Are Pro Sports Ludicrous?

Mike Tomlin, coach of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers, taunts me during his NFL Network bumper.

“You stop watching, I’ll stop coaching,” he says.

I tried in vain to do so before this year’s Super Bowl. Why?

I have recurring thoughts that professional sports are a complete waste of time and resources.

Is there any utility in pro sports beyond high profits for sponsors and owners? Many other businesses, such as food vendors and merchandisers, also gain from such spectacles, but what is the overall benefit to society, if any?

My concern took full bloom my freshman year of college. I had a highly cynical and conspiratorially-minded anthropology professor who would attempt to scare the hell out of us poor students every class period. One day he talked about how the Roman oligarchy satiated the masses with “bread and circuses.” That is, keep the plebeians distracted while the elite continue to amass wealth and power.

It’s not a great leap to go from the gladiatorial ring and chariot races to gridiron football and stock car racing. You have undoubtedly heard these comparisons multiple times. What concerns me is that, since the rise of leisurely pursuits in the Victorian period, are sports still innocent fun or another opiate of the masses, regardless of intent?

Of course, you can include games and entertainment of any kind to fit into the “opiate” category, but professional sports are different. The massive shared experience pro sports provides, historically, is only rivaled by network series finales and major world events, such as The Beatles first appearance on American television. With the increase of new entertainment outlets, however, the biggest spectacle in America, the Super Bowl, is probably the largest reoccurring shared experience.

Because the Super Bowl, and consequently American football, is shared by so many people it has a greater effect on consumption than any individual entity or event. Again, food, gadgets, travel, and the like all increase sales because of these spectacles. Industry has a monetary interest in keeping spectacles thriving.

Does this benefit Juan Q. Publico in any way besides getting to talk to his good-time buddies about the big game? Probably not. Shared experiences are great and worthwhile, but you may think it disappointing that experience (and The Beatles and M*A*S*H*) is about a contrivance.

You may even find it disturbing then that the Latin word for “game,” ludus, is the root of the modern English word “ludicrous.” I know I did.

I don’t want you to think I am completely against sports. Sports played on the “friendly” level are worthwhile activities that may promote fitness and team-building. They are also, depending on the sport, low-cost and high reward. (Cost in collegiate athletics is an entirely separate issue that deserves its own treatment.)

Professional sports exist primarily to increase the wealth of investors. Obviously, some owners have genuine like for the sports they invest in, but they would never have bought a team had they not thought they could make a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that in a free market system: an entrepreneur sees (or contrives) a need the consumer wants on some level and fills it at a cost.

This is where my conundrum starts. All these rivalries, all these contests, all the pomp and myth appear to have no worth to society at-large. Ultimately, what impact did the Giants beating the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII have on anything of merit in 2008? Even sportswriters admit that their jobs, while fun, are not important. How are professional sports a net gain for American productivity?

I don’t know. And I can’t slough it off as simply an escapist activity. Yet, I cannot break away from the circus.

As a child, my first memories of pro football involved successful Buffalo Bills seasons. The first game I ever watched with interest was the first playoff win in Buffalo’s infamous four year Super Bowl losing streak. My team was a “winner” and my family would have friends over to watch the games every Sunday. I wore Bills t-shirts. I bought licensed video games (and still play them today). It was an extremely enjoyable shared experience and I learned to love the NFL because of it.

This summer I have had to confront the question almost every day, albeit on a semi-pro level, with my working as the statistician for the Southern Tier Diesel. It is cool to be working with a sports team in such a capacity because I enjoy football and statistics, and even the travel is fun for me. But, winning or losing, the question is always on my mind.

Mike Tomlin, I don’t think I want you to stop coaching.

The Pittsburgh Steelers' Mike Tomlin. Courtesy Peter Diana/Post-Gazette

Mike Tomlin, coach of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers, taunts me during his NFL Network bumper.

“You stop watching, I’ll stop coaching,” he says.

I tried in vain to do so before this year’s Super Bowl. Why?

