When Nike took the risk on Colin Kaepernick they made an effort to start a more political sports company. Michael Baumann highlights this in his article “Nike’s Big Gamble on Colin Kaepernick.” In the second round of the 2011 NFL Draft the San Francisco 49ers took a dual threat Quarterback out of Nevada named Colin Kaepernick. He and starter Alex Smith had a back and forth Quarterback race that took the 49ers to a Super Bowl. Though he performed under average on the field Kaepernick made a stand by sitting in 2016. At the time America had a Black President in office and still had troubles with the underlying issue of American racism. Riots broke out under the tension of another police shooting of an unarmed Black citizen. Kaepernick sat during a preseason National Anthem against the Packers but had little notice to the protest. It wasn’t until he talked to a former US Military member about the best way to use his platform respectfully when his view broke loose. Kneeling for Colin during the National Anthem was his way of protesting Police Brutality of African Americans in the US. Though for many groups this was seen as disrespectful of the American military. After this many others joined his efforts but the backlash was too much and Colin wouldn’t be able to secure another NFL job after that season. With all this controversy still two years later Nike introduced Kaepernick as the face of its 30th anniversary “Just do it” campaign. Per usual this would take some backlash as he was still seen as a controversial figure. The campaign stated the line “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” Kaepernick was the perfect person to put behind this ad being that he did exactly this. He believed in dismantling the White supremacist culture even if him speaking out about this would cost him a job. Today Colin Kaepernick has partnered with Disney Plus, and the creator of the 1619 project Nichole Hannah Jones. They are a team with the idea to create content that reflects the views of the Black Lives Matter movement. For this type of support to come within four years is a real positive in such a tough and dark story. Though for Colin we don’t know if he plans to take the field again maybe he has found his calling in the world of activism. 

This week’s readings were centered on the inherent social and cultural identities which majorly characterize the sports world, and how these elements have permanently interlocked entertainment and political activism. The articles analyze the experiences of two professional black athletes who were publicly ostracized, then later glorified, in response to their democratic expressions of protest and social activism. The two athletes, Boxer Muhammed Ali and NFL Quarterback Colin Kaepernick, were the athletic stars of two different generations and they protested the cultural context of two different American settings. But their distinct methods of social activism, which came as a response to the systemic injustice and racial inequality that defined American society,  were both immediately met with harsh criticism by the media, public and political condemnation, monetary loss, and ultimately exile from their beloved sport. The similarity in their periods of exile can be easily juxtaposed, but the most powerful comparison between them lies in the widespread rationalization of their “radical” ideological beliefs that occurred later on in their careers.  Due to his refusal of being drafted to serve in the Vietnam War, Muhammed Ali was regarded by most Americans, both black and white, as “unpatriotic” and a selfish traitor. Kaepernick received similar criticisms, but Ali’s experience was unique due to his actions invoking a federal legal conviction as well as being exiled from the religious and ideological community he proudly identified with. While Colin Kaepernick fortunately received support from a majority of the black community and a large cluster of his colleagues, his name and form of protest became a divisive political talking point and even resulted in his activism becoming the focus of constant scrutiny from the President of the United States, Donald Trump. These temporary, but intensive periods of vocal and printed criticism were regarded as a reflection of the common American opinion. Surprisingly, the socially deemed “radical” nature of the athletes’ ideological values gradually evolved into a politically “moderate” perspective on its own terms. This cultural shift did not occur due to a sudden change of heart; Muhammed Ali nor Colin Kaepernick ever gave into the pressure and developed beliefs that fit within the socially accepted narrative. Without sacrificing their own integrity, even when it seemed like the smartest thing to do, both athletes later on became defined as frontiersman of the sports world and leaders of their generation. Notably, many other prominent black athletes in history have spoken out against racial injustice within their own sport and society, but none of them vocalized beliefs as radical or were given the opportunity for their reputation to recover. Ali and Kaepernick could be viewed as “lucky” because the cultural context surrounding them evolved in their favor gradually overtime. The decreasing popularity of the Vietnam War in Ali’s case, and the growing political prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement for Kaepernick, allowed for these athletes to define their legacy without the potency of controversy.

