The Biggest Contradictions in Sports Culture

Often times, when we sit down to watch sports, certain circumstances require us to put on the blinders in order to enjoy a game. After all, we don't want to think about the fact that Athlete X "allegedly" committed a crime last week but still continues to get paid millions of dollars anyway, do we? Sports fans are no strangers to moral quandaries like this, often opting to feign ignorance instead of actually doing anything about it, mostly because, well, what can we do? However, as a result of our indifference and inaction, a lot of contradictions like this continue in sports or just get worse. Think about gambling or the hype-cycle or our overly-masculine sports culture.

Problems like these persist in large part because we, the hungry masses, continue to participate or buy into them. Take a look at the Biggest Contradictions in Sports Culture and think about how these issues affect your overall experience as a fan. Do any other glaring contradictions come to mind?

When scandals break out like the NBA's Tim Donaghy saga or the Premier League's latest match-fixing fiasco, it's easy to just point at the refs, officials, or players and blame it solely on them. As long as the human element persists in sports, the potential for these issues will always exist. However, let's not forget the role that fans play in this as well, helping to feed money into a gambling complex that has been chugging along for decades.

In the state of Nevada, $3.45 billion was wagered on sports last year alone. You don't think that the refs—who are making paltry sums compared to the players they officiate every night—aren't trying to get in on that action somehow? Once our obsession with gambling ends, then so will these scandals.

The damaging aspects of steroid use have received a much worse reputation than is probably deserved, as the mass media has tried to bury performance enhancing drugs in images of needles, death, and shrinking balls for years now. However, we should keep in mind that steroids, like anything else, are dangerous primarily when they're abused. Used in safe, monitored moderation, the effects of HGH or any other supplement could be a beneficial factor to recovery times, and help to reduce the career-altering effects of certain injuries. And hey, when you think about it, isn't that exactly what a medical advancement like Tommy John surgery allows an athlete to do?

As technology and medicine play a larger part in defining athletic performance, the general public needs to realize that steroids have the potential to be just as helpful as any other advancement made in the future. Yes, the dangers of PED abuse have been well-documented, but what would happen if athletes were using those enhancements under a more intelligent and watchful eye? The benefits could be enormous.

As the Jonathan Martin scandal revealed to us this past year, certain expectations that we have about athletes in America have become so unreasonable that they've actually began to affect how these individuals treat one another. In the case of Martin, the macho culture that has surrounded football for decades was ridiculous to the point that it effectively justified Richie Incognito's actions against Martin, and even allowed Incognito to be made out as a victim of sorts in the situation. However, even when onlookers do label an event like this as a signal of pro sports' dangerous masculinity complex, it's also important to note that we rarely hear of any similar defenses being raised for the women in sports who are called out for their talents on a regular basis.

The complaints have become cliche: Danica Patrick can't drive; the WNBA is boring. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions of an athlete or a particular sport, but you have to pay attention to the fact that when we continually degrade females in sport, it only reinforces the notion that athletics are for "real men" only. When that belief reaches its boiling point, we end up with problems like the Jonathan Martin case. Not only is the contradiction a dumb one, it's also dangerous.

Whispers of placing ads on NBA jerseys have been forming for a couple years now. The general consensus being that advertisers will have their way in the NBA. While the idea may seem commercially repugnant and force the sports purists of the world to once again throw up their arms in outrage, let's first not forget that advertising is literally everywhere in the sports world. What's the name of that ballpark, arena, or football stadium you're sitting in right now? Odds are pretty good that it's sponsored by a company. Or, as another example, take the Super Bowl commercials. Advertising during the Super Bowl has become an entire event all its own that people regularly look forward to as a part of the pageantry of the game. Oh, but now, suddenly, a sponsored jersey is too much? And honestly, what's the difference between seeing another ad on top of the Nike or Adidas logo that we already see on any team's apparel?

In a fight like this, you can't really pick your battles—it's either all or nothing. If the governing bodies of sports see that they're able to get away with commercialism on one level, then they're going to go as hard as they can to get every last bit out of it.

With the increasing number of concussion-related catastrophes in the NFL, and the uproar from the general public that has accompanied these tragedies, one crucial factor has worked against anyone who is trying to see a serious change come about with these problems: Fans of the NFL are still watching the game. As much as it sucks to miss out on your team's upcoming Sunday showdown, you have to know that by continuing to watch the NFL, you're only continuing to support the voluntary ignorance that the league acts with in regards to their treatment of former football players.

So long as Roger Goodell and the owners can still reap in the riches from the ticket-holding, TV-watching masses, they can care less about what happens to some old NFL vets. Unless we find a way to make them listen to the plight of those affected by this problem, then it isn't likely that very much will change for the better in the future.

Essentially, the contradiction of the hype cycle boils down to this: When SportsCenter talks about a play or an event on TV too much, then they're beating it into the ground, but when you're going off about it on Twitter, or you post the play on your Facebook page, then it's okay. The hype cycle continues to exist because of this faulty logic, and anyone who is complaining about it as a problem is failing to see that they, at one point or another, probably contributed to the cycle's long lifespan. Sports outlets will continue to push a top play or a headline-making news story on us as long as we keep talking about it, negatively or positively.

Certain cases have emerged over the years as exceptions (see: the unbearable Brett Favre saga) but consider, for example, LeBron's "Decision." Everyone and their mother wanted to take his head off after his ESPN announcement back in 2010, but those same people are now the ones who can't stop speculating about where LBJ will end up after this season. If you don't like the hype cycle, then stop creating so much hype!

With each passing season, it only seems more and more likely that, someday soon, the NCAA will renounce its greedy obsession with "amateur" status and finally pay the players the money that they deserve. The arguments that have been made against a "Pay-for-Play" system are often weak, and only strengthen the selfish, money-grubbing interests of the NCAA. After all, how is it that the coaches and the NCAA executives are the ones seeing all of the money when the players are the ones laying it out on the football field every Saturday or taking it the rack in March? Yes, scholarships and college education mean something, but they don't account for the fact that the highest-paid public employees in 40 different states are NCAA coaches.

Nick Saban has won a few championships at Alabama, but does that really make him worth $5.62 million a year as opposed to the relatively meager scholarship money that A.J. McCarron gets as a member of the Crimson Tide? The hypocrisy at the root of the NCAA hasn't been right for a long time, thank Ed O'Bannon for putting the pressure on them.

Ever since the New York Yankees got Babe Ruth, the idea has persisted in sports that money wins championships. And to a large extent, it's true! Simply put, small-market teams like the Oakland A's or Kansas City Royals are just at a disadvantage to big spenders like the Texas Rangers or Boston Red Sox. However, because fans feel burned by this system, they throw their hate at every outlet they can find. Suddenly, the Yankees are spending too much and the Rays aren't spending enough. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes, in certain cases (especially baseball) there are instances of imbalance. It's practically an epidemic in European soccer. But you can't criticize big-time franchises like the Yankees for using baseball's no-cap system to their advantage. They'd be stupid not to do it. Players want money, and larger markets can afford to pay them those amounts. That's just the reality we have to put up with as fans.