I think it is interesting how in sports the “attractive” ones, whether a top athlete or not, tend to get more publicity, which then in turn leads to more pay. For example Anna kournikova who as we all know is a tennis player but certainly not the best one, is one of the names we think of. This is interesting and frustration to the ones that are actually good at there sport. The people who are good at there sport should also be the ones that are given the most publicity and money towards bringing the sport to the next level. Another example is from a small, growing sport, rock climbing, where one of the most photographed climbers over the last ten years is actually not elite. This makes it really hard for the athlete’s that are actually pushing the level of the sport to get money for what they are doing, which will in turn allow them to do there sport as more than just a hobby.
Chad G.
(kin338i-3023)
1 comment:
This is definitely a function of our consumer culture. If we as a society continue to patronize sexuality, then the ones who profit from it are going to continue to use the most attractive people to endorse their products. We have shown that beauty is more valuable than talents. In order to discuss this topic then we as individuals within society need to evaluate our own spending habits (both in terms of money and time). The attractive athletes are playing the game of life and the unattractive are disadvantaged through our own values as a culture. This is evident in every arena of consumerism, not just athletics. I'm sure of many "ugly" actors and actresses that are far more talented than their "beautiful" peers. A relevant cliche is "don't hate the players, hate the game."
Adam Renteria
T/TH 0930
Post a Comment