What is the Wheaties definition of “champion”?

wheatiesgreg

There is a Change.org petition out there that is testing the half-life of homophobia in sports marketing. Put forward by Julie Sondgerath, an information technology manager in Chicago, it a public appeal to celebrate Greg Louganis’ extraordinary diving career with his likeness on boxes of Wheaties—the self-proclaimed “Breakfast of Champions”—27 years after he won the last of nine gold medals in Olympic and world championship competition.

Sondgerath’s petition notes that, “At the time, General Mills explained Louganis did not meet their ‘wholesome demographics’ to grace the cover of the famed, coveted Wheaties box.” Which sounds suspiciously like code language for reacting to rumors at the time that Louganis was gay.

Louganis in fact acknowledged his sexual orientation in 1994, but that was six years after his athletic retirement and long before a calming of often irrational fears of the AIDS epidemic and the court rulings that led to same-sex marriages such as his own.

But, in strictly sporting terms, Louganis unquestionably was the best diver of his era—and perhaps all-time. Compared to his peers, he was all bright lights and formal attire; his competitors seemed to be wearing coveralls and doing bellyflops. For six years, Louganis never lost an international competition in one diving discipline, springboard. No Wheaties-box jock—there have been more than 500, back to Lou Gehrig in 1934—ever dominated his or her sport to any greater degree than Louganis did.

Yet he was racked with insecurities aggravated by a sense that society—especially the theoretically he-man world of sports—was not ready to hear his secret of homosexuality. In August of 1987, between Louganis’ two diving competitions at the Pan American Games in Indianapolis (he won both with apparent nonchalance), four of us inked-stained wretches—simply looking for a feature on one of America’s most accomplished international athletes—arranged to chat with Louganis about his chosen pursuit.

What he offered, instead of banalities about pikes and tucks and somersaults, or thoughts of jumping off the 10-meter-high platform in relation to the three-meter springboard, were recollections and emotions strongly hinting that he wanted—but couldn’t quite bring himself—to be publicly honest about himself.

IMG_0796

He said that he had needed his favorite teddy bear to get him through the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, where he won both diving events. He said he considered diving “an escape….We all go to the movies or the theater to escape for a while, and I consider diving to be a performance.” He spoke of having given his first gold medal at those Pan Am Games to a high school boy suffering from AIDS, via a blood transfusion, because he identified with the youngster as “an outcast.”

“I’m dyslexic,” Louganis said then. “When I was growing up, I was called ‘stupid,’ ‘dumb,’ ‘lazy.’ And other names because my skin was very dark. I believed I was retarded until I was a freshman in college.

“Believing I was retarded or something, that’s probably why I’m so good in athletics. I didn’t have anything else. I didn’t have good grades. The only way I got into college was through very, very, very high math scores on the SATs. My high school grades and my English testing scores were way down. I was reading on the third- or fourth-grade level.”

Louganis talked about being adopted, how his adoptive mother had him taking dance lessons as soon as he could walk, singing and dancing on stage by the time he was 3. He spoke of the burden of becoming a widely-known sports star, of others “who want to be just like Greg Louganis.”

“When I was 23, I quit smoking,” he said, “because I ran into a 12-year-old on our diving team who smoked. When I asked him why he smoked, he said he wanted to be like me. And I realized that I had started smoking when I was 8. So I quit. That’s probably my greatest accomplishment.”

The fact that competitive diving is a rarely followed sport outside the Olympics, and that it strikes the casual spectator as mostly an endeavor of grace and style, helped to disguise Louganis’ athletic grit. He once sustained two black eyes and a bloody nose when he hit the bottom of the platform. He once was knocked unconscious by hitting the platform and had to be rescued from the pool, waking up 20 minutes later surrounded by doctors. On another occasion, he broke a collarbone by hitting the bottom of the pool.

Then, at the 1988 Olympics, he struck his head on the board during the springboard preliminaries and emerged from the pool bleeding. He didn’t dare tell anyone that, months earlier, he had learned he tested HIV-positive and might already have AIDs and, with four temporary sutures in his scalp, proceeded to hang up the highest score in the prelims. The next day, he won another gold.

Real Wheaties-box athletic heroics, no? During his career, Louganis also gave time and energy to children’s hospitals, once gifting a young boy dying of leukemia with one of his gold medals. This week, the New York Times’ Richard Sandomir reported that General Mills officials are aware of the Change.org petition to finally put Louganis on its cereal box, and issued a statement that, “While we do not discuss future marketing decisions, we will look into how we celebrate his accomplishments.”

It shouldn’t be difficult. There are lots of pictures Wheaties could use of Louganis diving.

Politics and wrestling: Define “real.”

trump

Newsday political reporter Dan Janison’s Wednesday column—“Trump: As Real As Pro Wrestling,” with the above Associated Press photograph from 2000—had me riding in the Way Back machine.

The fellow cozying up to The Donald in that photo, of course, is former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura, whose campaign for the Minnesota governor’s office 17 years ago appeared to be a put-on until Ventura won. Which moved me to begin a Dec. 7, 1998 post-election report on Ventura for Newsday this way….

