From the Super Bowl to Facebook to billboards, sports betting platform ads like Fanduel, DraftKings, and Bet MGM want to help you land your “three leg parlay” and “make it rain.” Where before gambling took place on occasion in casinos or at gas station slot machines, today, people worldwide can make live bets from their phones—from NFL football all the way to ping pong games sponsored by the International Table Tennis Federation—anytime, anywhere. In 2024, more than $14 million dollars were placed on sports bets, a 29% increase from 2023. Since the Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Ametur Sports Protection Act in 2018, sports betting is legal in 38 states and Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico but remains controversial in mainstream society.  

In the battle to maintain the restrictions on online betting platforms, advocates have pointed out how the addictive nature of gambling creates a noxious cycle that harms sports fans while sports leagues, betting platforms, and politicians benefit financially.

There is a lot riding on the legality of gambling. Sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB have a vested interest in allowing sports betting to remain legal by advertising sports betting platforms. When gambling platforms sponsor repeat bettors, fans are encouraged to make live bets, increasing viewership on games and raising revenue for the leagues. 

Sports betting companies, like DraftKings, have the most to lose if sports betting ceases to be legal as they earn revenue through fees on losing gambling bets. According to ESPN, these sports betting platforms boasted a $13 billion dollar revenue in 2023. 

The final cashout in sports betting comes in the form of political campaign financing and lobbying. Lobbying seeks to influence candidates’ and parties’ positions on issues, with some companies donating large amounts of money to gather support for their own views and interests. At the beginning of this year, a coalition of Sports Betting giants (DraftKings, Bet MGM, and Fanduel) formed a legal alliance to hire lobbyists to work in the House of Representatives. These giants also spent over one million dollars combined on the 2024 presidential and congressional elections. Unfortunately, while governments and politicians benefit from sports gambling, consumers suffer the consequences of an unregulated online sports betting system. 

Sports betting is highly addictive and uses hits of dopamine to reinforce behaviors, while platforms sell gambling as an “easy and fun” way to make money. Platforms like DraftKings utilize advertisements to draw people in, like five-dollar coupons that make the first bet free and offering bonus bets for the completion of certain challenges. People end up chasing losses by trying to gamble more in order to break even, creating a harmful downward spiral. Research done by the University of Kansas indicates that betting is more likely to take place in low-income households, thus exacerbating poor economic conditions.

Fortunately, there are lawmakers opposed to this harmful practice. House Rep. Paul Tonko of New York’s 20th district has proposed a bill titled “S.A.F.E Bet” that would tighten restrictions on online gambling, making advertising guidelines stricter and preventing gamblers from making large consecutive bets. By restricting the amount and the frequency of bets gamblers can make in one night, S.A.F.E Bet can help mitigate the noxious cycle many bettors are stuck in. Rep. Tonko’s bill was proposed in the House and sent to committee as of September 2024.

Additionally, some health professionals have suggested that gambling addictions should be treated as an issue of public health. The combination of the stimulating nature of gambling and the accessibility of betting apps makes it addictive. As the popularity of online sports betting apps increases, advertising increases to attract more bettors, leading more people down the cycle of losing and chasing the money to win back losses. This cycle can result in debt, substance abuse, depression, and loss of relationships—it is both a financial and a mental health issue. The classification of sports betting addiction as a public health issue would help paint the image of how harmful the practice is and aid lawmakers like Rep. Tonko to make sports betting illegal.  

Online sports betting apps are regressive, invasive, and addictive. Sports betting apps are advertised as a quick and fun way to make money while your favorite teams play, but in reality, the bettor is the one getting played.

“Golf is a game whose aim is to hit a very small ball into an even smaller hole, with weapons singularly ill-designed for the purpose.” In this quote, Winston Churchill expressed the challenge of a game that never definitely submits to the skill of the player; however secure one’s position might be, golf would find some weak spot and again prevail. Every day in corporate settings, women in leadership deal with gendered difficulties that are resistant to most solutions, just like those in golf. Even behind the sport itself is a profound history of sexism, which raises the question of whether or not golf should still be used as a major form of networking. Golf is the only sport used as a tool for career advancement in corporate settings, and yet its male-only past still precedes its name, evidenced by the popular acronym “gentlemen only, ladies forbidden.” How does the use of golf to network worsen barriers faced by women in corporate leadership roles?

