Breaking Up (a Pass) Is Hard To Do

Oh, National Football League.  You make it hard to forgive you, although I keep doing so.

 I think I said I was done with you last year.  Then I came back because, well, just because you were there and I couldn't resist you.  But . . .


1) Aldon Smith and the 49ers.  He crashed his car into a tree at 7 in the morning.  I don't so much care that he was drinking, but he drove while intoxicated, endangering other people.  The 49ers say they care about his well-being as a person, but they are not deactivating him for this game.  He is apparently going to play today, THEN maybe go to rehab.  My love for the Niners will be tarnished if they do play him. 

2) If rumors are true, the NFL exerted pressure on ESPN to back out of developing a documentary with PBS on concussions.  I don't know if those rumors are true, but they fit with the general pattern of issues we have seen regarding concussions recently and a growing discontent over how the league has addressed the matter.

3) Our nation's capital's football team continues to use a racist nickname straight out of Manifest Destiny.  Although I suppose someone with a dark sense of humor might find that fitting, I don't like the fact that the Commissioner continues to support the name.  The reason why no one in the league wants to change it, of course, has to do with money and merchandising, in the guise of "tradition."  I don't accept that as sufficient reason. 

So, these reasons are making me consider boycotting the NFL, by which I mean I would not watch another game and I will continue to never buy football merchandise.  It isn't like it was a realistic option for me to actually attend a game live, due to expense, so my "boycott" would be little more than poking a hole in a river. 

As I say this, of course, Green Bay versus Cincinnati is on the TV, but at least it is on mute. 

Okay, so maybe I'm just a hypocrite, talking big about being done without doing anything.  I know I talked about breaking up with the NFL last year.  But this year, with NBC Sports giving me fantastically improved access to Premier League Soccer, well, that gives me a more than adequate substitute in terms of weekend sports. 

NFL, time to clean up your act, or I really will be done for good. 

Opening Day Thoughts

Spring, and life begins again, and a new baseball season rides into town as my daughter gets ready to be born this summer. 

Having a daughter on the way puts things in perspective: the fact that the Giants have won two of the last three World Series means that I will TOTALLY be relaxed about the outcomes this year and can just enjoy the unfolding narratives.  That should last at least two weeks.

Here are my thoughts from Opening Day so far:

1) Clayton Kershaw is amazing.  I hate that he pitches for the Dodgers, but you can't have anything but respect for him.  He shut down the Giants on offense and won the game with a home run.  It was just his day. 

2) Matt Cain pitched well, the offense did their best--although would it kill Hunter Pence to develop some patience at the plate?--and it is a long season.  It was the bullpen that let the Giants down today.  It's going to be a fun rivalry this season.

3) These are not the same Dodgers owners whose attorney attributed some blame to Bryan Stow.  I need to remember that.

4) Jackie Bradley Jr, the Red Sox phenom, looks like he could be fun to watch!  Great discipline.  But he will need to show he can hit.  Drawing walks against CC Sabathia was impressive, but Daric Barton of the A's and Travis Ishikawa of the Giants drew a lot of walks, and that was never enough to really break through into the big time.

5)  Yankees are in trouble this year.  Also, it is strange to see Kevin Youkilis in a Yankees uniform. 

6) Bryce Harper hit two home runs.  Let's just give the World Series to the Nationals now and save us all a lot of time. 

Or, you know, let's not do that. 

Addressing The Slums, Literally

There are times when the influence of sports triggers steps forward in society at large.  Think Jackie Robinson and the integration of Major League Baseball.  Now, in Brazil, comes another one of those steps forward.

I found this fascinating: the slums, or favelas, or Rio are finally being mapped. 

It is depressing, but admittedly poetic in a macabre sort of way, that the poorest slums in Rio de Janeiro have not been named on maps.  The poor have been invisible, literally not listed on any map, denied the official addresses needed--as mentioned in the article--for job applications, bank accounts, and emergency calls. 

No wonder drug dealers have roamed the slums of Rio for so long. 

So, the reason why Rio is finally addressing this issue?  Sports, or more directly, the money and public attention that will come to Brazil from the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics.  It doesn't seem like this prompt should have been needed, but hey, if it works, it works. 

A victory for sports, for people like FIFA's president Sepp Blatter who argue that sport should be independent of politics because it serves as its own style of diplomat, bringing outcast countries into the fold and encouraging them to ameliorate those circumstances that cause outrage within and beyond their borders.

Then again, the awarding of the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2018 World Cup hasn't exactly spurred human rights advances in Russia, where new anti-gay legislation is pending.  Clearly Putin loved the old Cold War movies too much, because now he wants to revive that Russia versus the world paradigm through tyranny and just general nastiness. 

Don't expect to see FIFA rescind the Russian World Cup, though, nor the IOC pulling the Olympics.  Too much money at stake, and sporting associations aren't likely to take such blatant action.  But if FIFA refuses to condemn Russia, then it certainly seems like it should not be allowed to take too much credit for improving Brazilian life, even if that is an indirect result of the 2014 World Cup preparations. The same should be said for the Olympics.

Or is it just an example of picking one's battles?  Should FIFA and the IOC be lauded for their influence, the awarding of sporting events and the ensuing public spotlight forcing positive changes in some instances? 

Perhaps we should just say objectively that sports are having a positive effect in Brazil, and a neutral effect in Russia, since the awarding of the World Cup can't be blamed for Putin becoming a jerk--he was one already.  The changes that occur are simply a matter of cause and effect, not a reason for celebrating the sports that triggered the changes. 

What do you think?  Is credit due to FIFA and the IOC for awarding these prestigious events to a country with known social ills, in the expectation that the ills might be treated?  Or is it really just all about the money with them, and any attached progress happens independently of their influence, or more specifically, independent of their intentions?