Ask not what Jesse Ventura has done for his…uh…sport, but what his sport has done in getting him elected governor of Minnesota. Ask not whether professional wrestling is real. Ask whether politics is real. At least, those were the knee-jerk questions when 37 percent of voting Minnesotans put Venture into office as a third-party candidate with a classic split-vote scenario last month. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune quickly editorialized a “what have we done?” lament, dismissing Ventura as no more than a celebrity creation of rasslin’ and sports talk radio, his two most successful jobs in his 47 years. Around the state, “My Governor Can Whip Your Governor” sweatshirts and postcards popped up and sold out immediately.

In the 1985 movie, “Back to the Future,” when young Marty McFly was transported back 30 years in time and casually mentioned that, where he had come from, the President of the United States was one Ronald Reagan, McFly’s 1955 scientist friend guffawed to hear of such an important station for the old B-movie actor. “And who’s the vice-president?” he asked sarcastically. “Jerry Lewis?”

That was comedy. But this Trump thing, and Ventura’s mention this week that he would consider being Trump’s vice-president—a tag-team “leadership” built on boasting, preening and insults—feels closer to farce.

Not even Ventura’s name is authentic. He is James George Janos; he uses his pro wrestling stage handle because that’s what made him Known. Goofier still in considering a Trump-Ventura ticket, Ventura now lives in Mexico, and this week told the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, “I love the life down there because it broadens me in the fact that—guess what?—I’m the minority. It’s something that all white people should take part in at some point, being a minority, because it gives you a new perspective on the world around you.”

That sort of open-minded outlook—is it real?—clearly clashes head-on with Trump’s characterization of Mexicans as “criminals” and “rapists.” (Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, this week called Trump “a bloviating megalomaniac” on NPR.) Where Trump’s rhetoric does seem to have been foreshadowed by Ventura was in the latter’s public disdain for the very job he sought, regularly denigrating the democratic process and legislative exercise.

Janison, in marveling at Trump’s use of “standard techniques for pro wrestlers,” noted Trump’s credentials as a member of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) Hall of Fame, and for having his Atlantic City Trump Plaza host some of WWE’s “over-the-top events.” Events that typically suspend reality and common sense, not to mention the political correctness Trump loathes.

In my reporting on Ventura’s 1998 election, I was told by Dave Meltzer, who had been operating a popular pro wrestling newsletter for more than 15 years, that “Most people within wrestling would never admit this, but privately, they think Jesse’s election is a joke. Because, in wrestling, everything is a con.”

wrestle

Abe Lincoln gets the last words: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Moving the chains on players’ rights?

nwest

It could be that the subversives—those who believe college football players deserve a voice in their billion-dollar enterprise—are gradually establishing field position against the establishment NCAA and its hypocritical “amateur” model.

Because, while the National Labor Relations Board held the line on the Northwestern players’ move to unionize, the NLRB, in effect, punted on Monday by not ruling on the central question of whether Northwestern’s athletes are university employees.

It is true that legal authorities are mostly surprised that the full NLRB board did not uphold last year’s decision by a NLRB regional director, granting the Big Ten school’s players a right to bargain over such issues of health care and work environment. Upsets happen. But, in the meantime, ever since that rabble-rousing former Northwestern quarterback, Kain Colter, lent his face to the case for a union, the NCAA has been scrambling to demonstrate concern for its labor force.

While sticking to its bogus “student-athlete” branding, the NCAA has moved to allow its wealthiest five conferences to set some of their own standards, resulting in increased scholarship values and the guarantee that players will have a four-year ride, instead of one. That isn’t much, given the kind of money the NCAA powers are generating, and the whole process feels all the more tedious—like a two-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offense—for anyone who has read former Notre Dame and Kansas City Chiefs lineman Michael Oriard’s 2003 book, “King Football.”

IMG_0795

In what serves as an American studies text, examining the transformation of our popular culture as seen through football mores in mass media, Oriard includes a thorough history of the sport’s “uncertain position between work and play.”

Oriard writes that “controversies over scholarships, bowl games and other ethical issues….haunted college football since the 1890s.” And, as long ago as the 1930s, there were agitators—though rarely, and typically at such publications as the proletariat-leaning Communist Party’s Daily Worker—calling for a union in the sport.

Oriard references a 1936 column by the Daily Worker’s Lester Rodney—the first white newspaperman, by the way, who campaigned for the inclusion of blacks in Major League Baseball—in which Rodney took on the argument for “pure amateurism” in college sports. That justification, which also was applied to Modern Olympic sports for almost 100 years, overlooked the fact that well-to-do athletes were the only ones who could afford to play for nothing more than the old school spirit.

Lester Rodney

Lester Rodney

“Why not [idealize], let’s say, a youngster from the Pennsylvania mining region,” Oriard quotes Rodney, who died in 2009, “a good high school running guard who accepts the offer of a college to pay his tuition and expenses in return for playing ball on the team because he wants a college education and couldn’t get it otherwise? A boy who takes the bumps and bruises of the almost year-round practice sessions, takes on odd jobs around the campus in addition to studying and practicing so that he can send a little money home. He has a conflict. He doesn’t get headlines and much glory, he doesn’t get as much time to study as he’d like, he doesn’t particularly care for some of the snobbery of the ‘old grad’ bunch and those who look upon him as a hired hand. But then like all good players he really likes the game, likes the team camaraderie, in which boys of all types and derivations work together purposefully with high spirit, likes the learning and putting into practice of the subtleties of play, the development of himself and the team, the excitement of winning the big game, the appreciation of teammates, coaches, real fans and opponents for his hard and skillfully done anonymous work up front on the line, where more games are won and lost than in the backfield.”

