Mixed Martial Arts, Fighter Rights, and an Enforced Muhammad Ali Act?

For those who believe that a society and all its components are best understood through its economic system, we need to examine external regulation if we are to understand and predict future worker-employer relationships. This is true for any industry, sporting or otherwise, including mixed martial arts (MMA).

Those familiar with combat sports history know that boxing is among the most corrupt sports in the modern era. While all sports include dimensions of constructed spectacle, boxing’s track record in manipulating theatrical drama is particularly bothersome. The backdrop to boxing mega-fights, dramatized press conferences and other pre-fight hype includes a plethora of unknown, underpaid fighters, sacrificed in manufactured mismatches that build prospects’ reputations.

As a combat sport promoted through gladiator type pageantry, MMA inevitably follows a good portion of boxing’s promotional structure. Fighters typically build their reputation at the local level in smaller shows, working their way through modest paydays in organizations that have varying levels of oversight. The sacrifices of today are deemed worthwhile in hopes that financial dreams are realized in a larger organization tomorrow. As noted previously, these hopes and dreams are rarely met, and the stories of unknown fighters remain, unknown.

The process for every fighter is long and arduous – physically taxing on one’s body, emotions, pocketbook, and social network. In working through the process, fighters incessantly go through what Spencer (2009) calls “body callusing” – “whereby the fighter takes his/her body as a site of action and aggressively seeks…to harden the body and turn it into a weapon” (p. 127) that can distribute and endure pain.

Because MMA has been institutionalized for under two decades, we are still unable to tell the long-term health effects its training and competitions have on participants. But considering MMA’s physical demands, it is appropriate to ask how fighters will be protected in the years to come by external regulating bodies, if they are protected at all.

Federal Regulation or Not?

Central to this issue is whether or not industries should be regulated by the free market, states, or federal government. Under the Reagan-Bush era, governmental regulation was defined as a hindrance to individual rights and private enterprise. Essentially, this political ideology professed that entrepreneurs, their innovation and business drive should not be stymied by oppressive federal oversight. The flip side to this political paradigm is that an unbridled free market without regulation fuels brutal business practices where business owners act dishonorably, exploiting labor as they market their product.

With regard to MMA, regulation in the United States materializes on a state by state basis. This was accomplished first in 2000 in New Jersey, just before Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta and Dana White took over the helm of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) in 2001. Since then, the UFC has actively sought regulation, serving as MMA’s principle lobbyists across the United States and selected cities beyond U.S. borders.

A key topic in the push for regulation is fighter safety, more specifically, how the “Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts Combat” minimize major sporting injuries. This is one of two publicly debated issues (the other being the glorification of violence). Lost in the public discourse, however, is how regulation protects fighters’ financial interests.

Maher (2010) provides a few notable examples rarely discussed across the MMA media landscape. California, for instance, does not allow individuals who have been licensed within the MMA industry within the past two years to serve on its athletic commission, thereby deterring conflicts of interests between commission members and private MMA organizations. Nevada’s commission requires a “bout agreement” in advance of matches which insures that fighters are compensated their promised purse (i.e., payment).

“Deal content,” or compensation, on the other hand, is currently not regulated. Thus, fighter pay is essentially determined by each individual fighter’s bargaining power, which is contingent upon his/her fight record, management team, and especially public notoriety. In short, there is very little, if anything, in the way of state regulation that assists fighters in advocating for what they may define as fair pay and other occupational rights (e.g., broad-based health insurance). Federally, occupational rights specific to MMA are non-existent.

Bolstering Regulation Via a Federally Enforced Muhammad Ali Act

As stated by Varney (2009), Congress passed the Professional Boxing Safety Act (“Safety Act”) into law in 1996 to help clean up the sport while providing federal oversight. The act requires that (1) all boxing matches are supervised by state athletic commissions; (2) all boxers go through a physical examination by a certified physician to determine his/her physical fitness; (3) an ambulance and/or medics with proper medical equipment be on sight; and (4) a physician be present at ringside.

