More than a game: Sticking to sports isn’t possible

It’s one of the most famous, most well recognized, most oft-repeated quotes about the nexus of sports and politics in American society.

“Republicans buy shoes too.”

Now imagine just how much further that phrase might have traveled, had anyone actually said it.

As many might know, the now-infamous line, commonly attributed to Michael Jordan as his explanation for not backing former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt’s challenge to Senator Jesse Helms back in 1990, was quite possibly never actually uttered at all. Sourcing on the statement is notoriously hard to pin down. It has, like so many other famous quotes in our history, simply been cited, and repeated so often, that its authenticity has been taken as a given.

Of course, some might argue that whether or not those specific words were ever truly spoken, is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Whatever his motivations were, Jordan didn’t endorse Gantt at a time when many felt that the biggest basketball star in the world might truly have been able to swing the race. It’s one of a number of decisions that helped, fairly or unfairly, to shape the image of “His Airness” as being more concerned with his own business clout and brand positioning than having a real social impact. It’s a perception that endures to this day, in no small measure because Jordan’s name is more likely to stir memories of Gatorade jingles and McDonalds ads, rather than any genuine, personal, political stand. In an interview with NPR last November, fellow Hall Of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabaar articulated bluntly what so many have come to believe.

“(Jordan) took commerce over conscience. It’s unfortunate for him, but he’s gotta live with it.”

There’s another well worn, cliche, far too frequently invoked quote about the games we play and the society we live in.

“Stick to sports.”

Unlike Jordan’s commentary on footwear, there’s no denying the veracity of this line. It’s employed every time a features writer has something to say about the upcoming election, a radio host dares to discuss the racial politics of amateur athletics, or a beat reporter has the gall to advocate for gun control in the wake of the latest national tragedy. It’s the feeblest of retorts, predicated on the absurd notion that anyone who makes their living discussing jump-shots and stolen bases is somehow unqualified to comment on the issues that govern our lives. Or, just as laughably, the idea that our fields, arenas, and stadiums are somehow their own sphere, worthy of separation from the challenges of our world.

All of which is to say, it’s been a tough few weeks for “sticking to sports”.

If you’ve been paying any attention to the news recently, you’ve likely noticed two attempt to change state law that have gotten a lot of attention. The first is Georgia House Bill 757, or, as it’s come to be known, the state’s “religious liberty” bill, the latest in a series of measures, across the country, that attempts to write discrimination against the LGBT community into the law, under the guise of “protecting” those who would practice such intolerance. The second is North Carolina House Bill 2, a truly repugnant piece of legislation created, essentially, as a response to non-discrimination bills passed in Charlotte and elsewhere. House Bill 2 essentially rolls back protections for LGBT individuals, and in a particularly noxious twist, makes North Carolina the first state in the country to ban transgender individuals from using restrooms that match their gender identity.

So how does sports enter the equation? Well, in addition to triggering the expected, necessary outcry from politicians, activist groups, and business leaders, both of these bills prompted responses from some of the nation’s most prominent, and most powerful sporting concerns. In Georgia, the list of companies who lined up in opposition to House Bill 757 included Disney, Apple, Unilever, Intel, and the National Football League.

“NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said league spokesman Brian McCarthy in a statement, “Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites.”

Translation? If this bill passes, don’t expect the Super Bowl to stop by the under construction Mercedes-Benz Stadium anytime soon. And it was a powerful message given that Atlanta is a prime candidate to host the big game in 2019 or 2020. The NFL has used its biggest spectacle as leverage before, speaking out against Arizona’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” back in 2014. Governor Jan Brewer soon vetoed the legislation, and last week, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal did the same. “I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia,” Deal noted in his statement. While it’s impossible to know exactly how much the pressure from big pigskin entered into the decision, the threat of losing tens of millions of dollars of in-state economic activity, is surely enough to make anyone pay attention.

Sadly, efforts to halt House Bill 2, in North Carolina, proved less successful. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed the sweeping anti-gay-rights legislation into law on March 23rd. But just as in Georgia, a cavalcade of companies have made their objections known, including Facebook, Google, American Airlines, IBM, and, you guessed it, plenty from the sporting landscape. The Atlantic Coast Conference, headquartered in Greensboro, noted that they would monitor the situation, “to ensure an inclusive and nondiscriminatory environment for all.” The Charlotte Hornets issued their own statement, asserting that the team is “opposed to discrimination in any form.” The NBA gave perhaps the strongest rebuke, claiming they were “deeply concerned that this discriminatory law runs counter to our guiding principles of equality and mutual respect” before taking a page from the NFL and offering that they “do not yet know what impact it will have on our ability to successfully host the 2017 All-Star Game in Charlotte.”

“Stick to sports”? Well, judging by the statements issued and warnings laid down in response to this legislation, the teams, and leagues themselves must have missed the memo. So what does it all mean? Can we expect to see the sports world enter more frequently into the political sphere? To borrow that phrase from Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, are we witnesses a change in the calculus, where conscience finally overpowers commerce?

Hardly.

The reality is that commerce, business, and the almighty dollar are still driving the train. It just so happens that in this instance, thankfully, they’re on the side of tolerance, acceptance, and non-discrimination. Roger Goodell, Adam Silver, any sports commissioner with even a baseline level of awareness knows they can not afford, literally, to be in business with bigotry, lest a host of their own lucrative sponsors begin to step away. This is the invisible hand of the market, occasionally functioning as it should, reflecting the fact that Americans have begun, belatedly but undeniably, to coalesce in support of equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

The fact is that professional sports teams and leagues will continue to have a major part to play in this process, given their size, economic clout, and the extent to which they represent broad swaths of the country. If any of these games truly hope to stake a claim as our “national pastime,” they then have a responsibility to use their influence, their incredible business might, to stand in defense of our national values, including justice, equality, and yes, non-discrimination regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

It’s been a rough stretch for the “stick to sports” crowd, because the real world, in all of its complexity, has a funny way of inserting itself into any situation, even into the games we ostensibly use to “escape” from political wrangling. That’s why Tom Brady finds himself having to explain away his association with a man who’s building a campaign for the presidency on racism and xenophobia. It’s why athletes from Novak Djokovic to Landon Donovan are held to account for their clumsy remarks on how female athletes should be compensated. It’s why so many looked to LeBron James for some sort of message following the decision not to indict officers in the death of 12-year-old Cleveland native Tamir Rice.

In 2016, in this age of social media, activism, and heightened social awareness, “sticking to sports” isn’t just illogical, it’s impossible. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, no matter how desperately you may hope to avoid an issue, or stay above the fray, chances are that at some point, news, politics, social issues, will come find you.

After all, they’ve found Michael Jordan once again.

In a powerful piece for “The Cauldron”, Katelyn Burns argues that it’s time for MJ, now the majority owner of the Charlotte Hornets, to speak out, strongly, and personally, against House Bill 2. For Burns, a trans woman and longtime fan of Jordan, dating back to his days with the North Carolina Tar Heels, now is the time for the basketball legend, and billion-dollar businessman, to accept the mantle of social responsibility. “As a kid,” she writes, “I used to measure myself against MJ every day. Now it’s on him to measure against what the times demand: courage in the face of cruelty, justice where only hate and fear have prevailed.”

Of course, it’s not just the legends of our past who find themselves called to speak out, but also those of our present. It was inevitable that Golden State Warriors superstar Steph Curry, who grew up in Charlotte while his father Dell played the bulk of his career with the Hornets, would be asked his opinion of House Bill 2. And for a player who has attained near-universal acclaim and adoration for his dazzling play, and wholesome image, his response left much to be desired.

“I know the NBA has a stance on equality and incorporating all the beliefs and people from all sorts of backgrounds,” said Curry at a recent shootaround, “It’s interesting how that intersection is with the state law and the NBA having an event there. Hopefully, the right things need to happen that the All-Star Game stays in Charlotte, because that would be huge for the city … just to show what Charlotte’s all about, regardless of where you fall on that law. Hopefully, they can figure it out and keep it there. I think it’s really important for the city of Charlotte. I’m sure we can figure it out.”

The only way things will be “figured out” is if everyone, including those like Curry, fortunate enough to have a prominent place in the conversation, speak out loudly and unequivocally against a law that relegates an entire group of Americans to second-class status, that seeks to deny their very right to exist equally in our society. The reigning NBA MVP’s rather feeble attempt to dodge the issue may very well be the product of the fact, recently reported by Robert Silverman for Vocativ, that the Central Church of God, where Curry attends, is no fan of the LGBT community.

Whatever the circumstances, the controversy surrounding House Bill 2 is not fading away, which means that the pressure for Curry, one of the most influential athletes in the country, to leave no doubt that he rejects discrimination, will only increase. Trying to steer clear of thorny political debates may be possible when it comes to campaign finance, trade policy, or the tax code.

But when basic, fundamental, inalienable human rights are at stake? It’s not unreasonable to expect everyone to speak up, no matter who buys their shoes.