Thursday, January 14, 2010
Take 2
The NFL is a calculating giant, pushing the bounds of identity and a person’s individual freedom. Due to its popularity and the rigidity in many public debates about sports, the NFL is allowed to do their business without being questioned very often. A chief example of this corporate tyranny is the NFL using its players and their names as commodity. The NFL requires every player to wear a helmet and cover their face during every snap, yet they turn around and make millions off of a player’s identity without compensating that player. Treating a persons identity as a commodity is something that Marx could only dream of, and illustrates the NFL's desire to value the identity, but not necessary the actual person housing that identity. The NFL must stop seeing this duality in their players. Further examples of this commoditization nightmare, is they demand that every player on the field wear officially branded Reebok merchandise. Reebok makes every bit of NFL material, monopolizing the system, so unfairly that the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on this very issue. Even if this seems like a small oddity in a world with bigger issues, the concerns this problem does raise are extremely valid and interesting pertaining to a person’s freedom and right as an autonomous being. If the NFL wants to be morally responsible, they’re going to have to stop seeing the dollar sign, but the autonomous human underneath.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am unclear on where you stand by using the word "If" it seems you could go either way.
ReplyDelete-Considering you said the NFL was only focused on making money,what is reason that they should be concerning that they are commodifying the players identity?
-Is the name of player the most autonomous thing about them?
-Two counter arguments could be:
1) The NFL is popular, and by focusing on the players loss of identity/autonomy could potentially make people feel guilty watching football.
2) Why should the public be concern with the players when they are signing contracts for millions of dollars?
-The last question: hypothetically if the NFL were add a phrase to the contract giving the player choice whether the NFL could commodify their names would that solve the problem?
This will make the playoffs much more philosophical for me, I appreciate it. If the players get a cut on the action does commodifying their identity become okay? Are you saying that using the popularity of your identity is immoral? The players sign contracts which allows the NFL to use players names, don't the players sign on and therefore give up that part of their identity?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the player that feed off of that commodity like Ochocino and TO? Do they lose their identity?They also choose this life how does that play into your thesis?
ReplyDeleteBut they do compensate the player in a sense- doesn't each NFL player receive millions of dollars every year just for playing? Don't they know they're signing off their named to be used? Isn't that what they are expecting (and maybe even wanting) by signing a contract?
ReplyDeleteI see where your argument is coming from, but don't the NFL players know what they're getting into when they join a team? Isn't it what they want, to be part of this "calculating giant"? What exactly do you mean by the NFL wanting to "value the identity", but not the person "housing the identity? What's the difference?
ReplyDeleteNFL players have an understanding that their names are being used for advertising and money-making purposes by their own leagues. Doesn't this mean that the NFL player was responsible for the use of his identity?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between the identity and the person housing it? On some level, aren't they at least similar? Is the practice reprehensible on an economic level, as with the Reebok monopoly, or on a psychological level, as with the wholesale merchandising of individuals?
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting mesh of psychology and philosophy, and I think you make some compelling points about the rights of the individual here.
I agree about the fact that the players sign the contract and have at least some idea of what they’re getting into and they are free to do so. Should it then be the NFL's responsibility to take care of the players? An interesting point to touch on might be how the players are compensated for the lasting physical damage they have to live with and if the entertainment of the society is worth the harm to these individuals. An example would be how the gladiators would constantly be in life or death situations – often ending in death – all for the entertainment of the society. Of course football is not ancient Rome, but the idea is similar.
ReplyDeleteI like how you tie this into Marx with the injustices behind the commodification of human life and labor. To me, the Reebok argument seems superfluous and sidetracks you from your main point.
ReplyDeleteAlso I don't know if it's fair to say that discrepancies in the NFL's standards for its players impede the ability of the players to exist as "autonomous beings". Isn't the NFL like a microcosmic social contract in the sense that both the players and the corporation governing them agree to and benefit from a specific set of terms? It doesn't seem to me that there is blatant exploitation occurring in this situation. Also, I would be careful with the usage of the word "moral". It is a pretty heavy word. Do you really think that the NFL is actively suppressing the humanity of its players (as the concept of immorality implies)? Is the issue at stake one of morality or legality?
Cool topic, it would be interesting to see how you develop this paper.
ReplyDeleteWell first, it's hard to feel bad for people that make a hundred million a year...
Aren't they signing themselves as a commodity? They choose that fate for themselves.
Doesn't the NFL just provide a gateway? An organization to structure the game, a league to join all the greatest players in the country? How is it made out to be the bad guy?
Don't the players more or less sign thier individuality away when they join. And what about the players that benifit from having thier face plastered everywhere. What's thier place in the scheme of profit at the cost loss of identity.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic and you raise some good points.
ReplyDeleteAs Spener writes, don't the NFL players agree to this commodification because it makes them money in addition to NFL?
Also, to quote Sarah M, hate to pull an Elise on you, but what do you mean by morally responsible?