There was a game on my TV last weekend, as there often is at my house, but I wasn’t paying that much attention to it—it was just on.
The postgame interview of coaches and players is not something that ever draws my attention, especially when it’s a game I wasn’t engaged in to start with.
But for some reason, this time, I looked up to watch and listen to the questions and answers for this player after his team’s big win.
The first question directed to him was the standard question about what this win means for him and his teammates.
His immediate response was to thank God for how He’d blessed him, for giving him the opportunities he’d been given and for the physical gifts of skill and talent to go along with it.
The interviewer, clearly being yelled at in her ear to change the subject, quickly changed the subject.
The NCAA basketball tournaments were filled with both pregame and postgame interview room comments from players of a similar tone and texture.
And that brings about the discussion on whether athletes should be using these moments to express their Christian beliefs and personal mission statements.
The answer is “of course they should!”
In the days of my youth, it was very popular for athletes to score a touchdown, come to the sidelines, slip behind the bench, stare into a camera and say, “Hi Mom!”
Only their dad ever got upset about that.
But this is different. This is someone professing their faith openly in a national forum. That makes people squirm.
I get that, but it doesn’t matter.
Those same players could, and others in similar situations have, use that time to promote a “social justice” cause or a non-profit organization they care for a lot.
I have no problem with that either.
We all have a right to say almost anything we want, understanding that there are people who could line up to challenge our position.
But there is a line not to cross when it comes to this, and that line is politics.
I would assume most professional athletes have a political position, and they are welcome to have them…even when they differ from my own.
It’s supposed to be that way, right?
In the end, their opinions on such things carry no more weight than mine. Celebrities and other famous people only have the power to persuade us and shape our thoughts when we give them that power.
Michael Jordan has been the case study on this for a long time.
Many people were disappointed that MJ didn’t express his views on political issues at the height of his fame and stardom. Supporters of Harvey Gantt were urging Jordan to support him publicly in his bid for a vacant US Senate seat in his native North Carolina in 1990, and he wouldn’t do it.
Jordan didn’t want his career to go there.
His name. His reputation. His right to handle that as best he sees fit.
The outcry because he wouldn’t do that was totally unfair toward the basketball star. He didn’t deserve that scrutiny and push-back. But he got it, and he took it.
Now, you might be reading this and are yelling “double standard, Rog!” I get that.
But I put politics in a different category from just about anything else.
A player who promotes his non-profit in an interview falls into the same category, for me, as a player who thanks the Lord for His blessing. I have no problem with either.
But a player who calls the current president names or who called the previous president names does no one any good. For example, commenting on immigration policies—past or present—is not beneficial to anyone.
And let me be perfectly clear—whatever you say, you are leaving yourself vulnerable for having said it.
There are consequences for our actions. When public figures, even at the local level, make statements about anything they leave themselves open to criticism.
Michael Jordan understood that better than most, and he chose to duck all that trouble.
It was a business decision, and it kept us all focused on him being a basketball player and away from the mire of controversy.
And it worked.