When children begin playing sports, most of them do not imagine themselves below the stadium lights at a Monday night game, soaking in the neon light from the corporate advertisements and knowing that they will recoup at least a few hundred thousand dollars when their cleats meet turf.
Romantics pine for the days when professional sports players made peanuts for representing a franchise and they had to maintain a second part-time job just to make ends meet. Back then, they might say that they all played for the love of the game or for "the smell of the ballpark, the cool of the grass," as Ray Liotta put it when he played "Shoeless" Joe Jackson in the film Field of Dreams. "I'd have played for nothing," he said.
Now, it seems that we only watch our favorite pastimes through a thick film of sponsorship and funding schemes that exploit the popularity of American sports.
Only several stadiums and arenas retain the traditional custom to name the venue after the team, or at least after a person of note, such as Lambeau Field and Yankee Stadium. Now it is HSBC Arena, the Staples Center, Prudential Center or Citi Field that signify a destination for watching the modern heroes of state pride.
And the side effects of this commercialist tidal wave give us pause when we consult sports history and abandon our shortsighted scope of entertainment.
Arguably there still remain those who play amid the glitz with only the game in the foreground of their mind; they do what they love each day, and the money is cake icing that only supplements their enthusiasm.
But it also seems that the monetary aspect of professional sports gets just as much attention as player statistics, as the hot topic of player pay and coach salary help determine a player or manager's value in the constant race. Perhaps we would not care as much if SportsCenter didn't throw it in our faces, footnoting the stats on replays and player montages.
To believe that they are above the influence of money is a false hope, and many do it for the endless flow of wealth that pours in from the fans and from sponsors. Capitalizing on sports advertisement has sent business ventures groveling before television networks for a 30-second spot on Super Bowl Sunday, and has put players in an awkward position as pressure from all sides beats down on their performances.
Andre Agassi, former number one tennis player in the world, has openly discussed his dislike of tennis in general but acknowledged the steady paycheck as a bold factor in his decision to continue his career, showing all sports fans that many players continue their on-screen performances strictly for the spoils of fame.
Many athletes, even those below the collegiate level, are put under enormous pressure, from interests and family, to sign contracts because of their skill, whether or not it carries with it passion and personality.
And would anybody be this angry at LeBron James if he was just another player, and politics and money were non-factors?
Many of us on the Spectrum editorial board are sports fans that feel that we can actively ignore the commercialism and acknowledge it only as a consequence of popularity. We acknowledge that we are contributors to the rise of commercialism also.
But what are we going to do? Boycott sports entertainment? Laughing, we would say: I like you, but you're crazy.