Outside of the office, female golfers were not offered a spot on the green until they fought a long and difficult gender-based battle. The Masters, the first major professional golf tournament of the year, refused to admit women to their host club, Augusta National, until 2012. In 2002, with the National Council of Women’s Organizations, Martha Burk wrote a nine-sentence letter to Augusta National urging reevaluation of their male-only membership policies. The letter didn’t make headlines until chairman William “Hootie” Johnson caused a public relations nightmare, responding on the behalf of Augusta National, “We do not intend to become a trophy in their [NCWO’s] display case. There may well come a day when women will be invited to join our membership but that timetable will be ours, and not at the point of a bayonet… [Augusta] will not be bullied, threatened, or intimidated,” Johnson continued. 

Augusta National and the Masters never fully recovered from the damage to their reputation that Hootie Johnson provoked. When the club finally extended membership to women in 2012, many remembered his sentiment that promising women entrance does not guarantee acceptance. Professional golf has its roots in male power, and the casual use of golf in the workplace to network upholds male power further. Having noted such resistance to change within the golfing community, as a method of networking the sport may be damaging to the mobility of women in corporate leadership.

The glass ceiling, a conceptual barrier prohibiting racial minorities and women from advancing professionally, is made up of several specific obstacles. One of these obstacles is the ostracism of women from informal networks through the sport of golf: namely, the grass ceiling. Exactly how women are excluded from informal networks created through golf is by way of the contemporary American model of gender equality. Under the modern system, women are expected to engage in a career equal in workload to that of a man’s while simultaneously maintaining traditional caretaking responsibilities. “The influx of women into the economy has not been accompanied by a cultural understanding of marriage and work that would make this transition smooth,” (Hochschild, 2012). Referring to the lion’s share of childcare that mothers take as the second shift, sociologist Arlie Hochschild noted that most working fathers have yet to spend more time caretaking. This time is instead dedicated to career-building, and indeed, most working men golf during the free time that most working women spend attending to familial responsibilities. When a network-building activity such as golfing takes place outside of work hours, women struggle more to participate. In tandem with stereotyping and biases against female golfers, it becomes almost impossible for women to reap the benefits of golfing in corporate settings that men have been able to.

As the green helps build careers, it is imperative that women are granted access to the networks that men form while playing golf. Shifting the narrative within golf to recognize the value of women’s participation would benefit executives of all genders, considering that women are now integral to the economy. Nevertheless, traditional caregiving roles will long remain an obstacle for women in positions of leadership, regardless of the avenue they choose to build their careers. But this can be mollified through the reallocation of time between working parents and cultural acceptance of corporate women in golf. Dismantling the grass ceiling may enable the corporate world to relieve female executives of power scarcities, in progress towards a future in business where influence is awarded equally.

Photo Credit: https://golfweek.usatoday.com/gallery/masters-2024-sunday-final-round-augusta-national-photo-gallery/

Over the past few years, American football fans have suffered through the news of the deaths of various football players. These deceased range from high school players to recently retired NFL veterans. Some of them died naturally while others committed suicide or, as in the case of former Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, committed homicide prior to suicide. These deaths are often mourned as isolated incidents since they occur months or years apart but, in reality, they are the result of a disturbing yet long ignored trend in all levels of football. For many years, it has been known that playing football, especially at the NFL level, is linked to a higher number of concussions during a person’s lifetime. But now, the link between these concussions and permanent brain damage is becoming more evident as even the NFL has begun to recognize that there is some connection between repeated blows to the head, brain diseases, and, eventually, early death. The issue of concussions and brain disease is the most visible issue in football today, but it is merely a symptom of the NFL’s deeply flawed culture that is characterized by dishonesty about research, misrepresentation for monetary purposes, and unnecessary danger for players.

In his recent book “Against Football: One Fan’s Reluctant Manifesto”, journalist Steve Almond points out the game’s violence by looking at its origins. According to Almond, football began in the early to mid-19^th century as, essentially, controlled brawls between rival schools or between upperclassmen and freshmen as a right of initiation. The brawls eventually grew so violent that Harvard and Yale banned the game in 1860. Later on, the game started back up again as a rugby-soccer hybrid. It began acquiring formal rules such as a line of scrimmage and a system of downs, which gave it more structure but did not reduce injuries significantly. When universities wanted to ban the game again around the turn of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt, once a boxer at his alma mater Harvard, stepped in to propose rules to increase the safety of the game. Echoing the sentiment of football fans then and now, Roosevelt wanted to preserve the game because he thought it would make the players “tough” and manly.