The Safety Act clearly has a focus on physical safety and is more or less mimicked in the MMA industry. The Safety Act, however, does not address in any way the potential financial exploitation of fighters. Thus, the Safety Act was augmented in 2000 with the Muhammad Ali Act (“Ali Act”), which calls:

• To protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitative, oppressive, and unethical business practices;


• To assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and


• To promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry (Varney, 2009, p. 288).

Perhaps most importantly, the Ali Act also requires that bout information be provided to the State Attorney General upon request as a means to further “discourage a promoter from engaging in unfair or unsavory business dealings” (Varney, 2009, p. 292).

Varney’s work explains how the Ali Act would benefit MMA fighters. For example, boxing matches on Indian reservations must follow Ali Act regulations. MMA matches on Indian reservations are entitled much more leeway, often allowing for matches without proper medical testing and unequal matchmaking (e.g., unreasonable weight differences between fighters).

Furthermore, Varney argues that arbitrary/subjective enhanced bonuses provided to select fighters by MMA promotions would be lessened if these financial rewards were properly and publicly disclosed. While these arbitrary bonuses help the selected fighters, they obviously do not help the majority of other fighters competing on respective fight cards. And being subjectively distributed, the bonuses could point to favoritism on the part of the promotion.

A properly administered Ali Act in MMA would also insure that title fights and ongoing employment were based on objective rankings (which would be based on fight records). This would help prevent deserving fighters from being released or “buried” by promotions if they expressed disagreement with certain managerial practices. And finally, a properly enforced Ali Act in MMA would standardize minimum bout agreements.

Of course, even if the Ali Act was applied to MMA, it would change nothing unless it was enforced. Title IX is a perfect example. While Title IX mandated gender equity across all sectors of educational institutions, its impact was not felt until universities began enforcing it. Enforcement for Title IX only came with threatened legal action. In MMA, fighters currently lack the power and solidarity to take such action.

Federalization and Unionization

Fighters could be empowered if MMA was legally sanctioned in all 50 states, and done so in standardized form. Maher (2010) worries that because some states currently regulate MMA with stricter guidelines than others, MMA promotions (particularly those on the fiscal bubble) may “race to the bottom” by holding events in states where regulations are the most relaxed (i.e., cheapest), thereby increasing the risk to fighters. This could also apply on Indian reservations, where regulations appear the most lenient and least costly economically for promotions.

Unionization is also relevant here. Maher writes, “Existing state regulation does little to regulate the terms of the deals between promoters, managers, and fighters…. Like laborers elsewhere, MMA athletes face significant bargaining disadvantages relative to promoters, in terms of financial and legal resources, education, and alternative employment” (p. 41).

A fighters union could help push for minimum compensation and other worker rights, such as extended health insurance and initial planning into some kind of pension plan. The alternative outlook is increased numbers of aged-out veterans who continue to fight paycheck-to-paycheck, snared in by the sport’s onerous fiscal structure (see for example, Jonathan Snowden’s recent piece on Jens Pulver).

A drive towards unionization, however, cannot materialize until a number of other legal conditions are ironed out. As Maher explains, if MMA fighters are considered independent contractors, as opposed to company employees, unionization is not an option. However, when fighters are under exclusive promotional contracts (meaning they cannot fight for another organization) and are engaged in “an essential part of the [promoter’s] normal operations” (p. 43) (i.e., fighting), fighters stand a good chance of being defined as employees, who could then advocate for unionization.

So what does the future pose for fighter rights in MMA?

Maher speculates that fans may be inclined to see increased federal regulation since our current economic crisis is blamed heavily a lack of federal oversight. Previously, I noted that most fans would not seriously support fighter rights since improved fighter rights means higher company costs, and in turn, higher costs for fans to watch MMA, and I believe this to still be the case.

In the era of Obama and the President’s extremely minor push towards expanded health care (Clinton’s health care reform proposal was actually stronger), the conservative backlash to federal regulation has been extremely strong. Coupled with the ongoing economic crisis, bank bailouts, and high unemployment rates, the American public’s frustration with “big government” continues to fester. Unfortunately, if calls for government to “stay out of our lives” continues, this allows the free market to run unchecked, leaving the average worker with less leverage, and fighters more exploitable.

That is unless, someone, somewhere, with significant influence takes action.

