What follows is a transcript of the audience comments during our Interactive Session at the 5th Annual Sports Law & Ethics Symposium. While audience members spoke I transcribed their comments in a live feed on the screens. As you’ll see, there’s an amazing richness to the comments provided, covering a broad spectrum of issues and concepts.
I’ve written in much greater detail about this session in last week’s blog, A Big Picture View of Ethics in Sport: The Audience Weighs In. In short, the audience is responding to my question as to whether Seattle Seahawks Richard Sherman behaved unethically when he made the “choking” gesture toward San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick and then referred in an interview to 49ers receiver, Michael Crabtree, as a “sorry receiver.” Before reading, I suggest you consider your own position and test it against those that follow.
Sherman didn’t break any rules, didn’t physically harm anyone, wasn’t fined by league, he didn’t cheat…but…it was unsportsmanlike. Our discussion hinged on whether being unsportsmanlike equates to acting unethically.
Define “ethically”! Sherman didn’t affect game. If ethics relates to manners following a game then yes, but I’m not sure what you mean by ethics in the context of sporting event. Does an action being somehow involved with or “around” a sporting event have the same status as being technically within it?
If courtesy is an ethical issue then it’s unethical.
It was unsportsmanlike but not unethical.
We have an obligation to kids, and Sherman’s behavior was inconsistent to the larger culture.
Response: But that just is the culture of the sporting world. Ethics according to which culture? How broadly do you define the culture?
The gesture to Kaepernick was ok but the treatment of Crabtree was not ethical in large part because he used the situation as a means of payback for a previous issue between the two of them.
The conclusion would be different if we were having this discussion in Seattle!
Response: To what extent should we allow emotion to play a role in our discussions of ethics?
Ethics serves to modulate behavior in a way that allows us to avoid living lives that are nasty, brutish, and short. Sherman, here, goes against the Golden Rule which helps us to live such lives. In doing so, he also disrespected athletes. Once you allow this seemingly small transgression, a precedent is set and morality becomes vacuous.
Is there an acceptable moral price of winning, in the sense that strategy overrides ethics? Isn’t it ok to get into someone’s head despite the moral evaluation?
Response: No.
It doesn’t seem like there should be a difference, ethically speaking, between sports commentators who consistently critique athletes and an actual player who does so.
Respective leagues mandate acceptable behavior—compare Muhammad Ali [known for repeatedly “taunting” his opponent] and Sherman. The fact that Sherman wasn’t fined dictates the ethics of his actions.
For how long, following the game, is he morally culpable? Thirty seconds? Five minutes at press conference? Six months later? When does the context of the game end at which point he must return to our non-sporting realm of manners and ethics—if there even is such a thing?
His actions were rude and shameful but not unethical. It was within the entertainment sports culture pollutes the youth sports culture. Though the good news is that it provides a teachable moment for children involved in sports.
[And, as the “1-Minute Remaining” sign was raised, we finished off with this comment]:
We can use sports to teach boys early on what it should mean to say, “Boys will be boys”—not that they hit and fight, but instead, that they will exhibit integrity, respect, and kindness.
Response: Applause.