To put into perspective the damage that football wreaks on players, it is best to look at the findings of independent concussion researchers relating to brain disorders in former football players. According to findings from Boston University researchers, 76 out of 79 deceased NFL players had suffered from or showed signs of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease that cannot be diagnosed until after death. It is characterized by memory loss, depression, impaired judgement, and, finally, progressive dementia. While the brains sent to Boston University for analysis were not necessarily a representative sample, the high percentage of brains showing evidence of CTE points to a larger phenomenon. According to a report released by the NFL Players’ Association and discussed in Steve Almond’s book, 1.9 percent of former NFL players ages 35 to 45 had been diagnosed with brain trauma-related illnesses such as Alzheimer’s or Dementia. While 1.9 percent seems like a small percentage, consider the fact that only 0.1 percent of males ages 35 to 45 have been diagnosed with such illnesses. That means former football players are 19 times more likely to develop brain trauma-related diseases than the average male population.

With the history of football and current research taken into account, it becomes clear that the game can have a negative effect on a player’s health. Most notably, the concussions, relatively common in NFL players, resulting from playing football for many years have been linked to brain diseases. As a result, in October 2009 NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was invited to testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on this issue. The chairman of the committee, Representative John Conyers (D-MI), asked Goodell a simple yes or no question: “Is there a link between playing professional football and the likelihood of contracting a brain-related injury?” Goodell’s initial response was evasive and he merely reiterated that the NFL was working harder to make the game safer. Conyers responded frankly by stating “I just asked you a simple question. What’s the answer?” While Goodell did not give an answer, there is overwhelming evidence that he knew the answer to the question.

According to the book “League of Denial: The NFL, Concussions and the Battle for Truth” written by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru in 2013, the NFL has tried to cover up the facts on degenerative brain disease among players in the same way Big Tobacco covered up the fact that their products contained numerous carcinogens and were exceptionally dangerous. By 1999 the NFL had doled out $2 million to former players who had suffered brain damage as a result of playing football, but they did not acknowledge there was a link until at least ten years later. Additionally, the league had been warned about the consequences of repeated blows to the head for players. From 2005 to 2009, they attempted to block findings made by independent concussion researchers. Recently the NFL paid a $765 million settlement to about 4,500 former players suffering from the negative effects of football in order to avoid going to court and facing the mounting evidence against them.

While the NFL has received most of the attention, the sport of football itself has become a moral dilemma in the United States. Many concerned parents are now barring their children from participating in football while certain youth football organizations have been forced to cut down on full-contact practices. Fears of football are exacerbated by public figures coming out against the game. NFL rookie Chris Borland recently retired after one season due to football being “inherently dangerous.”

Although it is evident that NFL players are the focus of brain trauma studies, many of these brain diseases come about because the players have been playing full-contact football since their childhood and, after so many years, the number of hits and concussions add up. Couple in the fact that NCAA Division I players are practically professionals already, and it is clear this pipeline from parks to the pros can lead players to develop serious injuries before they ever reach the NFL. As such, one must think: Why is it that one of our traditions is defined by violence and duplicity? Why is it acceptable to forbid one’s children from playing football while encouraging other peoples’ children to play a deadly sport for our amusement?

Whenever Americans attend a football game or watch a game on TV, they are not only condoning the injuries resulting from the sport but also the behavior of the NFL and its executives. As long as Americans’ support of the game remains strong, these problems will never be solved and those trying to cover them up will continue to evade responsibility. For the sake of the players and the future of sports, Americans must put aside their emotional attachments to the game and confront this immorality head-on.

If someone over the summer predicted the Atlanta Hawks would be a legitimate contender for the NBA title in 2015, most Atlanta fans probably wouldn’t have gotten their hopes up for fear of disappointment. But after watching the Hawks outclass many of the NBA’s top teams over the past two months, it is getting increasingly difficult to deny the Hawks’ chances at winning it all.

As of today, the Hawks have defeated most of the best teams in the league, sweeping games against the Eastern Conference with wins over the Toronto Raptors, Chicago Bulls, and Detroit Pistons over MLK weekend. The Hawks never trailed against the Chicago Bulls (many analysts’ pick to win the East) and maintained a double-digit lead for most of the game, suppressing a late fourth-quarter surge by Derrick Rose. The Hawks managed to dismantle all three teams directly behind them in the Eastern Conference standings, starting with a huge win over division rival Washington Wizards by 31 (in what Kyle Korver called the team’s best game of the year) followed by the team’s first win this season over the Toronto Raptors, beating them by a handy 21 points.

