Athletes must be especially careful
how they conduct themselves in this day of technology. The court of public opinion can come crashing
down an athlete at any moment, and minor mistakes can end up being
career-threatening. Now, while cheating
generally is not a minor mistake, it does bring the same ramifications from the
public. The same can be said for just
engaging in immoral activity. What I
find most interesting, however, is how some athletes are able to generally
skirt public opinion (David Ortiz, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.) while others are
punished severely for their actions (Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez,
etc.). What makes the cases so
different?
Several
factors come into play when analyzing how the public will respond to a public
relations disaster from an athlete. They
are: popularity of the athlete, image of the athlete, reaction(s) of the
athlete, and legal standing of the athlete.
Popularity
of the athlete is a tricky situation. In
this context, I’m meaning how popular is an athlete in the general population,
particularly in America—it is cherry-picking, but that’s where I’m at so I’m
going to go with it. A bit
counter-intuitively, I would suggest that popularity actually has a negative
impact on public opinion. The bigger
they are, the harder they fall. Think
about it. Approximately 13 players
(depending on if you count minor leaguers) were suspended by Major League
Baseball in the aftermath of the Biogenesis scandal. You likely knew of Alex Rodriguez and Ryan
Braun getting suspended. You maybe knew
of Nelson Cruz and Jhonny Peralta. But
the point remains: did the latter 2 receive anywhere near the same public
backlash as the former 2? Of course,
there were some extenuating circumstances—we’ll discuss A-Rod more later, and
Braun basically tried to scapegoat a UPS worker—but Cruz and Peralta were
nonetheless aided by not having the sort of attention on them as the
others. About a season later, both got
massive deals in free agency. Popularity
can bring the spotlight to players, and by extension bring the public on them
stronger by pointing out their mere existence.
The court of public opinion cannot smash someone if it doesn’t know he/she
is there.
Next
comes the image of the athlete. More
bluntly, is the athlete viewed in a positive or negative light (or somewhere in
between). The poster child of this point
for me is Big Papi himself, David Ortiz.
Now, Big Papi has always been big.
I mean, this was he as a rookie:
He was not as big
as he is now, but still a fairly large human being. Years ago, Ortiz was mentioned in the
Mitchell Report, an anonymous survey performed by Major League Baseball in 2003
to check for steroid use. Ortiz has
adamantly denied ever knowingly taking steroids (Big Papi denies steroid use). However, some still view the legitimacy of his numbers, particularly his home run totals, as a little iffier. In fact, his supposed mention on the Report could harm his Hall of Fame chances. And yet, in spite of these hits to his image, Big Papi is still an incredibly popular player and personality. Why? He has not always been the cuddly player or teammate.
People seem to be drawn to Papi's raw emotion, his approach to the game that he so clearly loves. When they see Papi, they see that emotion. When they see A-Rod? It's a bit different there. Athlete image prior to the event(s) happening is huge.
Image after the event(s) is also huge. In fact, utterly catastrophic situations can occur, and an athlete can still walk away relatively unscathed, or at least significantly less than they would have otherwise. Take Michael Vick for example. He was convicted of dog-fighting and sentenced to up to 23 months in jail. Following his jail time, Vick was eventually able to return to the National Football League with the Philadelphia Eagles and he currently plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of course, public opinion certainly was not kind to Vick (nor should it have been) but he did at least do the smart thing and strongly apologize for what he did. Vick also has done much charity work regarding dog shelters. Reacting after the event saved Vick from just being thrown away to the abyss; instead, he is still a professional quarterback and actually will be starting this coming Sunday.
Finally, legal standing comes into play. Kobe Bryant was accused of rape about a decade ago, but the charges were eventually dropped. Because of those dropped charges, Kobe has managed to at least partially sweep the situation under the metaphorical rug. Barry Bonds was convicted of perjury, and then the conviction was eventually overturned. Said overturning has positively impacted Bonds' public image. Of course, many people still wholeheartedly believe he did steroids and rigged the game, but any positive impact for him at this point is a huge win. Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault several years ago, and by settling out of court, managed to avoid a great deal of public backlash. Being convicted, and just being stuck with the conviction, has a strong negative impact on public opinion.
There are so many examples to go off of for this topic and only so much room, so some individuals were unfortunately left out. I highly recommend checking out Lance Armstrong, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, and many others. Just look at their stories, the details regarding their situations, and how public opinion affected each of them.
Questions and comments are certainly welcomed. Did you disagree with something I said? Do you believe David Ortiz will make the Hall of Fame in spite of the Mitchell Report attached to him? Do you believe Barry Bonds' overturned conviction will lead to him making the Hall someday? Let me know in the comments below, and thank you very much for reading my post. See you next time!
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment