It seems you can’t go anywhere these days without hearing or reading something about the controversial Arizona immigration law. The law, which gives police a gray area of authority to stop people and ask them for their papers (later specified to only if one is pulled over for traffic or other violations), has ignited national uproar as implicit racial profiling.
Who ever thought sports would get so involved in the heated disapproval? From the Phoenix Suns wearing “Los Suns” in honor of the team’s Hispanic and Latino supporters, to Major League Baseball strongly considering moving the 2011 All-Star Game from the state, to thoughts of college football’s BCS National Championship Game being pulled from its scheduled stop in Glendale, Ariz. in 2011, sports are on the move in protest of the bill.
Why not, I guess.
In 1990, Arizona refused to honor Martin Luther King Day, and the NFL was quick to strike. The league voted to remove 1993’s Super Bowl slated to be in Arizona and relocated it to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. Because of the huge revenue boost the Super Bowl provides for the city that hosts it, Arizona voters acquiesced and acknowledged the holiday. The NFL awarded the 1996 Super Bowl to the city of Tempe.
What is it about sports that can make a profound statement? Is it the magnitude of people who watch and follow it? Is it the money involved? The diverse group of players the teams feature? Even if no action is taken on the parts of teams or leagues, the mere thought, discussion or weighing of options is huge because it is sure to make headlines and sure to have people thinking and speculating.
The next big statement in the current battle would come if the Lakers refused to travel to Phoenix to play the Suns in Games 3 and 4 of the Western Conference Finals. People would talk about it and the Arizona legislature would take firm notice. For one, it’s the NBA Playoffs, which are widely watched. It’s also the Los Angeles Lakers, one of the most recognizable franchises and brands in the country. It’s the kind of statement that you wouldn’t stop reading about and could force Arizona to really examine the consequences of the law.
Our very own Stanford baseball team is in Tucson right now for a three-game series with the University of Arizona. What if the team didn’t go? What if Athletic Director Bob Bowlsby and President John Hennessy decided it was in Stanford’s best interest to refuse to play in Arizona? That surely would send an overarching statement that Stanford does not support what Arizona is currently doing.
But here’s where that gets tricky. How do we separate an entire institution’s opposition from the individual players’ opposition? It wouldn’t be fair to the Stanford players to forfeit those three games. If the team could not get the games moved to be played elsewhere, Stanford would take three losses at a very pivotal time in the season. Why should the individual players be punished by not having a chance to play their games?
But they are just games, right? Just three measly baseball games, compared to civil rights, a stand against equality in America and an opposition to unconstitutional lawmaking. Some are calling it a 21st-century civil rights movement. Do three baseball games measure up?
These questions are not posed because I am taking a side. They are to incite you to think about how sports can deal with the issue. How far should leagues, teams and players take it? When do they draw the line on opinion? Lakers head coach Phil Jackson, after he originally seemed to support the law, issued another statement saying, “I am wary of putting entire sports organizations in the middle of political controversies.” While I personally agree with this view, it also has been shown that sports can have a huge impact on political issues; at the very least, they are an excellent vehicle for views and opinions to be shown and heard.
I am not getting into arguments about whether I support the law or do not support the law. I am writing about the way sports can be used in this type of instance to create headlines, visible and media-covered support or scrutiny and, basically, just more ado about the situation. Sports can be a very effective way of voicing out on political issues such as this because of the coverage it receives and the news headlines that come out of teams and players. Many, many players in professional sports leagues in the U.S. are not white Americans, so it hits home with them. And when it hits home with people who are high-profile, watch out.
I would not be surprised if more teams and players dive into the controversy as it heats up. The hot button issue is sure to stay until Arizona either repeals the law, passes another alternate form or debate dies down. Sports, I believe, will continue to weigh in on the issue, whether it’s teams, leagues or players themselves. And just like always, they will bring a pretty heavy weight.
Danny Belch went over to the dark side (the news section) by talking about John Hennessy. Ask him if he’ll continue on this path at dbelch1 “at” stanford.edu.