Atlanta’s win streak is now at a league-leading 13 games, coming one short of the longest streak in franchise history. While the Hawks’ overall record is still second in the NBA to the Golden State Warriors, Atlanta currently has the most wins in the league (34, five more than any team in their conference) and has won 27 of their last 29 games. Against opponents with winning records, the Hawks are even more impressive, holding a league-best 18-3 record, with an impressive 10-2 record against the seemingly superior Western Conference. Many NBA analysts put together weekly “power rankings” evaluating the strength of every team in the NBA. This week, the Atlanta Hawks were ranked as the top team in basketball by ESPN, NBA.com, CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, ProBasketballTalk.com, and SB Nation.

In today’s player-dominant NBA, where superstar alliances and free agent trades can drastically alter a team’s playoff chances within the course of a season, Atlanta’s success with a team devoid of superstars seems especially surprising. In fact, this notion has led some to draw comparisons between this year’s Hawks and last year’s champions, the San Antonio Spurs, as many commentators have playfully referred to Atlanta as the “Spurs of the East.” The parallels are easy to draw, as both teams emphasize team-play and generate most of their points from assists. These similarities might have a rather obvious explanation: Hawks head coach Mike Budenholzer was an assistant coach under Gregg Popovich’s Spurs from 1996 – 2013, and general manager Danny Ferry is a former vice president of basketball operations for the Spurs.

Atlanta has defied this player-focused environment by distributing its scoring and minutes evenly across its entire rotation. In fact, the Hawks don’t have a single player ranking in the top 30 in scoring or minutes per game. Budenholzer appears to be taking a page out of Popovich’s playbook that helped win the Spurs the 2014 NBA championship – preserving starters in the regular season to make a deep run in the playoffs.

Although the Hawks do not have a superstar, the team is loaded with individual talent. Al Horford recently won Eastern Conference player of the week, gaining the accolade for the second time this season. Jeff Teague has also won the award, and Paul Millsap is currently poised to make the All-Star team for the second straight year. Kyle Korver leads the league in three-point shooting by a resounding margin, and could become the first player in NBA history to shoot 50 percent from the field and beyond the arch and 90 percent from the free throw line.

But perhaps the most significant key to the Hawks’ success is their ability to play truly unselfish, team basketball on both ends of the floor. The Hawks are second in the league in assists per game, and an incredible 74.4 percent of their starting lineup’s field goals are assisted. During their 5-0 run this past week, the Hawks topped 30 assists four times. Per game, Atlanta is first in the league in points allowed (96.3), second in assists (26), and seventh in points scored (103.1).

This defensive-minded ideology is central to Budenholzer’s coaching philosophy and something that was missing last year. The coaching staff does a terrific job putting together team-specific defensive game plans that stymie opponents’ major sources of offense. Coach Bud is expected to coach the Eastern Conference at the All-Star game, and is well-poised to win Coach of the Year if Atlanta continues its performance. After leading his team to a 14-2 record in December, being named the December Eastern Conference Coach of the Month, and maintaining an undefeated record in January, Atlanta players and fans are ecstatic to have found such a great talent.

Perhaps what is most impressive is that Budenholzer has managed to create a NBA power-house already four wins away from last year’s season total while having to deal with extreme controversy and distraction within the organization. The Atlanta Hawks three-part ownership has constantly vied for influence over the team’s decisions, creating a variety of problems (and even lawsuits) between one another for rejecting trades.

To add to this continuous state of flux, two major controversies occurred this past summer when Atlanta was attempting to chase free agents. The tumultuous summer began when an audio recording captured Hawks General Manager Danny Ferry describing free agent Luol Deng as having “a little African in him.” Ferry has since been indefinitely suspended. A subsequent investigation led to Bruce Levenson, majority-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, reporting his own email to the NBA in July that contained “inappropriate and racist remarks” about Atlanta’s fan base.

Shortly after the email went public, Levenson announced he would sell his portion of the team. Four months later, the AJC reported that all three ownership groups would sell their shares, putting 100 percent of the Atlanta Hawks organization up for sale. Although it is still difficult to see a silver lining in this state of affairs, a cohesive new group of owners will at least improve their existing situation. The fact that the coaching staff and the team have drastically improved and maintained a consistent goal of winning a championship in the midst of this media storm makes the Hawks season all the more impressive.

