Why are there so few out LGBTQ+ Athletes?

Hyper Heterosexism culture has stymied any potential movement for individuals to come out publicly. 

As 2018 begins, LGBTQ+ rights have never been so prominent. The clear majority of individuals are supportive and push for pro LGBTQ+ rights, with more and more individuals coming out without fear of being discriminated against. The same can not be said for professional male athletes. 

However, there was a wave of athletes that publicly came out between 2013 and 2014. This was the hopeful beginning of an avalanche of individuals to come out. 

Football Player Michael Sam, who was a star Defensive End for the Missouri Tigers in university, as well as the 2013 recipient for Southeastern Conference’s Defensive Player of the Year. Sam came out publicly prior to his senior season, in 2013. He was drafted in the seventh round of the 2014 National Football League Draft, yet has never played a snap in the NFL. 

National Basketball Association veteran big man Jason Collins was the first openly gay player to play in one of the four major professional leagues. He came out publicly at the end of the 2013-14 NBA season. Collins was drafted 18th overall in 2001, and played a total of 14 NBA seasons, retiring in 2014. As he stated in his first-person piece for Sports Illustrated “if I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I am raising my hand.” 

Robbie Rogers, whom is a former Major League Soccer player, came out as publicly gay in 2013. He also played professionally in England. 

After Jason Collins public announcement, Rogers believed that “a movement was coming.” 

However, since these athletes’ bravery, there have been no more athletes to come out publicly while playing. Three different sports, all with a cornerstone individual, yet unfortunately for Rogers, no movement has come. 

It has been approximated that one in ten people are gay. It is a seemingly mythological sentiment, because of a lack of proper research methods. Yet it is certain that there are athletes now who live in the closet whilst playing. It isn’t the case that LGBTQ+ identities are rising in prevalence, but rather a stymied culture within sports that inhibit one. 

With regards to homophobia, Wade Davis, a gay former NFL player, believes it isn’t unique within sports 

“I’m not saying it doesn’t exist in the sports world, but I think it is reinforced in the sports world, but you learn you can’t be out much sooner. When I realized I was gay in the 10th grade, I knew immediately what I was feeling was not OK, and that didn’t come from me playing little league football. It came from television. It came from everywhere.” It is not the homophobia that impacts people so much, but rather the blatant hyper heterosexism within locker rooms. Rampant dialogue concerning women and sex is paramount, and for gay athletes, it is something that they can not relate to. 

It seems that in female professional sport, there are more individuals whom are publicly out. Most notably the Women’s National Basketball Association. One can say that being heterosexual in the WNBA leads one to be made fun of, a complete role reversal of male athletics. The culture emanating from the WNBA is a parallel to the NBA, with women mirroring the men, whether that be through on court playing, or off court attitudes. However, it is certain that female athletic teams are more open to LGBTQ+ athletes. Brittney Griner and Megan Rapinoe are just some examples of these decorated gay athletes. 

Crucially, one’s sexual orientation should by no means play any role in an individual’s skill to play a sport. What is done in one’s private life is exactly that, private. Yet it is disheartening to hear that there has not been more movement within locker rooms to change the culture. These locker rooms are stuck in a 1960’s dialogue while the rest of society has grossly advanced LGBTQ+ rights.

---

Indigenous symbols in professional sport, insult or honor?

Throughout professional sports, a wide-ranging usage of indigenous symbols has come to the forefront of moral and societal values. Teams that still use Native American imagery include: Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks and countless high schools and colleges. One can not ignore the brazen mistreatment of indigenous individuals throughout North American history so the question persists: Is it honor and positive recognition, or insult and degradation for these logos to still be used today?

The term ‘Redskin’ has been referred to as a derogatory term for Native Americans in the United States. Nowadays, the word is scarcely utilized in day-to-day lingo. Unfortunately, public backlash and political pressures to change the name have been highly refuted by the team owner Dan Snyder. He was quoted in 2013 as saying: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER- you can use caps.” The perverseness of how referring to a professional sports team as a “Red-Skin” still exists in 2017 is mind blowing. Yet, only real change can occur from the top, and without an ownership change, the name will more than likely stick around.

The Cleveland Indians have a convoluted and complicated history surrounding their name. Indians was formulated in 1915, after going through several other names such as Naps, Blues and Spiders. Their primary logo (until recently) is of Chief Wahoo. Chief wahoo is a cartoon caricature of a stereotypical American Indian face. In 2014, team owner Paul Dolan indicated that the team would use a block C as their primary logo, yet the Wahoo symbol is still emblazoned on side of jerseys and some home caps. “We are people, not mascots, not logos, not imagery, Chief Wahoo does not represent anybody that I know or anybody in my tribe or family” says Potawatomi Tribe member Carla Getz.

The Chicago Blackhawks were one of the founding ‘Original Six’ teams of the NHL. They were named after an infantry battalion in World War I that paid homage to the great warrior ‘Black Hawk’, who was a prominent figure for the state of Illinois. The name and logo have been scarcely modified, with ‘Black Hawks’ changing to Blackhawks in the 1980s. For locals and fans, the name represents an umbrella of shared ideals. It represents a history of athletic achievement and hardships with thousands of players and fans throughout more than half a century. The name does not represent Native American’s stereotyped history.

The Kansas City Chiefs arguably have the tamest idealization of indigenous symbols. Their logo has been an arrowhead with ‘KC’ in it since the team’s name change from Texans in 1963. Arrowhead is ironically the name of their football stadium. Kansas City has never felt the need to change the name of the team, as the logo and name are an embracement of the countries heritage and their roots as an organization and as a city.

To some, these names and logos can be seen as a means of honoring Indigenous individuals and to remember the hardships they had to face during a time of immense oppression. For others, one can point at the fact that by changing a name of a team, you are essentially starting anew. The uniqueness of having teams having the same name since the (for example) 1915 Indians kindles nostalgic feelings. This nostalgia embeds itself into patriarchy, especially in the United States. General Lee confederate statues and Christopher Columbus monuments are still erected throughout the US, so expecting sweeping changes to occur are unfounded. Unfortunately, the solution seems to lie (as always) at the top, with the billionaire owners of the teams. To expect my grandfather to change his mind on what kind of soup he wants is hard enough, so a name/logo reengineering is highly unlikely for these owners, as both their age (average of 70 in all four major sports) and ethnicity (primarily Caucasian) ooze a grandfather-esque tinge.

---