betting on future sports events via TV bookies.
What’s necessary for that to happen is for American companies, which provide the bulk of money that permits the Olympics to survive, to band together and say that they will not advertise on any Olympic Games held in totalitarian countries. Plus, American media outlets, including TV networks, must state that they will
Sports politics, again. And the odds of any of that happening are less than the odds of the New York Jets winning the 2027 Super Bowl.