For the most part, denizens of Atlanta have become acclimated to relatively lackluster performances when it comes to professional sports. Atlanta fans are not only accustomed to disappointment, they are used to sufficient regular season success to set expectations that have never been fulfilled. Across the city’s three (and once four) professional sports teams, Atlanta has only won one championship with the Atlanta Braves in 1995. The Atlanta Falcons, with one unsuccessful Super Bowl appearance in 1999, developed consistency with consecutive winning seasons for the first time in franchise history from 2008 to 2012 but were unable to secure another Super Bowl appearance. The former Atlanta Thrashers are hardly worth mentioning, only qualifying once for the Stanley Cup playoffs but swept in the first round and later relocated to Winnipeg, Canada.

The Hawks have not had much historical success either, as even the famous team Hawks team featuring Domonique Wilkins, Doc Rivers, and Spud Webb never made it to the Eastern Conference Finals. Although the Hawks have made the playoffs for the past seven seasons, they have struggled to make it past the second round. It is still too early to make any assumptions about the remainder of the Hawks’ season and their title chances, but results thus far look very promising and give Atlanta sports fans something to be excited about. The Hawks have thrilled many with their superb play so far, but there is no doubt that they would surprise countless more sports fans from Atlanta and others across the world by bringing home Atlanta’s first NBA title. While the Braves and Falcons are investing big money in new stadiums and appear to be far from accomplishing the feat of a national championship, Atlanta fans can focus all of their cathartic energy on the Hawks.

The week after Georgia’s stunning football victory over Clemson, I got a text from my father. He had worn Georgia paraphernalia to the Atlanta airport, and one of the TSA officers had said “Go Dawgs” and then told him that he pulls aside Florida Gator fans for “random” pat downs.

My first reaction was to laugh. My second reaction was to text back, “Someone give that man a raise!”

But imagine if instead of “Florida Gator fans,” the TSA officer admitted to targeting another group for not-so-random pat downs. Say he pulled aside citizens of Middle Eastern countries. Or say a police officer pulled over black drivers for not-so-random checks. Or say the Internal Revenue Service selected Tea Party groups for not-so-random audits.

In sports, especially in college football down South, behaviors that would otherwise be repugnant are acceptable. Last year when UGA played Clemson, both Georgia fans and Clemson fans had signs that read “South Carolina fans can’t read this!” In the week before we played LSU, “LSU fans smell like corndog” jokes were abundant. Just ask Florida State how awful sports fans can be: when the school started an “Ask Jameis” hashtag on Twitter to promote their Heisman-winning and crab-leg-stealing quarterback Jameis Winston, the questions that were asked were things like “When Publix shows man coverage at checkout, what happens if you don’t see the manager drop in safety help over the top?” and “You went undefeated on the field. And also in the court room. Do you consider yourself the next OJ?”

Humans like picking sides. In prehistory, loyalty to a tribe was essential for survival; strangers generally couldn’t be trusted. That tribalism hangs over today as people align themselves with sports teams, political parties, religious denominations, and an infinite number of another affiliations. And we like sticking with the sides we’ve chosen. Research has shown that people tend to listen to sources that agree with their point of view and ignore those that disagree with it. This invariably leads to conflict as both sides, having absorbed sources supporting them and disregarded sources that didn’t, are convinced that they’re right.

Oftentimes the side of a conflict one ends up on is based solely on happenstance. For example, whether a person cheered or disapproved of Atlanta Falcons fans egging the buses of the visiting New Orleans Saints two years ago probably depended mostly on whether that person was raised in Georgia as a Falcons fan or in Louisiana as a Saints fan. Whether Ukrainian citizens fight for or against the Russian-backed rebel group in Donetsk is often explained by where they were born and whether they speak Ukrainian or Russian.

Ethnic, national, or religious tribalism is obviously destructive. One only needs to look at the bitter conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza, between Chinese and Japanese in the Senkaku Islands, or between Sunni and Shiite in Iraq and Syria for evidence of that.

However, even milder forms of tribalism – ones that supposedly depend on choice rather than birth – can be destructive. In the United States, political parties are looking increasingly like tribes. Just like Hindu Indians rebuked by their families for marrying Muslims or Georgia students shunned by their friends for bringing Florida fans to a party, Democrats and Republicans are frequently shunned by their own parties for working across the aisle. Look at Eric Cantor, a Republican politician and former House Majority leader who lost his seat in a wild upset to a candidate who successfully painted him as someone willing to work with the Democrats on immigration reform.

