Yes, It Was a Great Super Bowl, but…

This week in North Philly Notes, Chuck Cascio, editor of Never Ask “Why“, about the National Football League Players’ Association, reflects on Super Bowl LVII.

     Most of us will agree that Super Bowl LVII was a great game! Naturally, my many dear friends who are Eagles fans will think differently (Ed Note: We do!) Nonetheless, the game provided many memorable individual athletic performances (Hurts and Mahomes in particular) and societal impact signs (first Super Bowl ever featuring two Black starting quarterbacks; many players wearing notations on their helmets about social causes; clear attempts to draw attention to minorities in attendance; references to Black History Month). 

     But fans of this sport that attracts more attention than any other sport in America, this single game that drew approximately 113 million viewers, this unique league that grosses approximately $18 billion per year…fans of this deeply-rooted American phenomenon need to acknowledge that in order to survive, the game must evolve. And to continue to grow and adapt, NFL leaders must consistently remember the roots of the game.

     Please know: I too love the game. I played it in my youth. I have followed it closely since my boyhood days in Brooklyn through my adult life in the DC area. But it was editing Never Ask “Why”: Football Players’ Fight for Freedom in the NFL, by the late Ed Garvey (head of the National Football League Players Association from 1971-1983), that has increased my awareness of the importance of football’s ongoing need to adapt.

     The book serves as a reminder of the struggle of race, wealth, labor, and equality in this sport, and in America. Today approximately 60% of the NFL players are Black, yet it is a sport in which owners often treated Black players—and too often all players—with disdain.

     While working on Never Ask “Why”, I remembered that I always knew that those “Whites Only” signs I saw in the South on everything from restrooms and water fountains to hotels and restaurants reflected discrimination that was prevalent throughout society. And when I covered the Washington football team for various publications in the 1970s, it was evident that the same racial animus extended into every area of the sport. 

     My friend, the late Brig Owens, a Washington football Ring-of-Fame player with whom I wrote the book Over the Hill to the Super Bowl—his diary of Washington’s 1972 Super Bowl season—had been an outstanding quarterback for the University of Cincinnati in the early 1960s. However, when Brig was drafted into the NFL, he was told that he could not play quarterback because he was Black; instead, he would be moved to safety because of his speed. Yes, Brig became a great safety, but his treatment when drafted exemplified the thinking in a league that discriminated against Black players in various “key” positions.

     In the 1970s, when Ed Garvey led the NFLPA, players constantly battled with owners over what should seem like basic rights—salary negotiation, health insurance, pensions. However, during that time owners simply placed their power in the hands of NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle, who had control over most decisions through something called the Rozelle Rule. Under Ed’s leadership, it took strikes, lawsuits (including one in particular by all-pro player John Mackey), protests (“No Freedom, No Football” became the slogan of striking, picketing players, and their supporters), and more than a decade of often frustrating negotiations with owners to eventually reach some areas of compromise.

     Today, there is a tendency to assume that football players “have it made” given the publicity around major contracts, the average salary of approximately $2.7 million, and the median salary of approximately $870,000.  In addition, today’s players receive health insurance (with some limitations) and retirement (with other limitations) so it is often assumed that players are more than comfortable. 

      However, fans often miss that the average career of a professional football player is just a little over three years and that the extremely high salaries we hear about raise the overall average disproportionately. Also often lost in the excitement of the games, especially the super-hyped Super Bowl, is that the game is increasingly dangerous. 

       It is necessary for the NFL to continue to make adjustments for the safety of players, who are the actual performers and are bigger, faster, and stronger than ever. Their strength and aggressiveness often attract the most attention from fans, coaches, and media. That is all fine as long as the game adapts to these factors, but adaptation is an ongoing process.

     As we reflect on this past season and await the next, let’s continue to admire the physicality of the game and respect the many exciting elements of each play—the coordination, timing, speed, strength, teamwork, and fortitude that players exhibit. But let’s also recognize that the players are the performers, the entertainers, the ones taking risks on every play, so the game needs constant upgrading to support them.  