David Mayeda is lead author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society

Non-internet References:

Maher, B. S. (2010). Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts. Hastings Communication & Entertainment Law Journal, 1-43.

Spencer, D. C. (2009). Habit(us), body techniques and body callusing: an ethnography of mixed martial arts. Body & Society, 15 (4), 119-143.

Varney, G. (2009). Fighting for respect: MMA’s struggle for acceptance and how the Muhammad Ali Act would give it a sporting chance. West Virginia Law Review, 112, 269-305.


Academics Blogs

Mixed Martial Arts: Evolution Of The Sport and Its Fans

Sporting traditionalists frequently grumble when chief administrators alter sporting structures as they cater to new fans' demands. Traditionalists tend to argue that when sporting rules are changed or athletic skills are abandoned, we are witnessing a commodification of sport that values theater and spectacle over virtuous athleticism (Sewart, 1987).

In the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA), the debate is a bit more convoluted, calling for a somewhat technical and academic examination.

Despite MMA's mere 17 year history, supporters and critics have quarreled extensively over the sport's trajectory and the way MMA may symbolize a moral threshold for societal violence. However, in MMA we have seen a public effort to formalize rule structure and secure governmental regulation since the sport's 1993 inception, both before and after Zuffa, LLC took over the UFC in 2001.

Sports theorists (van Bottenburg & Heilbron, 2006) have suggested that as MMA continues to grow (or stagnate), it can follow four overarching pathways, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. Abolition and demise: states or countries may pass or maintain legislation that bans MMA (e.g., the push back seen in New York State, Vancouver, and Germany). Demise may also include the folding of MMA organizations due to financial concerns (e.g., EliteXC).
2. Underground: abolition and demise may contribute to illegal, unregulated MMA competitions hidden from state officials (though underground competitions can also take place in regions where MMA is legal).
3. Re-sportization: increased state regulation with stricter rule sets that would focus not only on in-ring/cage competition, but also on refereeing, athlete health prior to and after competition, and fighter-manager-promoter relationships. In contrast with many other sports, MMA (in particular the UFC) has overtly pushed for state regulation in recent years (Smith, 2010).
4. Spectacularization: "...a shift of attention away from fighting skills to the show and spectacle surrounding the events" (p. 277). The recent match between Cris Santos and Jan Finney stands as an example here. The match was so uneven, some argue it never should have been allowed in the first place, but was scheduled nonetheless so fans could watch Santos' compete at all.

While all four pathways are occurring simultaneously across different MMA organizations and in different regions of the world, the modest academic literature published to date on MMA argues re-sportization is the more common trajectory being followed thus far.

Garcia and Malcolm (2010) argue in their essay, "Decivilizing, civilizing or informalizing: The international development of Mixed Martial Arts," that although MMA promoters tend to publicly advertise MMA competitions as dangerous and appear excessively violent in order to draw in more fans, sporting violence in MMA has actually decreased. They suggest that while MMA, like all combat sports, is inherently violent and can be dangerous, the violence now manifests in a highly controlled environment (when properly regulated).

The staunchest defense of MMA, however, has come from Maher's (2010) work, which meticulously details how regulation of MMA has sought to improve athlete safety through improved rules, oversight of performance enhancing drugs, and medical safeguards. Maher also argues MMA organizations have improved in promoting fair contests (as opposed to unfair matches booked to promote a more likely winner), and in restricting conflicts of interest between promoters, managers, and fighters.

Maher's very thorough work, however, focuses too heavily on the UFC. As noted previously, spectacularization still transpires in MMA, which does little to promote fighter safety. The most interesting questions Maher raises are whether or not (1) MMA can secure federalized, standardized regulation across the United States; and (2) fighters can coalesce to form a union that effectively advocates for their rights (questions I will be addressing in my next piece, and related to my last piece, "Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?").

Notably, all the above referenced work is theoretical or historical. Very little scholarly research has been conducted that relies on empirical research. In fact, the only empirical research conducted thus far relevant to the issue of spectacularization and fan desire has found that invested MMA fans do not want to see lopsided matches.

