Federer Visit to Seattle Sheds Light on Gap Between Sports and Politics

Roger Federer’s first tennis match in Seattle represents a fusion of sports and philanthropy. It is the product of an athlete’s rise to the status of a global figure, someone notable enough to join Bill Gates in raising money for children’s education in Africa.

The everybody-wins nature of the event on April 29 is impossible to ignore: Tennis fans in the Pacific Northwest – whose best chance at seeing Federer live has been to travel to Southern California for the Indian Wells event every March – will finally welcome Federer to their neck of the woods. They will gladly pay decent money for a light exhibition, as Federer spends downtime before the French Open and Wimbledon.

The point is not to watch a high-level display of tennis, but to raise money for a great cause. The Roger Federer Foundation has proved itself worthy of Bill Gates’ support, becoming an example of an athlete-supported philanthropic structure which elicits trust.

In this tennis exhibition, a simple but powerful nuance exists: The visibility of the central figures is a drawing card, but the core reason for the regional and global visibility of Roger Federer and Bill Gates is how reliably they have delivered the goods in their separate fields of expertise. Whereas some people know how to be celebrities without being substantive, Federer and Gates have become celebrities because of their substance.

Herein lies an important divergence from the fusion of sports and global concerns which is coming to Key Arena:

It was no small thing that when Donald Trump ordered a missile strike of Syria, a CNN commentator invoked a sports reference to explain the attack: “This is not like Kentucky basketball, one and done,” said retired Army Major General James Marks, noting Kentucky’s practice of recruiting players who generally play only one year in college before pursuing an NBA career.

Sports terms have been brought into politics and global affairs television commentary for quite some time. Election night numbers, graphics and whiteboards have long carried a scoreboard flavor. The lines between war and sports are often blurred as well, the line becoming especially fuzzy when football – in all its combative detail – is used as a point of comparison.

The tendency to liken something hugely destructive to a mere game is offensive… but it’s also commonplace. Consumers of cable news might not approve of this trend, but when Americans continue to watch the CNN-MSNBC-FOX troika, they convey – through viewing habits – an acceptance of such values from program hosts and the commentators they invite onto their broadcasts.

Roger Federer’s visit to Seattle is instructive in that while sports reveal the generally “fun” side of publicity, athletes don’t become popular without winning, especially in a solo-performer realm such as tennis. This event would not be happening if Federer produced a moderately successful career. Federer can stage this event only because he has been successful in a different universe.

The meritocracy of sports forces athletes to achieve runaway fame to leverage their positions the way Federer is doing with his foundation. Politics ought to work that way… but it doesn’t. The 2016 election offers proof, but beyond last fall’s drama, the current theater of daily politics magnifies how little achievements and track records matter.

It might be hard to pinpoint the exact time politics ceased to be a merit-based realm, but if the situation was only moderately bad 10 or 20 years ago, it has become exponentially worse today.
Would that politicians had to be as successful at helping communities as Roger Federer has become at tennis before they can win national elections. If only political public figures had to prove themselves the way Federer had in order to wield great influence.


The fusion of sports and the larger world will be evident in Key Arena on April 29. Keep in mind, however, how far apart sports and politics remain in other instructive ways.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Mark Of Complexity: On the Nadal-Goffin Call in Monte Carlo

The devil is in the details, mon ami. Hercule Poirot, being a good Belgian, certainly appreciated that pearl of wisdom in his detective work. One can only wonder how he would litigate the call which sabotaged fellow Belgian David Goffin's attempt to make his first Masters 1000 final on Saturday in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France. Let's cut right to the chase: Up 3-2 and serving at game point in the first set, Goffin won the point on a ball from Nadal that was multiple inches behind the baseline. The crowd applauded Goffin winning the point and the game. Then, several seconds later, umpire Cedric Mourier checked a mark and said the shot was good. Replay showed the ball was well beyond the baseline, removed from any "margin of error" discussion which sometimes clouds the issue of correct calls on clay. (More on that shortly.) Nevertheless, the point was replayed, Goffin lost it. The aftermath: Following a prolonged battle in that sixth game, Nadal broke Goffin for 3...
Read more

Crowd Behavior: Worth Policing, Worth Doing The Right Way

People pay good money to attend tennis tournaments and every other kind of sporting event. Yet, tennis has a well-established culture of manners and etiquette. There are unwritten expectations for the ways in which tennis fans can and should behave at an event. The problem: Unwritten rules aren't written. American readers of this piece who have a basic working knowledge of other sports are probably aware that baseball owns a lot of unwritten rules. When these "unwritten rules" are violated, two baseball teams often engage in a brawl (or at least an angry argument), usually because a pitcher attempted to throw the ball at the head of a hitter. As is the case in tennis, these "unwritten rules" have a long history in the culture of the sport. A plot complication: What happens when modern versions of a sport, wrapped inside new cultural pressures and tensions and points of awareness, clash with the unwritten rules of the past? New generations of players ...
Read more

No Way Nole Should Not Have Played Today - Eh?

It is so easy for fans in any sport to say that their team or their athlete gets the short end of the calls made by officials, or the unlucky bounces of the ball, or the especially bad luck in terms of scheduling and logistics, or the preponderance of negative bias on the part of journalists and commentators. A good 98 percent of the time, these claims are nothing more than venting. All athletes get bad calls or unlucky bounces. Most get bad scheduling. Journalists ARE biased on a broad level... sometimes in an unprofessional way, but usually in an innocent and reasonable way. (Translation: Every person has a story, a background, and a lens through which s/he sees the world. Modern journalism education has embraced the idea that a lack of bias is a myth. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Human beings have biases -- the important point is to acknowledge them and be up front about them, so that they can be corrected. A journalist or commentator who claims lack of bias but c...
Read more