By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty.
Ah, yes….Fall is in the air. Though the weather doesn’t really say so (I HATE 90 degrees in September!), the television screams Autumn. This past weekend marked the beginning of our yearly national obsession: Football season. College football kicked off a week ago, and the NFL gets going tonight. Like millions of other Americans, my wife and I can’t wait.
But, I try not to be simply an unthinking fanatic; I cannot ignore the sport’s troubling aspects. As it is so popular, and influential, football as a cultural phenomenon must be closely read. During the season though, it is easy to lose yourself in the action. The spectacle takes over, and analysis of said spectacle falls by the wayside. These games are intended to be distractions. We inevitably pay attention to what happens on the field, and not off.
The physicality of the game enraptures the viewer, providing us with the ‘circuses’ that makes him/her forget about real world issues. But this distraction has another layer, since most spectators of the game may be thousands of miles away from the action. The majority of fans sit at home, or at a bar, and watch the game on television. In this, we depend upon the commentators and play-by-play color men to describe, and explicate what occurs on the gridiron. The Keith Jacksons, Al Michaels, Gus Johnsons and Mike Tiricos give meaning to the events on the field. Their voices are as much a part of the game, as the play itsefl. These men and women ‘talk the game’; they make language central to our viewing experience.
Football, perhaps more than any other sport, is marked by language. Repeated metaphors, analogies and euphemisms are utilized by football announcers to make the game and players more human; more understandable. But, language manipulates, as well as explicates. Metaphors, analogies and euphemisms have the ability to deceive, as well as simplify. There is a dark side to the football lexicon, though it can be hard to catch.
Here is a necessary, and necessarily quick, primer for the upcoming football season.
Racial profiling and stereotypes are commonly coded into commentator speech. Perhaps the most obvious example occurs when announcers compare one player to another, either of the same era, or a previous one. Very rarely, if ever, do white players get compared to black players, or vice versa. This is especially the case when discussing players at positions that have been traditionally composed of a different racial group So, for instance, Russell Wilson is compared, not to Tom Brady, but to Michael Vick. Wes Welker is not compared to possession receivers such as Marvin Harrison, but guys like Steve Largent. The list goes on.
Such comparisons may be natural. We inherently look for similarities between groups and people. But, commentators’ racialized understanding of the game goes beyond player comparisons. Coded racial language is also commonly utilized to describe players and their abilities. The obvious example of this is the term ‘athletic’ being constantly used as a descriptor for black players. Similar and related terms, such as ‘explosive’, ‘physical specimen’ and ‘natural ability’, are simply different versions of ‘athletic’ Rarely will you hear white football players being described in this way. Instead, white players will often be labelled as ‘hard-workers’, ‘intelligent’, and ‘dedicated to the game’. If white players ever get the ‘athletic’ moniker, it usually comes with a disclaimer: the white player in question is ‘surprisingly’, or ‘sneakily’ athletic. On the other hand, if black players ever get the ‘intelligent’ moniker, it too comes with disclaimers: the black player has ‘football intelligence’.
- Euphemisms for criminal activity
Arguably, the most common code word used during football broadcasts is ‘off the field issues’. Watch any football game this year, and you will be sure to hear that common refrain. Of course, this is not the same as the racial code words; those are terms that have been utilized for years, based upon very old racial stereotypes. Racial codes play upon the audiences’ subconscious racial absolutism. ‘Off the field issues’, on the other hand, is simply a euphemism. It is used to make the viewer forget many of the horrible things the players have done. Such euphemisms ensure that the ‘real world’ is pushed further afield for the viewer. The ‘off the field issues’ (ie. what is happening in real life) seems to occur in a foreign dimension. During the game, the viewer is meant to forget about what is happening ‘off the field’. The term itself is extremely broad ranging. It can, and has been used when discussing a player’s divorce, or sick child. Most commonly though, it is a euphemism reserved for a player’s criminal, or immoral conduct.
For example, the other night I watched the Florida State/Oklahoma State game. FSU is led by Heisman Trophy winner Quarterback Jameis Winston. The announcers mentioned that Winston ‘looked excited’ to be playing football again; being in the huddle would allow him to forget about his ‘off the field issues’. What are these issues? Did he fail a class? Did he get a little too drunk at a Tallahassee party? No, his ‘issues’ that he wanted to forget about (and that we should forget about too) were petty theft, and more disturbingly, being accused of rape. ‘Off the field issues’? Yes, I would say so.
The NFL is by no means free of ‘off the field issues.’ This euphemism will undoubtedly rear its’ ugly head starting tonight, when the Seahawks take on the Packers. If not tonight, then on Sunday, when the Baltimore Ravens play their opening game. If you watch that contest, I will bet that ‘off the field issues’ will be mentioned in the same breath as Baltimore Running Back Ray Rice. Rice’s ‘off the field issue’ that made the news recently happened when he punched his girlfriend (soon to be wife) in the face, and dragged her unconscious into their apartment. Unfortunately, Rice is not the only player with this ‘off the field issue’.
Football’s most controversial topic over the last decade has been the prevalence of concussions during the games, and what this may do to players’ long term neurological health. With this in mind, I heard a disturbing euphemism during a college game last week that is extremely prevalent. After a player got knocked out the game, and was on the sideline being checked for concussion type symptoms, the sideline sports reporter relayed the ‘good’ news that the player would be coming back in the game soon. Evidently, the 20 year old was fine, and simply got ‘his bell rung’. What a dangerous term! I have never had a concussion, but I assume the term ‘bell rung’ means that you are confused, and perhaps, literally, ‘hearing a ringing sound’, as though you were inside a bell. Using such terminology does two things. First, it covers up with folk language what could be a serious medical injury. Second, by using the ‘bell rung’ term as euphemism, it allows us to judge the player. If he ‘only’ got his ‘bell rung’, then why is he not back out on the field? He needs to keep going, as getting your ‘bell rung’ is simply a common part of the game. If a player sits out for too long after getting his ‘bell rung’, the announcers and the audience often start to question the player’s toughness. Is he a true football player?
Unfortunately, that is what we really want to know. Everything else is secondary.