Entertainers, not role models

Whenever I hear a sport administrator or a broadcaster describe a sportsperson as a 'role model' I suffer a mild apoplectic episode.  Professional sport at its highest level of quality is show business; it is a business and it is a show.  Premier League football, Super League rugby, Formula 1, Wimbledon, Olympics, Tour de France, etc. are all show business.  Skillful sportspeople are paid money by spectators and by TV viewers to entertain.  If any spectator is inspired by sporting excellence then that is fine.  However, it is not the role of the competitor, the entertainer, to seek to educate the spectator, and it is indubitable that no sportsperson is a moral instructor.

Although, just for a moment to play devil's advocate, isn't it true that achieving the level of skill to compete at professional level probably involves the development of some 'virtues' (self discipline and hard work, for example) that we may well want our young people to emulate?

Also, sporting 'heroes' undoubtedly live their lives in the public gaze, and youngsters will follow their example, so maybe, as we the public subscribe to a very cushy lifestyle for them, should we not be entitled to expect a basic standard of good behaviour?

If a sportsperson failed to have a "basic standard of good behaviour" then hers or his career would be affected as, for example, the result of the recent altercation between cricketers David Warner and Joe Root; (Warner was banned for a few weeks). Professional indiscretions, or worse crimes like Lance Armstrong's drug use, are, rightly, dealt with in the context of the sport, but all responses to unhelpful behaviour should only be in the context of the sport.

If younger fans are aware of immature behaviour by someone they admire, then it is the responsibility of their parents to provide criticism and guidance.

The USP (unique selling point) of any Sports-person or popular entertainer has to be that they exhibit a talent not commonly found among the audience.  That is why the audience agrees to reward them in a unique way.

Anyone is free to offer their particular personal abilities for the delectation of the Public, who will reward them (or not) accordingly.  A contrary point of view is simply jealousy.

oftenwrong wrote:The USP (unique selling point) of any Sports-person or popular entertainer has to be that they exhibit a talent not commonly found among the audience.  That is why the audience agrees to reward them in a unique way.

Anyone is free to offer their particular personal abilities for the delectation of the Public, who will reward them (or not) accordingly.  A contrary point of view is simply jealousy.

Yes, that may be so but often athletes, actors, etc. receive vastly more reward than their unique ability or accomplishment should warrant. Some of the richest people on Earth are thus because they have pleasing faces and nice bodies ... and, perhaps even some talent.

The fair of face and the fleet of foot do indeed have an unfair advantage over the rest of us, Curious Canadian.

Do you want to organise an Equality Programme (Program) to eliminate such anomaly?

oftenwrong wrote:The fair of face and the fleet of foot do indeed have an unfair advantage over the rest of us, Curious Canadian.

Do you want to organise an Equality Programme (Program) to eliminate such anomaly?

Oi! Who sez I ain't pharoah-faced and flee-toed-foot? I sure is articulate! Where do I pickup my cheque?

Love is all you need

which are they? - fleet of foot or fair of face?

It looks as if we should brush the dead brain cells off of their shoulders.

Here's The Story:

http://music.uk.msn.com/features/is-liam-gallaghers-marriage-over

Have at least one sick-bag ready.