Oriard also quotes Rodney’s Daily Worker colleague, Ted Benson, on the paper’s view that subsidized college players were not corrupted amateurs but underpaid workers. “Our suggestion,” Benson wrote, “is for the boys who tote the leather for dear old Alma Mammy to get wise to themselves and form the American Federation of Football Players and Substitutes under the banner of the C.I.O.”

So, here we are, some 80 years later, essentially watching the same fandango. Is college football, which at the big-time schools is funding multi-million dollar coaches’ salaries and fully professional athletic operations, just play? Or is it work?

The bolshevik question is being raised more often these days. And the NLRB avoided a definitive answer.

Baseball records, discounted

Baseball and steroids isolated over a black background.

First of all, we need to lose the term “steroid era” in baseball. All that label describes is the period of time when the sport’s leadership weaponized the use of performance enhancing drugs by ignoring their long-obvious presence among elite athletes.

Only with the Balco revelations in 2002 and the 2007 Mitchell Report was Major League Baseball at last shamed into doing something about doping. That was four decades after Olympic sports began policing illegal substance abuse. Even then, it took years before baseball’s commitment to testing resembled effective international standards.

Furthermore, we need to be grown-up enough to admit that the improved drug screening and stiffer penalties have not magically eliminated banned substances. Just this year, more than two dozen players in the major and minor leagues have been busted for various steroids, including repeated cases involving Stanozolol, an old, old favorite that got sprint champion Ben Johnson spectacularly stripped of his gold medal at the 1988 Olympics.

With the curtain pulled back on this ongoing nefarious behavior, then, there is the persistent riddle of statistics, and just what effect juicing should have on baseball’s precious records. No other sport is as obsessed with averages, means and medians to theoretically collate career accomplishments of men who played the game in different decades—even different centuries.

Two recent posts on the FiveThirtyEight web site considered this pickle, citing a SurveyMonkey Audience poll asking Americans whether some players’ stats should be subject to a “steroid discount.” (Another dilemma here: Would a discount be applied to players merely accused of doping by credible sources as well as those who have admitted drug use or have failed tests?)

FiveThirtyEight reported that 41 percent of poll respondents believed all records should stand as they are; 23 percent said dopers should have their records wiped out completely; 36 percent suggested some reduction percentage. FiveThirtyEight subsequently settled on three charts, one reflecting actual home run totals, another with home run numbers reduced by 20 percent and another downgrading long-ball stats by 33 percent. (Other batting stats and pitching records were not considered.)

According to those calculations, the notorious Barry Bonds drops from No. 1 in all-time homers (762) to No. 4 (657) via the 20-percent discount and No. 6 (588) with a 33-percent penalty. (Bonds, it should be noted, played the last of his 22 Major Leagues seasons in 2007 and never failed a drug screening, while MLB did not commence “survey” drug testing until 2003, and did not establish even moderate penalties for positive tests until 2004.)

barry

Alex Rodriguez, who likewise never failed steroid screening though he has twice confessed to doping, would have his homer ranking slip from No. 4 (674) to No. 7 (598) and No. 11 (548) in the FiveThirtyEight models.

Here I acknowledge the absolute impossibility to know just who has cheated and who hasn’t, as well as an aversion to canonizing ballplayers based simply on their athletic skills—naturally produced or not. (A modest proposal: Skip Hall of Fame enshrinements and limit a demystified Cooperstown to its fabulous museum aspect, housing a full record of player history that includes any proven moral turpitude. This would minimize the danger of affording venerated status to really good athletes by hanging their plaques in a reverential hall and allowing their grand statistics to confer on them the title of Great Men. And would address the problem of deputizing a group of baseball writers to determine which players are worthy of entering the Hall’s pearly gates.)

I confess, with baseball’s ever-proliferating formulas—WHIP, WAR, VORP and so on—being numbed by numbers. So I give the last words on the subject to my friend Tony Spota, whose elaborate set of impressive quantitative measurements enable him to rank every player in baseball history.

Tony Spota in his statistics lab

Tony Spota in his statistics lab

(Among the Spota equations are Ye=(G/300) + (Ab/1000) and C=[2(W+Sb)-K]/(Ab+W), which conspiracy theorists might mistake for nuclear codes but which are carefully devised and weighted to consider, beyond the usual batting and slugging averages and defensive numbers, what he calls “productivity” and even “cunning.”)

Bottom line: “Records should stand,” Spota has concluded, though his overall evaluation of players does not ignore the doping quandary. For ranking purposes, he applies a 10-percent steroid penalty to what he defines as each player’s “quality” (as opposed to “longevity”). And he places that level of punishment not only on players who have had a positive drug test, but also to those included in the Mitchell Report and those who have admitted doping. Even, he said, “a guy like Ivan Rodriguez who, when asked about using steroids, said, ‘God only knows.’”

Arbitrary? “It’s my formula,” Spota reminded.

Fair enough. In the end, by making his various integers and digits dance, he figured that Barry Bonds’ widely accepted use of steroids—though never legally proven or acknowledged by Bonds—knocks the mighty slugger down from No. 1, all-time, to a less-heroic No. 8. (Still not so bad. Spota’s top six are Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Hank Aaron, Cy Young and Stan Musial.) Likewise, via the Spota rules, Alex Rodriguez falls from 23rd to 52nd, Roger Clemens from 27th to 60th, Rafael Palmeiro from 31st to 66th.