Kim, Andrew, and Greenwell (2009) surveyed MMA fans attending an amateur card in the American Midwest (N = 208) and an event held in South Korea (N = 229). In both sites, research subjects indicated that their primary motive for attending the event was their interest in the sport (i.e., they are an MMA fan and care about MMA). "Drama" ranked #2 among South Korean fans and #3 among American fans, meaning fans desired close competitions, not unfair, lopsided fights.

Among the 12 possible motives for attending the event, "violence" ranked #5 for Americans and #11 for South Koreans. These findings are especially important because they tell MMA promoters that fans want to see fights exemplifying high-level MMA skills between evenly matched, prepared opponents, not promotional "freakshows" that decrease fighter safety.

Let's give the fans what they want.

References:

Garcia, R. S., & Malcolm, D. (2010). Decivilizing, civilizing or informalizing: The international development of Mixed Martial Arts. International Review of the Sociology of Sport, 45 (1), 39-58.

Maher, B. S. (2010). Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts. Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal, Winter.

Sewart, J. J. (1987). The commodification of sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 22 (3), 171-191.

Smith, J. T. (2010). Fighting for regulation: mixed martial arts legislation in the United States. Drake Law Review, Winter.

van Bottenburg, M., & Heilbron, J. (2006). De-sportization of fighting contests: the origins and dynamics of no hold barred events and the theory of sportization. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41 (3/4), 259-281.

Blog search

How Does Society Define "Sport?": Cheerleading

Over on NPR, Frank Deford asks if cheerleading is a sport. I must admit, in high school I absolutely despised cheerleading, precisely because so many cheerleaders considered themselves athletes. At least at my high school, the cheerleaders did not compete against other squads as is more common today.

I suppose we first have to ask what goes into being a "sport," and I'm not sure that there is a cut and dry answer. The two conditions I value the most are (1) a sport must involve formal competition; and (2) a sport must require competitors to utilize their bodies as the primary medium through which the competition takes place, in such a way that physical conditioning is central to the competition.

Although a courtroom legal battle is clearly competitive and relies on body parts to some degree, physical conditioning is not central to the competition. To me, horse racing and auto racing are not sports, and their participants are not athletes. I'm sure there is some heavy disagreement on that last statement, but the way I see it, the horse/car is doing the bulk of the work in those events, not the person (or athlete).

So what is the controversy surrounding cheerleading? In competitive cheerleading, the participants are engaged in highly physical training, and notably with regard to physical dangers, the risk of catastrophic injury is very high, especially for females. And as the name indicates, in competitive cheerleading, there is formal competition against other teams.

Part of the controversy might be that unlike other N.C.A.A. sports, cheerleading teams do not compete very often. Where I teach, the cheerleading team has won eight consecutive national championships, most recently at the Division II level. Unfortunately, the team only gets to compete once per year (technically, they get to compete a few times, but they only make one annual trip for competition). The rest of their activities involve practice for their national competition, and practice for their performances at university sporting events. And this is where I think the implicit controversy truly lies, though it will never be explicitly stated.

Cheerleading is traditionally gendered as a highly feminine performance-based activity that supports athletics. Under popular belief, femininized cheerleaders exist to support the "true," masculine athletes. Go to any high school, college, or pro basketball or football game, and what is the cheerleaders' primary function? To compete against the opposing team's cheerleaders? No, the cheerleaders' primary function is to support the athletes (male or female), who are considered more masculine and the central focus of the event, engaged in the central competition. The cheerleaders are peripheral.

Additionally, because cheerleading is based so heavily on being pretty, it is further marginalized from the so-called real, masculine sports. This is precisely why sports like synchronized swimming and ice skating are so often femininzed and ridiculed as sports even though those sports always involve competition (and from what I've heard, the training for synchronized swimming is among the most difficult in the sporting world).

All sports are spectacle. But the more a sport's performance-based attributes require looking pretty (e.g., smiling, wearing gaudy attire), the less it will be considered a sport by mainstream fans because being pretty is feminine, and sports are supposed to be tough masculine turf. Thus, cheerleading has key elements going against it when trying to be defined as a sport -- the competitions are few and far between (actually, many cheerleading teams never compete), and more importantly, society defines cheerleading as a highly feminine activity.

