Dirty Work

Although it may seem cynical, it feels necessary to understand the motivations behind professional athletes’ involvement with certain charities, foundations, community events, and other acts of giving back. It is better to see these athletes having some involvement with those less fortunate. But should they bother doing so if their intentions are selfish or ill founded? Furthermore, why do we rarely hear about the good things our role models are doing in their communities and we continue to hear and read about their success on the court, field, pool, gym, or whatever arena in which they do what they do best? Media is partially to blame. We constantly talk about the “top 10 plays of the week” or, on the flip side, we are bombarded with stories and details about our role models letting us down—drug use, the never-ending steroid saga, and other serious crimes—but we never hear about Cal Ripken’s unmatched contributions in the community. If athletes received the same level of fame and exposure for their charitable contributions as they did for their competitive contributions, would they be more inclined to give more? When we actually dig into this notion of athletes and their social responsibilities, it raises so many questions about why and how they choose to accept this social responsibility of community and charitable involvement.

Nonprofit organization like Athletes for Hope, are constantly praised for helping athletes give back. But are companies like these creating more opportunities for athletes and celebrities to give back to their communities or are they, in essence, enabling these athletes to find easier ways to increase their public image and gain recognition for acts that, in actuality, should be done more frequently and without a need for praise or public acknowledgment? Athletes for Hope(AFH) plainly states in their official brochure they present to potential athlete members: “Everyday, many professional athletes make a difference by tackling a variety of national issues; such as cancer and health, education, youth development, poverty and equality. AFH seeks to increase public recognition of these efforts and highlight the important role that professional athletes play in their communities.” Is it really that simple? A professional athlete, because they are our childrens’ role models and are in constant public eye, should be able to show up at any event deemed “charitable” in one way or another, and AFH will put out press releases, media alerts, and will have professional photographers on-site to capture the moment and distribute to the Associated Press? In other words, if an athlete does the minimum service to earn a noteworthy public story, it will actually, in turn, make him even more money? That seems to be the point here. Or the pitch to the athlete, at least. In obvious business plans, the athlete is the product. The product needs to be marketed and sold so that it earns its optimal revenue and success. If an athlete is making millions of dollars for success at his given talent, now he must make millions as a marketing brand or icon too, right? So, in simple terms, the athlete attends one event, one time. AFH (or whomever; sorry that AFH happens to be the target for such scrutiny in this case because, after all, their intentions are, in fact, very admirable and well founded) promotes the appearance, sells the “good-humanitarian” piece to the media, and, in essence, builds the brand of that athlete by bettering their image in society.

AFH does not necessarily leave a good taste about the intentions that inevitably lead the select few athletes who do give back to do so. It seems to be an ongoing battle with no clear end in sight. The infamous Catch 22 of society’s role on encouraging today’s athletes to want to get more involved in their communities versus the social responsibility they have to fulfill and should want to, in one way or another, despite its potential business or personal benefits.

Posted by Stephanie Cantor