     As Hall of Fame NFL player Judge Alan Page writes, in part, in his foreword for Ed Garvey’s book Never Ask “Why”

     “These pages show Ed’s passion and commitment to the belief that players were workers whose performance was integral to the success of the business of football and who were due appropriate compensation, health protection, a pension, and other benefits. The goal he pursued was for players to receive a fair share of the wealth they were an integral part of creating…He believed that by sharing the wealth in an equitable manner, players would become true professionals and the game itself would be better. Ed was correct…”

(C) 2023 Chuck Cascio, all rights reserved.

Thoughts? Email chuckwrites@yahoo.com

Here’s how the gender gap in presidential politics breaks down by issue

This week in North Philly Notes, a recent commentary by Mary-Kate Lizotte, author of  Gender Differences in Public Opinion from MarketWatch about what women want presidential candidates.

Much has been written about the gender gap in American electoral politics. In this year marking the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage, a Democrat cannot win in November without women voters and without minority voters, particularly African Americans and Latinx. And what the majority of women want, according to my research as a political scientist, is for a candidate who promotes social equality and policies that provide for the well-being of all.

Democratic primary candidates and President Donald Trump should take note of these influences when strategizing how to promote women’s turnout and garner women’s vote in November.

Data on the presidential vote choice of men and women by demographic subgroup from 1980 through 2016 reveals that women are more likely than men in the same demographic subgroup to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate.

The overall gender gap between men and women who voted in the presidential race that election year during that period is only 6 percentage points. But within subgroups, the gap varies in size from 2 percentage points among African Americans and to 8 percentage points among those born prior to the boomer generation. These gaps are statistically significant.

What is most striking, though, are the differences between subgroups. The biggest difference is the race gap: 99% of black women voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in those years compared to only 38% of white women.

It is still true that women, across the different subgroups, are more likely than men to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Why? Political science research, including my own, provides insight into what issues and other characteristics explain this phenomenon. Attracting the majority of women voters, especially white women, college-educated women, and black women, requires presidential candidates to highlight a vision of a more equal society and a government that protects the well-being of its citizens through a strong social safety net, a commitment to anti-discrimination policies and a green environmental policy agenda.

Statistical mediational analysis allows one to determine to what extent different factors explain the gender gap in presidential vote choice. Each of the factors discussed below were analyzed separately, and thus, the percentages do not add up to 100%.

• Egalitarianism, or a preference for an equal society, is a political value on which there is a gender difference. Egalitarianism explains 34.56% of the gender gap in presidential vote choice.

• Support for a social safety net includes a desire for more government spending on public schools, health care, and childcare; for more government services; and for a reduction in income inequality. Women across demographic subgroups of race, age cohort, income, and education prefer a strong social safety net compared to men of the same subgroup, and this explains an astounding 60.95% of the gender gap in vote choice.

This could prove detrimental for Trump’s 2020 campaign given his administration’s proposed budgetary cuts to such programs. It also may shed light on Sen. Bernie Sander’s popularity given his income equality campaign messaging and Vice President Joe Biden’s popularity because of the legacy of the Affordable Care Act.

• Women also are more likely than men to back anti-discrimination policies and express more progressive attitudes toward women and African Americans. With respect to discrimination, women are more in favor extending rights and legal protections to gay men and lesbians. In addition, women are more in favor of affirmative action compared to men. Attitudes toward gay men and lesbians having the legal right to adopt explains 28.99% of the gender gap and having legal protections against discrimination explain 25.47% of the gender gap in presidential vote choice.

In the past, attitudes toward affirmative action and women’s role in society has not been a factor in presidential vote choice. Of course that could change given the salience of #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo.

• Racial resentment, a measure of negative attitudes toward African Americans, explains 18.21% of the gender gap in vote choice and a strong predictor of presidential vote among white and Black voters.

• Environmental policy preferences also divide men and women. In comparison to white men and college educated men, white women and college educated women want more government spending and regulations to protect the environment. Among Black Americans, both men and women report high levels of support for environmental protection policies, including government spending and greater regulations. Attitudes toward government spending and regulations to protect the environment explain 14.81% and 20.93% of the gender gap in presidential vote choice.

Simply put, women are more likely to want a candidate who advocates for policies that promote equality and provide a social safety net. To motivate turnout among and procure votes from women, candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination should stress such a vision and emphasize how they differ from President Trump on these issues, on equality, and on compassion more generally.

Mary-Kate Lizotte is an associate professor of political science in the department of social sciences at Augusta University in Augusta, Ga., and the author of Gender Differences in Public Opinion.