Tribalism naturally carries with it a desire to defeat the other side. Sports fulfill that desire with regular matches against the other side. If a sports team loses, there is always hope that they will get better and win the next year (just ask Georgia Tech fans). That doesn’t work so well with political parties – elections may be a good way of determining which side is the winner and which is the loser, but the parties actually have to work together in the interim, and lately, it seems like the Democrats and Republicans have adopted the “hope they’ll be better and win the next year” model instead of governing. That desire is downright destructive when the sides’ only avenue to defeat the other seems to be through war, as in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

Humans are always going to be tribal animals. There’s something innately satisfying about being for one team or another. However, we have to be careful about how we fulfill our need for tribalism. Little good can come from aligning ourselves with a nation, a religion, or a political party and defending it at any cost. But doing so with a sports team? That’s just being a good fan.

Oh, and Florida fans – be careful in the Atlanta airport!

Two words…Two simple words that express the sentiments of the entire Bulldog Nation: Free Gurley.

When the NCAA announced Wednesday morning that Todd Gurley must sit out an additional two games, most Georgia fans were filled with shock and anger. The shock comes after all signs, pointed toward Gurly being reinstated this week: Mark Richt and Gurley’s lawyer made optimistic comments about Gurley’s status against Florida last week, and NCAA President Mark Emmert  also stated the athletic department’s actions have been “commendable.”

The anger, however, stems from the utter hypocrisy of the NCAA. In its report, the NCAA, headquartered in Indianapolis, said it chose to suspend Gurley for a total of four games after he received more than $3,000 in exchange for autographs over two years. Although the university is appealing the suspension, a different outcome is unlikely. Todd Gurley knowingly broke NCAA rules, and he is rightfully being suspended.

However, the NCAA has lost all credibility when it comes to actually enforcing these rules in a fair manner. Last year, Johnny Manziel was suspended after being caught on video autographing a large amount of items, but there was never evidence of him receiving money, so it was just a half-game suspension. Heisman winner and Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston, like Gurley, has a suspiciously large number of similarly-looking authenticated items for sale, possibly pointing toward payment from autograph dealers. Winston, who also didn’t miss any time as quarterback after shoplifting crab legs (although he was suspended during his baseball season), has continued to play for Florida State, as their investigation hasn’t shown enough evidence.

At its core, the NCAA’s investigations into rule infractions reward lying. The NCAA, unlike a police investigation, does not have subpoena power and does not have access into players’ or coaches’ bank accounts without their permission. Without cooperation, the NCAA can do little find the real truth. Last year, of all 1,198 secondary infractions committed by universities, only 51 were discovered through NCAA inquiries. Todd Gurley’s investigation began when Bryan Allen, an autograph dealer, essentially snitched to the media. Without Allen, would the NCAA ever had found out? Probably not.

The system is broken when an investigative body needs to rely on outside cooperation to find the truth because it incentivizes players, coaches, and administrations to cover up the truth with lies. Sure, the NCAA is consistent with its punishments when the evidence shows players have committed similar infractions, but its investigative body is handcuffed by its lack of subpoena power; it can’t accurately determine what infractions have been broken most of the time.

The NCAA is the teacher in the classroom who punishes the goody-two-shoes student when he voluntarily admits to doing something wrong, but doesn’t punish the actual troublemakers who lie and deny everything.

If the NCAA wants to be taken seriously, they have to do a better job of getting to the bottom of the issues at hand. When millions of dollars are on the line for an eligible star athlete, there will always be players and administrations who try to cover up wrongdoing. The goal of the NCAA should be to punish those liars, not just the ones who are cooperative when under investigation. That hypocrisy is more obvious this week than ever before.

The other issue in this case is whether the NCAA should have punished Gurley in the first place. The answer is yes. Whether or not they are fair, rules are rules. However, in context, a four-game suspension is excessive. If $3,000 seems like a lot of money, keep in mind it’s less than the $5,000 FBS football and Division I basketball players are now legally entitled to (pending appeal). If Todd Gurley had been born a few years later, he would be collecting $20,000 by the time he leaves the University of Georgia (if he stays all four years).

Claudia Wilken, the judge who made that ruling, clearly stated the NCAA is acting as a monopoly and unreasonably restricts trade. As made crystal clear by this Gurley ruling, any player who profits off his or her own name or likeness puts their eligibility on the line. A better solution than a simple $5,000 payment across the board would be to allow players to sign items that are sold on official NCAA and university websites. All profits from the autographs would go to the players, and by keeping the sale restricted to official websites, you could set prices at a fair market value and prevent boosters from paying thousands of dollars for a single autograph.