This shows us how sport is a microcosom of society. That which is peripheral, supportive, and pretty is deemed feminine. That which is central, served by others, and physically tough is deemed masculine.


Blog search

Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?

Before jumping into a Marxist analysis of MMA, I wanted to follow up on my previous opinion piece posted here a few days ago, titled “Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts (July 23, 2010).” The essay gained a little bit of traction across the MMA blogosphere discussed on BloodyElbow, Sherdog, and the UG. Not a terribly big deal, but I believe responses were a bit unfair to Zuffa, LLC and the UFC specifically, both in the receptive headlines and general discourse. My original article did not mention the UFC too much more than Strikeforce. However, it seemed the UFC was presented as the sole MMA organization to be held responsible, as opposed to an example of a profitable organization that may want to foster safety measures beyond its current organization.

Additionally, I was careful not to explicitly state that any MMA organization (UFC, Strikeforce, whichever) should be responsible for investing in a kind of minor league, MMA farm system. From the final paragraph in my original piece: “Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions…” Considering broader investment in safety-based infrastrcutre across smaller organizations is not radical by any means.

A good example of a model would be the WEC before the folks at Zuffa decided to cut the heavier weight classes. Under the Zuffa umbrella, the WEC ostensibly served as a farm system for fighters in multiple weight classes (155lbs – LHW) who could matriculate into the UFC when their talents warranted promotion. And with the WEC under the Zuffa banner, it was (and still is for the WEC fighters in lighter weight classes) understood the strictest, most thorough safety precautions would be taken, in large part because the parent company (Zuffa) could afford them.

If we are going to focus on Zuffa, this could mean the Fertitta brothers, Dana White, and company identifying smaller, regional MMA organizations with whom they would like to forge formal partnerships and investing in their organizational development (e.g., promotional strategies, fighter recruitment). This would also mean enforcing the most thorough medical/safety precautions that may frequently exceed state regulations. In return, hopefully the best fighters would gravitate towards those farm organizations and safely progress to the UFC.

No model is perfect. Tensions could emerge between whatever parent MMA organization is running the show and the smaller feeder organizations over any number of issues. Mapping out and implementing such a plan would take years, but prominent, successful organizations have vision and make long-term organizational plans. One central focus (and the one with which I am obviously most concerned) is broad-based prevention. This was never and is not now an alarmist response to two deaths in sanctioned MMA. This is a public health-type prevention response, arguing those tragedies are important, and long-term, it would benefit the industry if wide-spread measures were taken to prevent/minimize future deaths and major injuries.

If we can agree that Zuffa provides the best medical precautions, why not work to expand that infrastructure? Then the issue of cost comes up, and presumably, Zuffa shrunk the WEC at least in part because having so many weight classes was not fiscally profitable, leading me to my next point…

A Marxist Interpretation of MMA

In a developed society like the United States that leans heavily towards capitalism and the free market, a highly successful private enterprise is obviously not responsible for ensuring other, smaller companies are implementing any level of worker safety. As noted in the original essay, although the bigger MMA organizations rely on the smaller ones for worker development/recruitment, there is to my knowledge no formal relationship between them. On the contrary, MMA organizations big and small may even identify one another as competition and have antagonistic relationships. And that is part of the crux in this discussion (sorry, what follows is gonna get a bit lengthy and lecture-ish).

If applying a very Marxist viewpoint, in a for-profit company, those at the top will never pay its workers their full value, let alone workers outside of their organization. In fact, capitalist companies world-wide know that the best way to maximize profit is not via sales (though sales are necessary), but via under-paying labor. Hence, within a capitalist system, the proletariat (fighters) will always be at odds with the bourgeoisie (promoters/owners), as maximizing worker cost minimizes profit margin. Thus, it is not in any company’s best interests financially to support workers, especially workers industry-wide.

Sticking with the Marxist lens, the difficult part for fighters is so many have what Marx called “false consciousness” – they genuinely believe that to a large degree they benefit from more than they are harmed by the bourgeoisie, industry, and social structure. Not only does the promoter pay the fighter, but through the industry, fighters report learning positive values (e.g., discipline) and attain a certain status (e.g., celebrity, alpha male). This status coupled with financial compensation helps fighters cope with a sense of alienation from their own bodies. Their own bodies become defined as tools for the MMA industry, in this case tools valued for their ability to destruct other fighters and absorb pain in the short-term, rather than healthy bodies over time.

