Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sport as a window on society
The Uefa Cup Final will be played today, between Glasgow Rangers and Zenit St. Petersburg, of Russia. The occasion reminds me of Frankin Foer's book, How Soccer Explains the World
.
I will root for Rangers, who could complete a remarkable season by winning three trophies in the next eleven days, with this year's CIS Cup already in the bag. But Rangers are emblematic of sectarian violence, as discussed by Foer, and I won't be singing along with chants against the pope tonight.
Zenit are favorites to win their first European trophy. A Zenit victory would symbolize the rise of the Russian economy, and the rise of Russian football as well. Zenit, as well as Russian football, are emerging from relative obscurity. How far can they - and the economy itself - go? There are some eye-opening facts about Zenit in this story from the BBC, including the fact that Zenit are owned by Gazprom, now the fourth largest company in the world. Gazprom has been pouring money into Zenit - making Zenit the Russian version of Chelsea, who are also lavishly funded by Russian oil wealth.
But the most amazing, and disturbing thing in the article is the following discussion about race. Zenit is an all-white team, by design according to their coach Dick Advocaat:
Ultimately, virulent discrimination is a limiting factor for any football club, indeed any economy. Perhaps Dick Advocaat should be channeling Bear Bryant, who learned that lesson long ago. Bryant integrated the Alabama football team after getting whipped on the field by black players from Southern Cal. Although some argue that he was late to the party, better late than never.
.I will root for Rangers, who could complete a remarkable season by winning three trophies in the next eleven days, with this year's CIS Cup already in the bag. But Rangers are emblematic of sectarian violence, as discussed by Foer, and I won't be singing along with chants against the pope tonight.
Zenit are favorites to win their first European trophy. A Zenit victory would symbolize the rise of the Russian economy, and the rise of Russian football as well. Zenit, as well as Russian football, are emerging from relative obscurity. How far can they - and the economy itself - go? There are some eye-opening facts about Zenit in this story from the BBC, including the fact that Zenit are owned by Gazprom, now the fourth largest company in the world. Gazprom has been pouring money into Zenit - making Zenit the Russian version of Chelsea, who are also lavishly funded by Russian oil wealth.
But the most amazing, and disturbing thing in the article is the following discussion about race. Zenit is an all-white team, by design according to their coach Dick Advocaat:
Unfortunately the club also have a hard core of racists among their supporters. Zenit are the only club in Russia never to have signed a black player, and their fans were accused of racist taunts during the Uefa Cup win over Marseille earlier this season.Customer discrimination is a concept that dates back to Gary Becker. The fans' behavior in this case is awful, but not without precedent in Europe (hence the kick racism out of football campaign). What is quite remarkable though, is the explicit policy statement of customer discrimination by Zenit's manager. I've not come across anything quite like it.
Marseille defender Ronald Zubar said: "They threw a banana at us and made monkey sounds."
Manager Dick Advocaat has even admitted that the fans' attitude has affected his transfer policy.
"The problem is our fans," he says. "I would be happy to sign anyone but the fans don't like black players.
"I don't understand how they could pay so much attention to skin colour. For me, there's no difference between white, black or red.
"But the fans are the most important thing Zenit have. That's why, in future, I have to ask them outright how they'll react if we sign a dark-skinned player.
"If the fans don't agree with me, I won't do it. I won't buy a player who won't be accepted by the fans."
Ultimately, virulent discrimination is a limiting factor for any football club, indeed any economy. Perhaps Dick Advocaat should be channeling Bear Bryant, who learned that lesson long ago. Bryant integrated the Alabama football team after getting whipped on the field by black players from Southern Cal. Although some argue that he was late to the party, better late than never.
Labels: discrimination, sports economics
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Black coaches
A congressional hearing took place yesterday on the issue of black coaches in college football. Jesse Jackson, the NCAA's Myles Brand,Kansas State's AD, and others particpated. The tone of some remarks reported here was emotional, and various remedies from bribing schools to suing them were proposed. Here are the numbers:
While the report suggests that the mood at the hearing was quite negative on this issue, I see things differently. Here just south of tobacco road, the roster of basketball coaches in the basketball-mad ACC was once all-white. Today, Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, NC State & UVa, along with northern outpost Boston College all have black head coaches. That's a majority of minorities, folks. Even the disaster at Maryland after the Bob Wade saga could not hold back the tide in this booster-heavy, but more importantly, highly competitive league.
A statistic I'd like to see is the number of black assistant head coaches and coordinators at D1A schools, relative to a decade ago. This is the wellspring of future coaching talent. If it is much better stocked with black talent than ten years ago, and I believe it is, the six current coaches are just the tip of the iceberg. If it can happen in tobacco road hooops, it can happen anywhere.
Of the 119 Division I-A schools, only six have black head football coaches. There are even fewer in the lower divisions: five in Division I-AA, two in Division II and one in Division III. The figures exclude historically black colleges.Of the six D1A schools, there are black coaches at Buffalo (Gill), Kansas State (Prince), Miami (Shannon), Mississippi State (Croom), UCLA (Dorrell), and at my alma mater, Washington (Willingham). UCLA has a history of incorporating black talent in a discriminating market that goes back to Jackie Robinson, who played football there before breaking the color barrier in major league baseball. Buffalo is a new program at which the allegedly discriminatory network of boosters is largely absent. This might contribute to their having a black athletic director as well. The economic theory of discrimination implies that non-discriminators will profit by employing talented people who the discriminators ignore. Buffalo and UCLA being members of this small club of six falls in line with the theory. But where are the other non-discriminators, and what is Mississippi State doing on the list? There may be a bit more to the story than what's being reported.In addition, there are only 12 black athletic directors in Division I-A, and not a single major conference commissioner is black.
While the report suggests that the mood at the hearing was quite negative on this issue, I see things differently. Here just south of tobacco road, the roster of basketball coaches in the basketball-mad ACC was once all-white. Today, Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, NC State & UVa, along with northern outpost Boston College all have black head coaches. That's a majority of minorities, folks. Even the disaster at Maryland after the Bob Wade saga could not hold back the tide in this booster-heavy, but more importantly, highly competitive league.
A statistic I'd like to see is the number of black assistant head coaches and coordinators at D1A schools, relative to a decade ago. This is the wellspring of future coaching talent. If it is much better stocked with black talent than ten years ago, and I believe it is, the six current coaches are just the tip of the iceberg. If it can happen in tobacco road hooops, it can happen anywhere.
Labels: coaches, college football, discrimination
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Wimbledon Eschews the Labour Theory of Value
The All-England Club, which hosts the Wimbledon tennis tournament, has announced that beginning in 2007, the prize money will be the same for male and female winners. But there has been considerable resistance to providing equal prize money there, even though the other grand slam tournaments do.
What puzzles me, though, is why these grand slams do not extract more rent from the contenders.
The answer, presumably, has to do with entry conditions. If Wimbledon offered only $500,000 as the top prize, how long would it take for some other tournament to emerge, claiming a position as one of the top four grand slam tournaments? Possibly Dubai?
The All England Club has gradually reduced the pay gap over the years, but held out against equal prizes as a matter of principle.The important question is not who works harder or who has what opportunities to earn extra income from other matches. Instead, the important question is who is expected to generate how much revenue. And judging from the ratings and attendance, it appears that a three-game women's tournament generates at least as much revenue as a five-game men's tournament. If so, it makes sense that the women's prize money would be at least as large as the men's prize money.
[Club Chairman (sic), Tom] Phillips had cited surveys showing that men give better value than the women. The men play best-of-five set matches, while the women play best of three. Also, the women make more money overall because they also play in doubles, while the top men usually play only singles.
"It just doesn't seem right to us that the lady players could play in three events and could take away significantly more than the men's champion who battles away through these best-of-five matches," Phillips said last year. "We don't see it as an equal rights issue."
What puzzles me, though, is why these grand slams do not extract more rent from the contenders.
Last year, men's champion Roger Federer received $1.170 million and women's winner Amelie Mauresmo got $1.117 million.Would the top talent really give Wimbledon a miss if the prize money were "only" $1 million?
The answer, presumably, has to do with entry conditions. If Wimbledon offered only $500,000 as the top prize, how long would it take for some other tournament to emerge, claiming a position as one of the top four grand slam tournaments? Possibly Dubai?
Labels: discrimination, sex, tennis, Wimbledon