The NCAA is desperately holding on to the notion that major college sports are played by amateurs. Apparently, it doesn’t matter that these amateurs have created a billion-dollar industry with their football and basketball skills; they can’t profit like the NCAA has. Wilken’s judgment allowing players to be paid and the large public support Gurley has garnered, even outside Georgia, are bad omens for the future of amateur status.

Over the next decade, expect to see changes surrounding these issues. There is too much money at stake for the top football and basketball players to just let the NCAA rake in that cash. The ruling earlier this year got the ball rolling toward striking down the black and white definitions of amateur and professional and replacing it with a hybrid interpretation — and that definition will only further slide into shades of gray.

By: Kathleen Wilson

In November, Russia launched its squats for rides campaign at the Vystavochnaya subway station in western Moscow. In lieu of paying 30 rubles (92 cents) for a train ticket, willing participants could obtain a ticket by doing 30 squats in under two minutes. Special machines throughout the Vystavochnaya station monitored the form and number of squats completed and dispensed subway tickets to all successful participants. The Russian Olympic Committee supported the campaign as a means of showing the public “that the Olympic Games is not just an international competition that people watch on TV but that it is also about getting everyone involved in a sporting lifestyle.”

This campaign is indeed an innovative way to encourage people to adopt more healthy lifestyles and add more physical activity to their daily routines. However, it fails to take into consideration the physical capabilities or needs of people who are handicapped. At least 13 million people with disabilities live in Russia, comprising approximately 9 percent of the country’s population. Yet, as of 2012, only 16 percent of public and transport facilities were handicap-accessible. In particular, Russian subway stations lack elevators and escalators, rendering the path from the entrance of the station to the actual train platform inaccessible to this large portion of the Russian population.

Instead of Russia’s squats for rides campaign, a real challenge would be to confine willing participants to a wheelchair and offer them a free subway ticket in exchange for successful navigation from the street-level entry of the station to the underground train tracks. How many people would actually succeed?

Given that Russia is hosting both the 2014 Winter Olympic Games and the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games, it had even more reason to improve its infrastructure, making it more handicap-accessible. The Paralympic Games, founded in 1960, are comprised of athletes with physical disabilities such as amputations, spinal cord injuries, cerebral palsy, and visual impairment and with intellectual disabilities. Like the Olympic Games, the Paralympics are held every four years, following the Olympic Games. This year, from March 7-16, nearly 700 athletes from 45 countries will gather to compete in 72 medal events including alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-country skiing, ice sledge hockey, and wheelchair curling.

Russia’s agreement to host the 2014 Paralympic Games is monumental progress for the country. When hosting the 1980 Summer Olympic Games, the Soviet Union refused to host the Paralympics, stating, “There are no disabled people in the USSR.” Is Russia’s agreement to host the Paralympic Games enough or, as the lack of handicap-accessible infrastructure suggests, is Russia still neglecting its disabled population?

Russia is not the only party to have brushed aside the concerns of disabled populations. With all of the attention being placed on the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games and its participants remain nothing more than a brief afterthought for the media in the United States as well. Compared to NBCSN’s 230 hours of Olympic coverage from Sochi, this year’s Paralympic games will only receive 50 hours of television coverage by NBC and NBCSN. Although this year’s coverage of the Paralympics is a large improvement from NBC’s mere five and a half hours of coverage of the 2012 London Paralympic Games, the lack of both equitable coverage of the two events and a society in which able-bodied and disabled people are treated equally still persists.

Ask anyone to name a famous Olympian and he or she will easily be able to formulate an answer; yet, how many people would be able to answer the same question about a famous Paralympian?

Some argue that the best way to increase society’s acceptance of those with disabilities is to combine the Olympics and the Paralympics. A poll taken following the 2012 London Paralympics found that 54 percent of British adults felt combining the Olympics and Paralympics would help disabled athletes to be taken more seriously, and 52 percent felt this combination would help improve society’s views about disabled people. Furthermore, 65 percent of disabled people supported a combined Olympic/Paralympic event.

According to the president of the International Olympics Committee, a Paralympics and Olympics merger may occur after 2020. However, in the meantime, steps must be taken to improve the current Olympic/Paralympic system that separates the able-bodied from the disabled and reinforces the societal bias against those with disabilities. The media should devote more of its resources to covering the Paralympics, making it a well-revered event rather than a mere afterthought. More importantly, future Olympic and Paralympic host countries such as Brazil in 2016 and South Korea in 2018 need to devote more resources to making their countries more disabled-friendly.