“By the way,” Spota warned. “All of this gets blown away when we start genetic engineering.”

Ah. The “bionic era.”

Manufacturing snow: A new Winter Olympic sport?

CIMG4615

Here’s some Climate Change Denial for you: The Winter Olympics is headed to Beijing in 2022. Because of global warming, it has become difficult enough for the Winter Olympics to keep from melting away even in such climes as the Alps, Rockies and far-North Scandinavia—logical settings for an event that, by rule, is to be contested entirely on snow or ice. Yet the International Olympic Committee members, the so-called Lords of the Rings, have picked a host city historically devoid of white stuff and frozen surfaces altogether.

One report put Beijing’s annual snowfall at 5 centimeters, which isn’t quite 2 inches. Not even worth shoveling. Even Beijing’s own propaganda, used to woo IOC voters, acknowledged all its snow will have to be made artificially. Beyond meteorological deficiencies, China has virtually no tradition of either playing or watching winter sports.

So here is what’s going on: Cost overruns for host nations at Olympic Games—especially the winter version—have become so debilitating that democratic governments, faced with the reasonable concerns of their taxpayers, keep dropping out of the competition. Oslo and Stockholm, two real winter cities initially bidding for 2022, withdrew for lack of public support. That left Beijing and the Kazakhstan city of Almaty, both from nations whose authoritarian leaders do not brook NIMBY complaints.

The IOC, which at least could have gone with Almaty and its superior winter conditions and far greater winter sports interest, saw Beijing as a “safer” bet, based on Beijing’s willingness to have spent $44 billion to pull off the 2008 Summer Olympics. Spectacularly. (News accounts have made a point of Beijing becoming the first city to organize both summer and winter versions of the Games, but Stockholm—summer 1912—would have qualified for that honor as well.)

China, as Russia did in spending $50 billion on the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, wants these high-visibility events to cast itself as a can-do world power. The Olympics—increasingly just a big television show—nicely facilitates that, even though Sochi, like Beijing, is no winter resort.

Meanwhile, the Earth’s warming trends have been eating away at the snow cover needed for this quadrennial sleigh ride for decades, even in the Europeans Alps, birthplace of the Games in 1924, and home to 10 of the 22 editions. Long gone are the days when all of the competition, including ice hockey and figure skating, were contested in the great (cold) outdoors, which necessitates construction of indoor arenas and skating halls at every Olympic stop, multiplying the economic strains.

For the most recent Alps Olympics, the 2006 Turin Games, there was snow in the remote mountain venues, but only a single evening of heavy flurries in the city itself over three weeks. For precipitation, Turin got only a bit of spring-like rain….

piazza san carlo

Compare that to Albertville, France in 1992…

IMG_0789

And, especially, Lillehammer in 1994…

IMG_0792

Not since Lillehammer has there been an on-site feeling of a real Winter Olympics. Lots of snow—none of it man-made—and, better than that, a winter culture. In Norway, as an American friend observed, cross-country skiing, ski jumping and speedskating are the way the locals get to the 7-11. Winter sports are a way of life, with Norwegians reveling in the cold and snow rather than grumbling about it and trying to avoid it.

When Russia or China—even the United States, with the 2002 Salt Lake City Games—stage the Winter Olympics, they consider it important because it is the Olympics. Norway puts on the Winter Olympics and considers it important because it is winter. This visitor, sneaking hand-warmers into boots and gloves during the Lillehammer Games, was admonished by a smiling Norwegian volunteer: “That’s cheating.”

It was during the Lillehammer Games that a better idea began to circulate: Rotate the Winter Olympics among a small group of capable, already prepared winter locales. Why not hop from, say, Lillehammer to Calgary, then a site in the Alps to, possibly, Nagano, Japan (site of the 1998 Games) and back to Lillehammer?

But Juan Antonio Samaranch, the IOC president at the time, shot that down. A man who understood authoritarian governments (he had been Spain’s ambassador to the Soviet Union during Spanish dictator Generalissimo Francisco Franco’s time), Samaranch argued that the Games “belong to the world.” Although he was more than willing to let a host city work out the financial challenges on its own and leave the world—and the IOC—out of that conundrum.

In the end, having real snow is more than a matter of aesthetics, because Olympic facilities constructed for the likes of luge, bobsled, ski jumping and speedskating tend to go un-used, post-Olympics, in lands where citizens have no previous access or experience. Olympic historian David Wallechinsky, writing for the Huffington Post, last week noted how perfect Oslo 2022 would have been, “considering that Norway has earned more Winter Olympics gold medals and more total Winter medals than any other nation….”

Instead it will be China, which will have to sneak fake snow onto all those brown mountainsides (where some of the competition will be more than 100 miles from downtown Beijing). Isn’t that cheating?

 

The Boston wranglers: Brady and Olympic bidders

Around Boston, all that whistling past the graveyard on two major sports fronts suddenly has been stifled by realized fears. One day after the city’s ham-handed bidders saw their pitch to stage the 2024 Olympics collapse spectacularly, NFL matinee idol Tom Brady had his claims of innocence in manipulating footballs again dismissed—and more accusatorily—by league commissioner Roger Goodell.