The readings this week centered on questions our class itself seems to constantly return to: what has political activism looked like in sports historically and why does the media/general public limit athletes in their political activism? Stephen Townsend, Gary Osmon, and Murray Phillips partly answer the first question in their case study of Muhammad Ali. Unlike sports activists which cover our newspapers in modern moments, the actions and beliefs Muhammad Ali held which sprouted controversy were multi-faceted. Whereas Colin Kaepernick found divisive fame around the conversation of one issue, Ali’s divisive fame included topics like race, religion, and anti-war sentiments. I was unaware of the complexity of Muhammad Ali’s story prior to this article, although I knew he remains a black power icon and, moreover, an icon to all for remaining true to his personal beliefs during the height of his fame. The idea of a black, Muslim, anti-war athlete finding success in the 1960s seems… impossible, given the climate of race-relations at the time. Yes, the Civil Rights movement was passed in 1964, but we know as historians that it can take years (or in this case decades) for culture and climate to match up with law. As made obvious by the actions of Kaepernick and greater societal conversation, structural and systemic institutions remain in misalignment with the law either. Muhammad Ali’s story is one of eventual success, as pointed out by Townsend, Osmon, and Phillips, who find extreme interest in examining this success through the eyes of the journalists and press who covered Muhammad Ali. Unlike our ever-expanding landscape of media outlets, the press was the main medium for consumption of news at the height of Ali’s fame. The aforementioned authors highlight Muhammad Ali’s eventual acceptance by even journalists who claimed to hate him the most, such as Authur Daley. However, my understanding of this acceptance is that it came as the greater public’s perception of race and war sentiments began changing- and while they didn’t shift enough to meet Muhammad Ali’s stances, Townsend, Osmon, and Phillips point out that at the same time, Ali found success and gained respect in the boxing world and lost his radical edge to his views. I believe Muhammad Ali’s eventual acceptance reflects a slight shift in cultural values, paired with a willingness to hear his words because of his athletic success and less aggressive stance, rather than a true acceptance of his beliefs. Using the article Nike’s Big Gamble on Colin Kaepernick and other background knowledge to compare the two athletes, one similarity between the two is their eventual acceptance by the media. Kaepernick has been mostly accepted by big media outlets, such as The Ringer,The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, etc. Even major brands such as Nike, as pointed out by the article Nike’s Big Gamble on Colin Kaepernick, provide evidence for an acceptance of his beliefs and actions. Despite this acceptance, Kaepernick remains a divisive figure. This leads me to the conclusion that the greater public hasn’t shifted its cultural views on police brutality- his original reason for protesting.  Perhaps the media is ready to use Kaepernick’s face and support him because they truly believe in his cause, or they’re scared to be the last ones to condemn police brutality, or as pointed out by Michael Baumann, it’s a business strategy (Nike). 

Differences between the two athletes include Kaepernick’s similarity to Smith and Carlos. All three athletes were pushed from their sports and place in the public eye at the very moment their radical actions became public attention. The aforementioned athletes’ identity as a human being lost its significance, especially once the media turns their actions into a conversation on the controversy of the act rather than the intention of the action. Ali, alternatively, remained in the public sphere even when banned from the boxing ring. Everything discussed to thus far serves to answer the question of what political activism has looked like in sports historically. But why does the media/general public limit athletes in their political activism? Take Lebron James for example, who was told by Fox News Host Laura Ingraham to “shut up and dribble” when he spoke out in agreeance with Colin Kaepernick’s protest. Based on our readings and class discussions, I argue athletes (and more so BIPOC athletes) are seen as commodities first and foremost- whose status and popularity can bring their organizations and sponsors infinite monetary gain. Mahammad Ali in the public sphere was seen as a boxer first, Kaepernick a quarterback first, Lebron James a basketball player first. It’s true that athletes of higher power status, icons, have greater protection and bargaining power with the public and it would be easier to recover from speaking out and receiving backlash; but regardless all athletes are seen as commodities- bodies with great athleticism meant to entertain, compete, inspire, and make money. So then, if athletes are seen as useful or valuable things which can be used for profit, what happens when they speak out on injustice? Injustice perpetrated by the very state which funds and consumes their careers? Injustice a majority of their base or their sponsors’ base refuses to acknowledge? The obvious solution for those who disagree with their narrative, the solution for their sponsors, the solution for their institutions: silence. As a society, especially in the United States, we need to see athletes as human beings first- particularly in regard to BIPOC athletes who have experienced structural and systemic racism or whose communities have been victims of disenfranchisement by the state for centuries. 

As I read Where Cassius Clay Ends, Muhammad Ali Begins; Sportspeople, Political Activism, and Methodology by Stephen Townsend, Gary Osman, and Murray G. Phillips, as well as Nike’s Big Gamble on Colin Kaepernick  by Michael Baumann, my eyes were opened. From the time of Muhammad Ali to the time of Collin Kaepernick, politics and sports really have not changed. Even more recently than Kaepernick’s situation, the article LeBron Walked Out of Player’s Meeting that Ended ‘Ugly,’ After Vote by Lakers, Clippers to End Season [Report] by the KNBR Staff, shows how politics are relevant to sports.

The most interesting thing that I read was the Kaepernick article by Baumann. The author is very clearly biased in supporting the case of Colin Kaepernick, even claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is a white supremacists. Could one not be opposed to this method of protest without being a white supremacist? It is obvious that Nike signed the deal with Kaepernick for profit, which the author touches on a little bit. With a social movement such as the Black Lives Matter movement, companies will exploit it the best they can to make money, regardless of what political view or standpoint they see the subject from. People will more than likely flock to the stores to purchase the items that have words, sayings, or figures such as Kaepernick on them that show a message supporting a movement they are following, especially one as large as the Black Lives Matter movement.

In the article about Lebron James, players held a large meeting to discuss what will happen with the current social movements going on and the continuation of playoff games. Players could not come to an agreement and many, including LeBron James, walked out without having found a solution. Whole teams left the room because of this.

There is no way to take politics out of sports, there is no way to take sports out of politics. When someone is given a platform to express their views, they will express their views, and people will listen. The real issue is how they choose to express their ideas and views on issues and the world.

https://www.knbr.com/2020/08/26/lebron-walked-out-of-players-meeting-that-ended-ugly-after-vote-by-lakers-clippers-to-end-season-report/