By: Chris Lewitzke

Maybe it was when Al Michaels asked millions of Americans “Do you believe in miracles?” as the final seconds ticked off the clock during the United States’ 4-3 victory over the Soviets in hockey in 1980. Maybe it was when Usian Bolt challenged the limits of the human body and ran faster than any man other man in recorded history before during the 200-meter sprint in 2008. Maybe it was when Derek Redmond tore his hamstring but tearfully and painfully hobbled to the finish line with the help of his father during the 400-meter race in 1992.

For two short weeks every two years, several thousand athletes come together to provide the world with unforgettable moments of greatness, agony, and humanity. Most viewers of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi can think back to a time in past games when they were overwhelmed with emotion, either awe or heartbreak for the athletes. Maybe it’s the 1980 Hockey Semifinal, the 2008 200-meter dash, or the 1992 400-meter qualifying; maybe it’s a different memory, but the exact situation is unimportant. What is important is that these moments are truly what the Olympic Games are about.

The 2014 Winter Olympics, however, have been anything but a 90-second montage of tear-jerking moments. Amidst reports of corruption that led to a record-setting $51 billion budget in Sochi and struggles to prepare the Russian resort city in time for the games, most of the focus has been on visitors’ mishaps in Sochi. The most visible sign of this negative focus has been the Twitter handle @SochiProblems, which has over 300,000 followers and tweets about the problems journalists and athletes are encountering in Sochi.

Critics will say that with growing budgets and increased commercialization, the Olympics are no more special than all other sporting events; organizers’ sole focus is to increase revenue and national reputation, while athletes care more about bringing home a sponsorship than a gold medal. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has historically been an organization full of corruption and bribery; the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City were found to have been a product of bribery and vote buying by officials.

So what makes the Olympics different? Maybe it’s those moments like the “Miracle on Ice,” Usain Bolt, or Derek Redmond that inspire people in every part of the globe. Maybe it’s the fact that most of the athletes know they won’t sniff the podium or a sponsorship after they’re done competing but are still trying to break personal records while proudly representing their country. Maybe it’s because the Olympic Village, where thousands of athletes from different countries, backgrounds, and lifestyles live peacefully together for two weeks, is a microcosm of what humanity is working toward.

In his speech at the Opening Ceremony, IOC President Thomas Bach spoke out against politicians using Olympic athletes for their own political agenda and emphasized the importance of a neutral, discrimination-free environment – if only for two weeks. Bach was correct when he said, “[The Olympic Games] contribute to a better society. We contribute to peace.”

In more ways than one, the Olympic Games serve as a reminder for what we can achieve as an individual and as a human race. Amidst growing political polarization in the media, we can learn from the Olympic Village, where athletes of hundreds of nationalities, backgrounds, and beliefs live side by side for two weeks. We can learn from Indiana native and bronze medal winner Nick Goepper, who practiced on rails made of PVC pipes in his backyard for years because he lived too far from any ski resorts. Goepper dreamed of skiing in the Olympics and didn’t let anything stand in his way. Neither should we forget about the incredible athletes of the Paralympics and Special Olympics, who have overcome every obstacle thrown at them in life and still manage to achieve inconceivable athletic feats. The Olympics are intrinsically different than other sporting events because they act as a guide for life: treat others graciously regardless of their background, dream big, and work hard.

The games also redefine what humans are capable of doing. Every two years, dozens of world records are broken, many of which were previously thought to be unbreakable. Nadia Comaneci’s perfect score on uneven bars in 1976 couldn’t even be displayed on the scoreboard properly, because nobody had scored a perfect 10 ever before. In the 2010 Winter Olympics halfpipe competition, Shuan White landed the first Double McTwist 1260 by anyone in a competition after he had already locked up the gold medal.

More important than these record-breaking performances, though, is the simple act of competing. The Olympic creed states, “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.” Whether or not they win a medal, athletes leave the Olympics appreciative of the opportunity. It is the end of their struggle, the summit of a mountain, a goal accomplished. Winning isn’t important; competing with integrity is.

The Olympics have the power to be a catalyst into the humanity’s future, for as Nelson Mandela said, “Sport can change the world.” In the Opening Ceremony last week, athletes entered the games separated under the flag of their respective home countries. But during the Closing Ceremony next week, all athletes will enter the stadium together, without any signs of their differing nationalities. If more people in the world embrace the Olympic attitude of focusing on what unites humanity, rather than what divides it, sport will change the world.