And while previous research shows that fighters are keenly aware of their own exploitation (see Loic Wacqunt’s qualitative work with boxers), fighters will inevitably invest their efforts in fighting each other rather than the power structure. Supporting the company line and defeating a fellow fighter yields far more social rewards now than working with fellow workers to secure worker rights years from now (never mind trying to do so individually). And management knows this. Keeping workers invested in the company and divided among themselves means there is no collective working-class resistance to conquer.

Hence, even when the most socially powerful fighters like Randy Couture challenge management, the collective silence of all other fighters vastly outweighs Couture’s protest, and eventually he is compelled to return if he wants to continue practicing his craft at the highest level. And high-level, well-compensated fighters, like Couture, Brock Lesner, and Chuck Liddell, are portrayed almost as a norm, even though they are outlying exceptions with regard to worker compensation across the MMA landscape.

The other issue at hand for Marx is the broader public, or in this case, MMA fans. Capitalism functions more efficiently when workers as a whole have leisure time to re-charge (hence, we have weekends, holidays, vacation). Sport functions in society for workers as a site where one can have a reprieve from work, only to go back to work without complaining about it. The MMA industry is built largely from the reality that much of our society values and has commodified violence as a form of entertainment.

Thus as capitalist enterprises, MMA organizations know they can increase profits not only by increased gate and pay-per-view sales, but also through advertising deals, DVD sales, clothing sales, and so on. And as long as enough of the larger society values violence as a form of entertainment, the broader public will support the industry that creates this manifestation of violence, but not the workers that enable the industry to run.

If workers outside the MMA industry value quality MMA fights but don’t want to pay unreasonable costs to watch them, they are not going to seriously advocate for the fighters’ rights. Doing so would increase MMA company costs and in turn costs of MMA pay-per-views, tickets, and merchandising. Consequently, those who utilize their bodies as labor are resigned to (in this case literally) fight for themselves and against one another. They don’t get broad-based, radical support from the bourgeoisie, each other, or the broader public.

One could reasonably argue, fighters engage in fight sport as a personal choice, and that is ultimately true, but it is true to different degrees for different people. People are born with vastly different life chances. It is no coincidence that such a high proportion of boxers from different ethnic demographics have come from very working-class backgrounds over the decades.

And while MMA currently has a larger proportion of fighters from middle-class backgrounds, one can go back to the way our society values masculine violence as a form of entertainment. This will inevitably influence heavy numbers of males to pursue a pro MMA career, often at the expense of other, more likely and lengthy vocational paths. And back to the issue at hand, sacrificing the more likely career path means not crossing the boss once in the MMA industry.

With all this in mind, who is going to support the fighters, and not just the ones that already make six figures?


Blogosphere

When Whiteness Matters in Sport

This is not a major social issue, and I am not going to make it one. Rather, I think the way this story is being presented in the media effectively illustrates how race matters and is constructed in particular social contexts. Among track and field (“athletics”) aficionados, the 100 meters is frequently considered the premier event. At the elite level, the 100 meters is a power sprint, measuring fast twitch, explosive, kinetic energy manifested through meticulously honed technique.

For males, breaking the 10-second mark is still a colossal accomplishment. One might not think so since track and field doesn’t get much media attention in general (at least not in the United States), and when it does, we’re now more accustomed to watching Usain Bolt blast away his competitors, seemingly cruising to numerous sub-10-second performances (his world record currently stands at 9.58). A few weeks ago sprinter Christophe Lemaitre won France’s national competition with a time of 9.98 second, squeaking below that 10-second mark. A typical headline of Lemaitre’s accomplishment (from Reuters.com, July 9, 2010):

Lemaitre first white man to run 100m in under 10 seconds

And from the article:

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Christophe Lemaitre became the first white man to run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds when he clocked 9.98 on Friday, the French athletics federation said.