I have recurring thoughts that professional sports are a complete waste of time and resources.

Is there any utility in pro sports beyond high profits for sponsors and owners? Many other businesses, such as food vendors and merchandisers, also gain from such spectacles, but what is the overall benefit to society, if any?

My concern took full bloom my freshman year of college. I had a highly cynical and conspiratorially-minded anthropology professor who would attempt to scare the hell out of us poor students every class period. One day he talked about how the Roman oligarchy satiated the masses with “bread and circuses.” That is, keep the plebeians distracted while the elite continue to amass wealth and power.

It’s not a great leap to go from the gladiatorial ring and chariot races to gridiron football and stock car racing. You have undoubtedly heard these comparisons multiple times. What concerns me is that, since the rise of leisurely pursuits in the Victorian period, are sports still innocent fun or another opiate of the masses, regardless of intent?

Of course, you can include games and entertainment of any kind to fit into the “opiate” category, but professional sports are different. The massive shared experience pro sports provides, historically, is only rivaled by network series finales and major world events, such as The Beatles first appearance on American television. With the increase of new entertainment outlets, however, the biggest spectacle in America, the Super Bowl, is probably the largest reoccurring shared experience.

Because the Super Bowl, and consequently American football, is shared by so many people it has a greater effect on consumption than any individual entity or event. Again, food, gadgets, travel, and the like all increase sales because of these spectacles. Industry has a monetary interest in keeping spectacles thriving.

Does this benefit John Q. Public in any way besides getting to talk to his good-time buddies about the big game? Probably not. Shared experiences are great and worthwhile, but you may think it disappointing that experience (and The Beatles and M*A*S*H*) is about a contrivance.

You may even find it disturbing then that the Latin word for “game,” ludus, is the root of the modern English word “ludicrous.” I know I did.

I don’t want you to think I am completely against sports. Sports played on the “friendly” level are worthwhile activities that may promote fitness and team-building. They are also, depending on the sport, low-cost and high reward. (Cost in collegiate athletics is an entirely separate issue that deserves its own treatment.)

Professional sports exist primarily to increase the wealth of investors. Obviously, some owners have genuine like for the sports they invest in, but they would never have bought a team had they not thought they could make a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that in a free market system: an entrepreneur sees (or contrives) a need the consumer wants on some level and fills it at a cost.

This is where my conundrum increases. All these rivalries, all these contests, all the pomp and myth appear to have no worth to society at-large. Ultimately, what impact did the Giants beating the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII have on anything of merit in 2008? Even sportswriters admit that their jobs, while fun, are not important (see: Mike Greenberg, Tony Kornheiser). How are professional sports a net gain for American productivity?

I don’t know. And I can’t slough it off as simply an escapist activity. Yet, I cannot break away from the circus.

As a child, my first memories of pro football involved successful Buffalo Bills seasons. The first game I ever watched with interest was the first playoff win in Buffalo’s infamous four year Super Bowl losing streak. My team was a “winner” and my family would have friends over to watch the games every Sunday. I wore Bills t-shirts. I bought licensed video games (and still play them today). It was an extremely enjoyable shared experience and I learned to love the NFL because of it.

This summer I have had to confront the question almost every day, albeit on a semi-pro level, with my working as the statistician for the Southern Tier Diesel. It is cool to be working with a sports team in such a capacity because I enjoy football and statistics, and even the travel is fun for me.

Despite all that, it is so hard for me to rationalize continuing to pay attention to sports when I stop and think about the issues raised above. Can someone convince me that pro sports are not ludicrous and that watching, buying the merchandise, tailgating, etc. is good for me and for society?

On the other hand, can someone convince me to completely abandon pro sports? I know the Bills will never win the Super Bowl in Buffalo (they will do it in Toronto), but I have to know for myself!

Until then, as much as I don’t want to say it, Mike Tomlin, I don’t think I want you to stop coaching.

Thank you to Scott Eddy, Brandon Rohwer, and Benjamin Yeager for reading drafts of this blog.