IMG_0773

Predictably, the Brady news created the larger fuss, even though the gridiron fortunes of his New England Patriots—ordered to play four games without their superstar quarterback—have none of the economic consequences for the Boston populace that an Olympic project would. (Well, maybe they do, given the presence of bookies and plotting fantasy leaguers.)

Long ago, the drawn-out Brady investigation veered toward farce, with its conspiracy theories, Ideal Gas Law formulas, a Patriot assistant inappropriately taking footballs to the bathroom and The Destroyed Cellphone. Not that the NFL shouldn’t insist on fair play, or that Brady doesn’t deserve a day in the figurative stocks and hefty fine (based on the “more probable than not” conclusion about Brady’s under-inflation involvement).

Rather, the caper hardly rose to the level of a federal case. And certainly shouldn’t get more NFL attention than football’s effect on traumatic brain injury. Or the NFL handling of players’ criminal arrests.

So, meanwhile, Mr. Holmes, what about Boston’s Olympic scheme (scam?): In January, the U.S. Olympic Committee—shockingly, to Olympic insiders—chose Boston over Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., as its representative in the campaign for 2024. (The likely contenders are Rome, Paris, Hamburg, possibly Budapest and maybe Toronto.) Given the International Olympic Committee’s rejection of New York for 2012 and Chicago for 2016, Boston—an American city with even less public support for the Games than those two and an equal lack of existing venues—hardly made sense.

Immediately, the already flat Boston possibilities began to lose more air. (Without Tom Brady being a person of interest.) There were grumbles about the organizers’ lack of transparency while their blueprint continued to expand, both geographically and financially.

Costs ballooned to $8.6 billion and, just a week ago, a release of Boston-2024 documents reportedly revealed a predicted budget shortfall of $471 million. Taxpayers were reasonably concerned, if not downright freaked out. Andrew Zimbalist, the Smith College economist who has studied sports finances, noted in a Brookings Institution interview that the chief executive of Boston’s private bid committee, John Fish, is owner of a Boston-area construction company that made its pitch to the USOC without the approval or sanction of the city council.

Fish “applied in the name of Boston,” Zimbalist said. “By doing so, he was encumbering Boston with a substantial financial committment.” And angling for some serious construction work. As Zimbalist had written in a 2012 piece for The Atlantic magazine, there are “Three Reasons Why Hosting the Olympics Is a Loser’s Game:” The Games’ bidding process is “hijacked by private interests….creates massive over-building…[and demonstrates] little evidence that it meaningfully increases tourism.”

Full disclosure here: I consider myself an Olympic patriot. I have covered the Games 11 times, and believe in the value of the United Nations In Sneakers. The Olympics brings together people of all backgrounds and nationalities, peacefully celebrating and crying and doing brave things on the athletic fields; sometimes cheating or making dumb decisions but, through it all, lending some uplifting optimism about human nature even as it is reflecting real life.

The Olympics are worldly, a bit overdramatic, giddy, ephemeral. Absolutely worth carrying on. But they also have become trapped in a cycle of one-upmanship, spending far too much money for a 17-day festival and leaving behind white elephant stadiums and other facilities. (Proof: Four of the six cities that originally showed interest in bidding for the 2022 Winter Games, after staring into the abyss of possible financial ruin, have voluntarily dropped out, leaving only the Kazakhstan city of Almaty and—illogically—the non-winter city of Beijing.)

The story of a Boston Olympics in 2024 was not going to end well. And the best news about its withdrawal is that the USOC likely will put forward, in its place, Los Angeles which—31 years ago—established a gold standard for Olympic efficiency, marketing and fiscal sanity.

Newsday's 1984 Olympic staff

Newsday’s 1984 Olympic staff

In 1984, after the Olympics literally was bloodied by the 1972 Munich terrorist siege of the Israeli athletes’ quarters and bludgeoned by a 1976 Montreal financial disaster and the U.S.-led boycott of Moscow in 1980, Los Angeles came to the rescue. Official sponsorships (an Olympic first) and the use of pre-existing stadiums provided such an enormous cost-cutting benefit that L.A. produced a $223 million surplus that continues to fund sports programs in the city.

The irony is that L.A.’s overall success and unanticipated economic prosperity released the beasts of gigantism and profligate spending—a prime example being Atlanta in 1996, when the Georgia Games’ budget went from Los Angeles’ $800,000 to $1.7 billion. (And when Atlanta’s organizing chief, Billy Payne, left behind a statue of himself in the Olympic Centennial Park.)

Atlanta's Billy Payne

Atlanta’s Billy Payne

So, again, the Olympics appear in need of a fiscal savior. Why not L.A.? At least there is no NFL skullduggery going on there.

 

In New York, Arns, we hardly knew you….

bill

“A Farewell to Arns?”

That nugget, in the grand tradition of wise-acre reporters proposing punny headlines to fit looming storylines, was offered, as I recall, by Bergen (N.J.) Record football sage Vinny DiTrani.

The New York Giants had just lost their first six games of the 1976 NFL season. Their third-year coach—the increasingly dour and insecure Bill Arnsparger—obviously was twisting in the wind. Sure enough, one week and a 27-0 loss to Pittsburgh later, Arnsparger indeed was bid adieu by Giants management, the first (and still only) time in the team’s 90-year history that it dismissed a head coach during the course of a season.

Arns’ departure was not much lamented by disgruntled fans, frustrated players or our small band of beat reporters. During his 2 ½ years at the Giants helm, Arnsparger came across as a fellow lacking in both good humor and flexibility. His single solution to every situation, which didn’t seem to take into account the team’s considerable lack of talent, was simply a call for more effort. “W-O-R-K!” he said.

But now that we have come to his final good-bye—Arnsparger, 88, died Friday at his Alabama home—it must be noted that, during 40 years of coaching football (and another six as the University of Florida athletic director), his only period of professional disappointment was his brief time in New York. (He could not make it here, but he could make it anywhere else…..)

ad

Widely proclaimed a “defensive genius,” Arns coached in five Super Bowls—one with the Baltimore Colts, three with the Miami Dolphins and one with the San Diego Chargers. He was right-hand man to some of the sport’s biggest names, Hall of Famer Don Shula in the pros, Blanton Collier and Woody Hayes on the college level. He was widely considered a tactical wizard whose game preparation was unsurpassed.

With the Giants, though, his teams won only 7 of 35 games. There were endless problems, several major ones not of Arnsparger’s making: His first New York training camp, in 1974, began with a player strike. The linebacker Arns had hoped to be his defensive anchor for the “53 defense” he created in Miami, four-year starter and former No. 1 draft pick Jim Files, retired suddenly, explaining that God no longer wanted him to play football. The start-up World Football League lured another five Giants to jump ship.

All that aside, Arnsparger hardly had inherited a juggernaut. The Giants were 2-11-1 the year before he signed on and, during his tenure, the team was dizzied by a revolving door or quarterbacks: Randy Johnson, Norm Snead, Jim Del Gaizo, Carl Summerell, Craig Morton and Snead again.

To Andy Robustelli, the former all-pro player who was the Giants’ director of operations at the time, hiring a tireless, studious football analyst such as Arnsparger was the perfect choice. “If a guy wants to come to New York to coach the Giants because he feels he can get into television shows and endorsements,” Robustelli said, “then that’s not what we’re looking for.”

And certainly not what they got. Arnsparger was something of a football monk; his passion was relentless, solitary study of film, not only of games but even practice drills, which earned him the handle “One More Reel.”

His bedside manner—detached and critical—was not one that typically gets the best out of well-paid, big-ego players. The one star Arns inherited, running back Ron Johnson, felt under-used and under-appreciated. (“I’m not a rookie. I don’t have to prove myself to a new coach.”) And less-proven players attended the coach’s meetings with dread. (“Arnsparger used to keep stopping the film, turning on the light,” defensive back Jim Stienke related after the coach was fired, “and saying, ‘You know, I can replace you very easily.’”)

Arnsparger once compared training a football player to training “a good mule.” Oddly, he treated his fellow Giants’ coaches as subordinates—there only to carry out his specific orders—in complete contrast to having been given a free rein when he had been an assistant.

“I have a pretty good system,” one member of his staff quoted him in response to a strategic suggestion. “What do you want to go and change it for?”

“It’s my football team,” Arnsparger said when asked about making all the decisions. “You wouldn’t walk out on your store and leave the cash register unattended, would you?”

Of course, it wasn’t his football team for long. But, two days after the Giants sent him packing, Arns returned to Miami to reassume his role as defensive genius. He later took the head coaching job at LSU and promptly won the Southeastern Conference championship and Coach of the Year honors, then went back to the NFL and helped San Diego to the Super Bowl.

I ran into him years later during an assignment related to University of Tennessee football. Tennessee was playing Florida and Arns, then the Florida A.D., approached to chat at halftime. He was personable. A bit chatty. Smiling. Not the fellow I remembered.

So, a possible (bad) headline for his farewell: New York Didn’t End the Arns Race.

How important are sports heroes?

 

There is a whiff of the curmudgeonly in questioning whether a sports team qualifies for the ticker-tape treatment afforded the U.S. women’s soccer champions last week. Especially since those women generated an excitement and admiration in their run to the 2015 World Cup title that was every bit the equal of Yankees and Mets teams similarly celebrated in recent years.

It’s just that witnessing the giddy, noisy procession through flying confetti and adoring crowds prompted ruminations of where athletic achievement belongs on the continuum of heroic deeds. Just how do feats on the playing field stack up against the accomplishments of Einstein, Lindbergh and Earhart; General Eisenhower, Churchill, astronauts and anti-apartheid revolutionaries such as Nelson Mandela—all those previously feted in the Canyon of Heroes?

And what does it tell us that, while a modest 30 of history’s 206 ticker-tape parades over 129 years—quintessential New York City events—have featured sports figures, 10 of the last 11 have honored jocks?

Might it be that society has come to accept that sports luminaries, though they may not rush into burning buildings to save babies, indeed qualify for the slippery title of Hero? There are genuine examples of strong character in sports and the need to face adversity, if not danger. And arguments can be put forth that athletes at times contribute to a greater good, if only in terms of unifying a generally partisan populace.

Plus, there is a significant precedent for such worship, at least as a pleasant distraction from larger issues. Romario, Brazil’s soccer star of the early 1990s, once described his national team’s success as a “plate of food” for his countrymen who were constantly battling poverty and inflation. President Franklin Roosevelt, in a letter to baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis one month after Pearl Harbor, urged that the sport “keep going” through war, to provide beleaguered citizens’ a “chance for recreation and for taking their minds off their work even more than before.”