Lemaitre, 20, set his time during the French championships in Valence, southern France.

"He is the first white man to run the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds," Jean-Philippe Manzelle, French athletics Federation press officer, told Reuters.

There have been other white sprinters who have excelled at the world level in recent years. Lolo Jones comes to mind in the 100m hurdles; Jeremy Wariner dominated the open 400m in recent years. And if we’re talking sprinters of “outlier” ethnicities in general, Liu Xiang of China recently held the world record in the 110m hurdles. But the early discourse around Lemaitre could be a bit more pointed in the way he is being constructed through the media as a great white hope.

When should race matter in sport, and when it does, how should it be discussed? In this case, at the very least, Lemaitre’s race is framed such that his being “white” is of greater importance than his win. As the track and field season moves on and should Lemaitre continue to run sub-10-second times, I expect to see increased media coverage about his whiteness. He is not going to beat Usain Bolt or America’s top sprinters at international competitions. But on the European circuit, I expect he will make waves. Mainstream media discussion of his success or failure should be interesting to follow.




Blogcatalog

Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts

In late June of this year, mixed martial arts (MMA) experienced its second death due to competition from a regulated event. Tragedies in sport and society are distressing enough for those directly involved. Added media attention does not always help, and in some cases can contribute to families’ and friends’ grief for their deceased loved ones. For this reason, I will not go into detail about the particular event noted (responsible writing on this and a previous death linked to sanctioned MMA can be found here, here, and here). Rather, this tragedy reminded me of the intrinsic competitive nature of sport, MMA’s evolving structure, and how society regulates violence in sport.

First, however, it is important that violence is properly understood and defined. Depending on an individual’s personal background, his or her threshold for violence can vary immensely, to the degree that an event may be considered violent for one individual and not another. A few years ago, for example, dog fighting received extensive media attention as a highly violent, brutal, and cruel practice following the Michael Vick controversy. In Afghanistan, however, dog fighting as a social institution has risen in popularity since the Taliban’s ousting in 2001. While not all in Afghanistan support the practice, it should not be surprising that violence like this is celebrated among a significant proportion of males, given the country’s war-torn history and lack of entertainment outlets. In short, context is critical to one’s threshold for violence.

The World Health Organization defines violence as such:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. (p. 6).

If applying this definition to sport, and to MMA specifically, MMA is at its core, violent. Injuries, even death, are a risk in all sports. Even in non-contact sports, such as long distance running, deaths occur on occasion (though the absolute number of long distance runners is massive in comparison to MMA). However, in most sports, there is not intent to harm. In combat sports, "the intentional use of physical force…against…another person" is required and formally sanctioned.

Furthermore, MMA competitions have a high likelihood of injury. Research published in peer-review academic journals has noted that MMA competitions yield injuries similar in prevalence to other combat sports, typically facial lacerations, contusions, and joint injuries. This of course, does not automatically mean MMA is the most violent or dangerous sporting practice, but to deny its potential for brutality would be remiss.

The danger in MMA’s structure lies in its under-funded feeding grounds. Within the United States, prominent MMA organizations such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Strikeforce have the resources and existing infrastructure to prevent, or at least minimize, the most serious, tragic levels of violence. Earlier this year UFC welterweight contender, Thiago Alves, was forced to withdraw from competition because of a discovered brain irregularity. These and other medical procedures (e.g., thorough blood work) cost money that smaller, regional organizations and local fighters may not be able to afford on a consistent basis.

The conundrum for the UFC and other established MMA organizations is that they need these smaller "minor league" organizations to nurture future competitors who can one day reach the highest level of competition (currently the UFC). Yet, the major and minor MMA organizations lack a formal relationship. None of the major MMA organizations provide smaller, regional ones with the financial backing that would allow for a more robust medical infrastructure and help prevent the most serious ramifications of sporting violence. Thus, up and coming fighters must gain experience in smaller organizations, where the risky consequences of more serious violence and injury rise.

In other sports, even violent, collision-sports, such as football, an infrastructure exists that at least in theory is there to help prevent tragedy at all levels, from the NFL, down through the collegiate, high school, and even Pop Warner levels (true, serious injuries, even deaths, still occur on occasion). Granted, MMA has only been formally institutionalized in the United States now for 17 years. Still, we as a society know the immediate and long-term risks of collision and combat sports (football induced head trauma is now well documented).

