Please, Don’t Mess With the Super Bowl…

Note: I have submitted this post to the school newspaper, Student Life, to potentially be included in Wednesday’s issue.  That being said, it’s always my writing (except where I’m quoting someone, obviously), and knowing how newspapers work, the post will be altered almost beyond recognition.  I originally wrote it for this, and putting it in the paper is just a little side thing that will happen now and then.  Here it is in its purest form, edited only as I edit my own writing normally.

Recently, quite a bit of controversy has erupted over a planned advertisement during the Super Bowl next Sunday.  This ad, sponsored by Focus on the Family, a conservative pro-life interest group, features college football star Tim Tebow delivering the group’s message through one of the most personal of stories— that of his birth, rather, how his mother’s choice not to abort despite severe illness obviously paid off.  There are many reasons why this advertisement is controversial, however one can argue certainly it has already had its intended effect: people are talking.  Regardless of your personal stance on abortion, I hope we can all agree that political messages such as this have no place in sport.

Sport is supposed to be something that ultimately unites us as a nation; I for one have gathered with friends of all political affiliations to watch the big game year after year.  While we all have our favorite teams, we are all united by the game and the fact that for a few hours all we need concern ourselves with is who wins and who loses; we get caught up in the game and almost all other troubles just slip away, it gives us a nice little break from the chaos of our everyday lives.  In addition, Super Bowl Sunday is partially known for its mostly lighthearted advertisements; who doesn’t look forward to seeing what wacky marketing ploys various corporations have in store for us this weekend?  A serious political message has no place in this, as it just does not fit the tone of the afternoon.

CBS, the network airing the game and thus responsible for all advertisements, has claimed according to the Huffington Post on January 25^th, “there was nothing political or controversial about the ad.”  This is about as ignorant as one can get; I cannot think of a more blatant political or controversial message than ones taking sides in the abortion debate.  If the script did not catch their attention, why didn’t the use of Tebow make it clearer?  Tim Tebow has a lot of star power due to his run as Quarterback at Florida, and people are going to listen.  In fact, I have to wonder if CBS is not trying to advance an agenda of its own; this is not the first time their actions involving Super Bowl ads has sparked controversy.  According to that same  article, they used their internal policies to justify not airing an advertisement by a mainstream church, the UCC, advocating tolerance and openness toward gays and lesbians back in 2004, and various news sources state that the network has rejected an pro-gay marriage ad this year as well.

I can understand the network’s policy against ads on controversial subjects, as long as it is enforced evenly.  The kind of hypocrisy that CBS has shown is inexcusable; if a potentially controversial liberal advertisement is rejected on the basis of being political or controversial, a conservative ad should be as well.  While I love politics just a bit more than the average person, even I need a break from it now and then.  Freedom of speech is one of our country’s basic principles, but can we please keep political agendas out of our sporting events?

Chicago’s Early Exit

Today, the I.O.C. voters picked the city to host the 2016 Summer Games.  Rio de Janeiro won, which was hardly surprising given the strength of their bid and the allure of hosting the first Games in South America.  What was surprising, though was that Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting, having received the least number of votes.  Given that so much effort went into Chicago’s bid, including President Obama’s political capital, what will happen in the wake of the sound defeat?

Out of everyone involved with Chicago’s bid, President Obama risked the most, and thus could possibly lose the most.  As a Republican strategist says in the CNN article, “this is nothing but really embarrassing.”  I tend to agree; instead of focusing on any of the many domestic priorities, Obama flew to Copenhagen to make what was an unsuccessful bid.  Even in relation to the important talks ongoing in Geneva between the U.S. and Iran, among others, President Obama showed more interest in a failed attempt to get the Olympics in his home city.  But, in the grand scheme of things, is it really that important?

While President Obama was rebuffed at the I.O.C. meeting, as the CNN article states, this does not affect any of the other issues of the day.  In the larger picture of importance, the Olympic bid was probably last on the list.  While getting the Olympics is a sign of prestige for a nation, when we are dealing with healthcare reform, Iran, and numerous other policy issues, getting the Olympics seven years from now is a relatively low priority.  If we were dealing with a better situation than we are, getting the Olympics would be a higher priority.  As it stands now, Rio de Janeiro deserved to get the Olympics, especially since they haven’t been in South America before, and since Brazil is beginning to emerge as an economic power.

“Oh Say Can You See…” the I.O.C.

Today, we found out that President Obama will be traveling to Copenhagen, Denmark later this week to lobby on behalf of Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.  President Obama said earlier this month that the health care debate took priority.  Apparently, the health care overhaul is going better than he expected, so he will be able to attend after all, according to the Wall Street Journal.  While the U.S. is not stranger to hosting the Olympics as CNN mentions, there are several reasons this bid is significant.

Chief among them is the fact that this marks the first time an American president has personally lobbied for the games.  As the New York Times reports, voting for Olympic host cities has become much closer than it used to be, and heads of state can be a deciding factor.  According to the article, this phenomenon has only been around for the last few Olympic city selections, most notably with Tony Blair personally advocating for London in 2005, which is largely credited with the surprise awarding of the games to that city.  Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia was involved in the push for Sochi’s bid in 2007, and that too was successful.  Thus, President Obama’s backing of Chicago’s bid should definitely help, especially given his international appeal and the historic nature of his term in office.  President Obama should at the very least give the IOC delegates a difficult choice given his natural ability to give better speeches than the average politician and  the concrete evidence that America has changed from the foreign policy of President Bush.

Chicago will not be a shoe-in for the 2016 Olympics, however.  Every other potential host nation is sending a delegation including its head of state.  In addition, there is a strong case for Rio de Janeiro, given that no nation in South America has yet hosted an Olympics.  Conversely, the U.S. has hosted four, which could be seen as a disincentive to vote for Chicago.  Madrid, Spain, and Tokyo, Japan also make strong cases.  Plus, the votes have been very close in the past few times; at this point there is no clear favorite among the delegates, which would mean that the vote could be even closer.

Will President Obama’s personal appeal for his home city be enough to tip the scales in Chicago’s favor?  We should know the answer to that sometime on Friday, and I’ll update then.