So the tut-tutting over a $2 million parade for that band of 23 female athletes will be happily held in abeyance here, reinforced by a long-ago chat on this topic with Johann Olav Koss, the former Olympic speedskating champion from Norway who has spent his post-competitive years promoting sports for children in war-torn and disadvantaged lands.

His work—he is CEO of an organization called Right to Play—grew out of a trip to Eritrea, a tiny African nation that had just won a 31-year war of independence from Ethiopia in 1993, the year before Koss’ repeated gold-medal triumphs at the Lillehammer Olympics.

“In Eritrea,” Koss said, “there were posters of soldiers who had died in the war, hanging along the street, and a group of 10-year-olds stopped in front of a poster to admire these dead soldiers. You could tell, these soldiers were the heroes of Eritrea. But then a group of cyclists came through the street, and those kids turned around and were screaming after the cyclists, cheering them. And I was wondering, ‘What kind of heroes do we want?’

“I want it to be athletes as opposed to soldiers. Isn’t it something to have somebody good to look up to?”

Athletes, Koss convincingly argued, “are very good role models. When you’ve dedicated yourself to play fair—that is very important—then it’s totally enough to be a hero in sport.”

Among Koss’ travels, bringing sports equipment, health services and counseling to kids subjected to war’s trauma, was a stop in Rwanda to set up a sports festival.

“Kids there had lost limbs,” he said, “legs and arms, from land minds and being cut up by machetes. And they had crude prostheses made of wood. There was this 4-year-old girl, with a beautiful dress, the most beautiful blue dress, with a wooden leg. But she was running, and she had so much fun doing this. And you say, ‘How important is this?’ Even in the cruelty, this is so important. As an athlete, I was so proud that sports could help. It was a great thing.”

So, forgive the temporary urge to dismiss a soccer championship as something frivolous in a troubled world. It was a great thing. And the parade was good fun.

Who won the Women’s World Cup?

Apparently, the United States has won the Women’s World Cup soccer title for the third time in the history of the seven global tournaments. Except the champs who bludgeoned Japan, 5-2, on the July 4th weekend appeared to be representing some mysterious land that flies a white, black and neon green flag.

flag

Or, very possibly, the Nation of Nike.

The Americans’ raiment was so counterintuitive that, when the duds were introduced in April, a Nike vice president, Charlie Brooks, had to scramble to the outfitter’s defense by claiming the uniforms were meant to “paint inspiration for the team itself—something crisp, stylish, sharp, strong and impactful, like the team itself.”

green

But, neon green? Rally ‘round the shoe company? Ev’ry heart beats fine/’neath the white, black and lime?

In international sports, nationalism can get a bit haywire at times and morph into an unattractive jingoism that denigrates the Other Side. Nevertheless, those keenly skilled American women were, after all, members of the U.S. National Team. Their fans, who dominated the large crowds at the various Canadian Cup venues, logically draped themselves in red, white and blue flag motifs.

Typically, even those national teams that eschew their flag look tend to opt for hues with significant links to their homelands. Italy (red, green and white flag) wears blue—the Azzurri—because blue is the official color of the Royal House of Savoy, under which Italy was united in the 19th Century. The Netherlands (red, white and blue flag) wears orange, the traditional color of the Dutch monarchy and a symbol of national unity.

I’m of the conviction that U.S. teams—as suggested long ago by my friend John Powers of the Boston Globe—should outfit themselves like Apollo Creed in the old “Rocky” films. All stars and stripes, a little like the 1994 U.S. men’s soccer team.

creed199494

Instead, the women’s attire in this World Cup reminded that it has been some time since Nike, the sportswear-and-equipment beast, began dictating uniform colors and, in the process, providing a glimpse into the dark shades of Nike’s voracious capitalist heart. By assuring that traditional colors wear out before your souvenir shirt does, Nike can increase its sales. The retail tail wags the on-field dog.

So black is the new blue, neon green the new red. (And subject to change.) Is this the kind of thing that Yale law professor Charles Reich was warning about in his 1970 book, “The Greening of America”? “The corporate state,” he argued, “is an immensely powerful machine, ordered, legalistic, rational, yet utterly out of human control, wholly and perfectly indifferent to any human values.”

book

Paul Lukas, the sports uniform maven who runs the Uni Watch web site that obsesses over team logos and color combinations, told me several years ago that, in this marketing era, “the first question [uniform designers] ask is, ‘How is this going to sell at the team shop or Modells?’”

Lukas called this all part of the “video-game-ization of sports, the superhero-ization of sports. Superheroes don’t wear uniforms. They wear costumes.”

OK, superheroes: Time for a revolution. Storm the Nike barricades. Take back the nation’s colors.

Knicks fans: There is basketball civilization beyond these shores

It could be that Knicks fans, having memories so long they are out of date, were thinking of Frenchman Frederic Weis when they roundly booed team president Phil Jackson’s use of a first-round draft pick on a tall lad from Europe. Weis, of course, was the 7-foot-2 Frenchman chosen No. 1 by the team in 1999 who never played a minute in the NBA and is mostly remembered as the victim of one spectacular Vince Coleman dunk—literally flying over the seemingly helpless Weis—in the 2000 Olympics.

dunk

Just as likely, though, the negative fan reaction to picking 19-year-old Latvian Kristaps Porzingis was a form of the unattractive xenophobia that characterizes American basketball provincialism almost 30 years past its shelf life.