Professional and semi-pro mixed martial artists – frequently seduced by the financial gains and popularity that the sport’s biggest stars enjoy – should be treated as human beings, not as collateral damage dismissed in the wake of the sport’s growth. Neither society’s thirst for violence nor a sport’s increasing popularity should be cited to justify or excuse athlete safety.

Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions – obviously a major financial undertaking and one unlikely to transpire. However, this would be an investment in the fighters, who at the lower levels receive less reward for more risk. Bottom line – until some structural change is made, sporting violence will continue to harm MMA athletes at the lower levels to a disproportionately large degree.


Blogcatalog

America’s Favorite Athletes: Results Reflect Societal Values

A recent Harris Poll tells us some interesting, perhaps predictable, things about sports, sports fans, and ongoing societal values in America. The online poll surveyed 2,227 adults between June 14 – 21, 2010 (a relatively small sample, but one which accounts for population size across regions). First, let’s look at the results:

Favorite Male Athletes:

1. Kobe Bryant/Tiger Woods (tie)
3. Derek Jeter
4. Brett Favre
5. Peyton Manning
6. LeBron James
7. Michael Jordan
8. Tom Brady
9. Drew Brees
10. Dale Earnhardt

Favorite Female Athletes:

1. Serena Williams
2. Venus Williams
3. Danica Patrick
4. Mia Hamm
5. Maria Sharapova
6. Anna Kournikova
7. Misty May/Shawn Johnson (tie)
9. Lisa Leslie
10. Billie Jean King/Martina Navratalova (tie)

Among the male athletes, the first somewhat surprising result is that Bryant and Woods stood atop the list despite run-ins with serious marital concerns, both of which were made very public, and for Woods was very recent. Of course these results are only somewhat surprising, as professional male athletes typically find it easier to transgress social boundaries with regard to promiscuity. Thus, perhaps it should not be terribly surprising for Tiger and Kobe to still be widely popular among the American public. What is remarkable is that Bryant was the most popular athlete among females polled.

The list of favorite female athletes is far more interesting. Notably, Serena and Venus Williams repeated as the two most popular female athletes (also holding the 1-2 honors last year). As with Woods, this shows a growing acceptance of African American athletes excelling in a historically Caucasian sport. With regard to the sports athletes represent, however, there is a glaring pattern. Eight out of the eleven women (11 due to two ties) come from sports that historically have been considered “acceptably female” sports: the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Kournikova, King, and Navratalova (tennis); May (volleyball); and Johnson (gymnastics). Over half of the women on the list play(ed) tennis.

May represents soccer, historically defined as a more masculine sport. As for Patrick and Leslie, they also represent historically defined male sports (auto racing and basketball, respectively). Still, both of these athletes, Patrick in particular, have gained celebrity as part of American popular culture via mainstream modeling opportunities, as have the more contemporary tennis stars on the list (both Williams sisters, Sharapova, and Kournikova). Although Kournikova was a very successful doubles player, she was never an elite singles player on the women’s tennis circuit and is certainly not in the mix of elite players now. For athletes such as King and Navratalova, though retired, at least they can claim astounding athletic and political accomplishments that explain their ongoing popularity.

Notably missing from the list is Maya Moore, the outstanding player from the UConn Huskies women’s basketball team that just won back-to-back NCAA Division I National Championships and continued a 78-game winning streak. Diana Taurasi, who currently plays for the Phoenix Mercury, was the 2009 WNBA Most Valuable Player for the season and finals. Likewise, she was absent from the list.

Via the list of most popular female athletes we see an ongoing trend in American values that reward women not only for occupational success, but in some cases, more so for physical appearances. And of course, popularity trends tie in with individual and sporting sponsorships, which makes it all the more difficult for female athletes who don’t conform to gender norms to continue making a living in their sport of choice.

Recommended reading -- Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century Women's Sport by Susan K Cahn

[Cross-posted on The Grumpy Sociologist]

David Mayeda is lead author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artist and Violence in American Society