Support Choice for Athlete Activists!

We at the Center for the Study of Sport in Society believe it is critical for athletes to have a choice about speaking publicly on social issues and social change. We are concerned that some National Olympic Committees, for instance, Britain's Olympic Association, has said that any team member who makes a public protest in Beijing risks being thrown off the team. Simon Clegg, chief executive of the British Olympic Association, says that they are an apolitical organization.

We recognize that sport can be a powerful instrument for social change, and clearly China believes there is a link between sport, politics, and social change when it promised the International Olympic Committee that human rights conditions in China would improve before the 2008 Games. Mr. Clegg may say that his organization is apolitical but clearly restricting athletes freedoms of speech and expression have political ramifications. It is our position that athletes should be able to speak and create a dialogue about social issues without facing repercussions from their governing bodies.

We base our stance on the vision of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society to promote social justice and social responsibility. We see a culture of censorship that is pervasive in the sports world, where professional leagues like the National Football League and the National Basketball Association fine players, coaches, and owners for making public statements damaging the marketing image of their respective leagues. If a coach speaks to a newspaper about poor officiating in a game, the league will fine them. The National Basketball Association's dress code for players is plainly implemented to foster a marketing image the league feels will attract more people to their sport. Players have higher salaries and endorsements than ever before and with these deals comes code of conduct contracts stipulating players avoid controversy. As the one-time slogan of a well know sport brand once said, “Image is everything,” athletes are not speaking out because they are trying to protect their marketability and the leagues’, and corporate sponsors who sign their paychecks enforce this conduct.

The right to freedom of speech supports our position, as does an historical lens. History shows that athletes can be driving forces toward social change; examples like Arthur Ashe, Muhammad Ali, Billie Jean King, and many others.

Arthur Ashe had a tremendous impact on his sport and a greater impact on society as a whole. In 1968, Ashe was denied a visa by the South African government, which kept him out of the South African Open. Ashe took this as a chance to speak out publicly against South Africa's apartheid policies, including calling for South Africa to be expelled from the professional tennis circuit. Muhammad Ali was a lightning rod for controversy during and after his career. Ali lost three years of his career when he refused to be inducted into the United States military during the Vietnam War. Ali had fought for conscientious objector status and didn't receive it. Billy Jean King was a force in professionalizing tennis, equality and women’s rights. King led player efforts to support the first professional women’s tennis tour in the 1970s called the Virginia Slims Tour, funded by Philip Morris. In 1972, King won the U.S. Open and received $15,000 less than the men’s champion. King stated that if the prize money was not equal by the following year, she would not play. In 1973, the U.S. Open became the first major tournament to offer equal prize money for men and women. These athletes took on issues much larger than themselves and used their status as high profile athletes to be driving forces for the movements that they backed.

Should athletes have a choice to speak out on social issues? Do athletes have a responsibility to be social activists? How would the landscape of amateur and professional sport be changed if athletes were able to speak out without fear of repercussions?