Somebody needs to remind those folks—as well as Carmelo Anthony, whose egocentric playing style tends to dismiss the comparative competence of even American-raised teammates—that the NBA is crawling with talented fellows from across the pond.

And it would help that they had a little history lesson.

As far back as 1988, the Americans couldn’t get past the USSR in the Olympic hoops semifinals. That game did not resemble the controversial 1972 Olympic final, when the Soviets needed a pair of controversial do-overs to score the winning basket and end the Americans’ international dominance—a 62-game Olympic winning streak.

By ’88, the rest of the world clearly was catching up. And, while U.S. partisans regularly aired the excuse of not having NBA players eligible for international competition, it was, in fact, officials in the U.S. federation who were blocking the pros’ participation. (Those federation pooh-bahs figured our collegiate guys were plenty good enough to win all the time and, furthermore, understood that the entrance of NBA talent also would bring NBA officials to take their jobs.)

Anyway, before Magic, Michael, Bird and their NBA pals came to the Yanks’ rescue in the Barcelona Olympics, there were revealing developments at the 1990 Goodwill Games, a Ted Turner event staged that summer in Seattle.

There, the Americans soundly were beaten by a Soviet team missing fourth-fifths of its 1988 gold medal starting lineup—all Lithuanian citizens whose nation had just split from Moscow. (Among the missing from the Soviet side was Sarunas Marciulionis, the shooting guard who had just signed with the Golden State Warriors and would make over 50 percent of his field goals in a seven-year NBA career.)

In their Goodwill Games match, the Soviets left the Americans dizzy with their teamwork, by weaving passes at the top of the circle and kicking the ball outside to wide-open sharpshooters. An American spectator, at one point, called out contemptuously after a successful fast-break Soviet layup, “Look at that; they can’t even dunk.”

Just as scornful of the Soviets’ style, as if it were not only un-American but unfair, was the Goodwills’ celebrated U.S. coach, one Mike Krzyzewski. “Their penetration and pitching back out is a little unusual for American basketball,” Krzyzewski said.

Days later, in the tournament final, Yugoslavia dumped the Yanks, again mystifying the American players who, Krzyzewski admitted, “do seem, sometimes, to be puzzled by what’s going on out there.”

What was going on was that the Americans were laboring under the assumption that a slam-dunk-and-residual-hang-time-on-the-rim somehow counted for extra points, and were apparently convinced that their fussed over, televised collegiate careers—with the NBA always in the future—automatically made them a higher form of basketball life.

They gave no indication of a belief that the rest of the world could compete with them. “Our shots just weren’t falling,” was Syracuse University star Derrick Coleman’s excuse in the wake of the Yugoslavs’ clinical fast breaks, give-and-go moves, three-point accuracy, back-door cuts and relentless defense.

The Yanks were One-Pass Wonders on offense, mostly devoid of teamwork, with individual shaking-and-baking and ill-advised shot attempts, followed by standing around while the Yugoslavs threw touchdown passes for easy layups.

That U.S. collection of Big Name college all-stars was exposed as basketball neophytes. And any protestations that they had to make do without our nation’s best—Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, etc.—didn’t stand up so well to the reality that Yugoslavia also was without its prominent NBA heroes—Vlade Divac and Drazen Petrovic.

Since then it has been demonstrated, over and over, that a player need not be U.S. born-and-raised to excel at James Naismith’s sport—invented in Springfield, Mass., yes, but by a non-American. (Naismith was Canadian.) Fran Fraschilla, who made his name as a top U.S. collegiate coach, recently told the New York Times that the Europeans “took our game, which we imported, and made it more interesting. I fell in love with the way they played the game.”

A man who has been paying attention.

None of this is to say that top Knicks’ pick Porzingis, who is a spindly 7-foot-3, is guaranteed to be an NBA headliner. Or that he even will make the team. But that will have nothing to do with Frederic Weis’ failure to make it in New York 15 years ago or his martyr’s role in Carter’s “Le dunk de la mort”—“the dunk of death.”

Really, Knick fans ought to be a little embarrassed at disparaging young Porzingis before he has a chance to prove himself, merely because his is an unfamiliar name from across the pond. That ESPN didn’t broadcast the coming of Germany’s Dirk Nowitzki; Spain’s Gasol brothers, Pau and Mark; Poland’s Marcin Gortat; Montenegro’s Nikola Mirotic and Nikola Vucevic; Slovenia’s Goran Dragic; France’s Tony Parker and Rudy Gobert; and Greece’s Giannis Antetokounmpo—among many, many others—hardly demonstrates that those fellows don’t belong, prominently, in the NBA.

In 1967, Pete Axthelm’s book, “The City Game,” was based on a claim of New York basketball sophistication, of a “city that knows and loves [basketball] best….the most active, dedicated basketball city of all.”

That was a long time ago. And wouldn’t such a reputation indicate a worldliness that can acknowledge the 101 non-Americans on NBA rosters at the start of last season, 54 of them from Europe? Here’s a Phil Jackson quote that applies to those quick-to-judge Knicks fans: “Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart.”

Hold the boos for now, at least.

kristaps