Should we pay Little Leaguers? (from orgtheory.net)

Second post over at orgtheory-- this on compensating players in the Little League World Series. Did you watch the Little League World Series last month? It’s possible you missed it in the wake of other news stories, like Hurricane Irene.  But this year’s winners (a team from Huntingdon Beach, California) were also overshadowed by coverage of their own game, as the state of competitive youth baseball and whether or not these “unpaid adolescents” were being exploited became the media’s focus.

Sportswriter Dan Wetzel made his case for compensating Little Leaguers in “Pay the Little League World Series Players.”  Wetzel writes: “Not every Little Leaguer, just the ones who play on television, where their innocence is packaged into a commodity. And, no, they shouldn’t make millions or even hundreds of thousands.  They should get something, maybe several hundred per television appearance. If it made people more comfortable that the money went to a college savings fund or maybe into a trust that becomes available when they’re 18 or 21, so be it.”

Any self-respecting economic sociologist, or sociologist of childhood, will immediately think of Viviana Zelizer’s classic Pricing the Priceless Child after reading this quote.  And you will also know that childhood innocence and compensation do not always mix so well.

I’ve written about how we should think of children’s participation in afterschool activities as a form of children’s work.  Afterschool activities can qualify as “work” both because of prizes won and because of the acquisition of cultural capital that will have a pay-off in the longer run.  I’ve also written about child performers, particularly children on reality television shows, and how they are compensated.  Child performers have always occupied a complicated space in child labor debates, partly because their “work” is often constructed as being “educational.” But I’m not aware of any serious scholarship (sociological, economic, or legal) on compensation of child athletes.

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING AT ORGTHEORY (AND CONTINUE READING BELOW)!

In my opinion compensating child athletes may sound logical on some level, but it is a complicated issue that poses a few problems that are likely insurmountable in today’s commodified world.  The most obvious practical complication has to do with NCAA regulations. If we compensate kids they almost certainly lose their NCAA eligibility.  Of course many of these kids won’t go on to play NCAA baseball, but they may play another NCAA sport.  Compensating them without proper protections in place jeopardizes those future opportunities. (Paying NCAA athletes is another issue that has been batted around for some time, though it also has been talked abouta lot more in the past few months).

Second, and even more complicated, is that if we compensate kids in a way consistent with them being classified as workers or performers (and limiting compensation to those who appear on television makes it more likely they would be classified as performers) that would also limit the number of hours they could “work” and the conditions under which they could labor.  This could impact practice times, length of games, and other parts of the sporting experience.

However, I do believe that kids should be compensated and rewarded for their hard work—particularly when it helps adults benefit financially. One model to look at would be the National Spelling Bee (which, incidentally, is now not only broadcast on ESPN, but also live on ABC in the final rounds).  Finalists receive prizes, like an encyclopedia, along with scholarships, bonds, and cash awards.  Other in-kind gifts like computers and trips are also possible (for example the National Geography Bee winner wins a trip to the Galapagos Islands). Perhaps elite child athletes could receive similar types of awards—like specialized training—that could protect them from NCAA violations.

In the meantime they have to settle for hometown parades and a DVD of their television appearances.  What do you think is fair?

Guest blogging at orgtheory this month- First post on the afterschool industry

Please check out my first post over at orgtheory-- on the back-to-school/afterschool industry. If you’re a parent you’ve likely spent a lot of time lately preparing for the start of the school year.  Pictures on the front porch of the house with child in first-day-of-school attire (posted to Facebook, of course)? Check. School supplies purchased featuring some sort of Disney/Nickelodeon character? Double Check. Signed child up for a plethora of enrichment afterschool activities after being deluged with ads and then feeling guilty because every other child your child’s age seems to be enrolled? Check Plus.

Today it’s not just classroom instruction that creates so much cultural and social capital in childhood.  The out-of-school hours are a huge source of capital-building as well (what I call “competitive kid capital” in my work on elementary school-age kids involved in the competitive afterschool activities of chess, dance, and soccer).  And these afterschool hours are not only the source of capital for kids, they are also the source of very real economic capital for many adults.  For many teachers and coaches these afterschool activities are the basis of their livelihoods.  In particular, they make a living by both creating competitive kid capital and sustaining a base of families who believe that kid capital is essential to future success.

Behind the culturally celebrated veil of competition then is an elaborate infrastructure and industry that organizes, supports, and promotes organized children’s activities, and in turn shapes the daily lives of many American families.  There is a world of childhood activities organized to profit from parents who are concerned about their children’s futures.  Different sets of individuals, organizations, and businesses play a role in producing child competitors and winners, just as it takes an “art world” to create an artist or a piece of art (a la Becker).

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING AT ORGTHEORY, OR KEEP READING BELOW!

We should think of those who run organizations related to children’s afterschool activities as entrepreneurs (note that they are usually part of the formal economy, but can be part of the informal economy as well).  These entrepreneurs are surrounded by constellations of other entrepreneurs who charge for additional services—like those who sell clothing and shoes needed to participate in an activity, or publish magazines and books about the activities.  I was particularly struck by this when I attended a State Soccer Expo and saw vendors selling products I had not previously considered vital to the travel soccer enterprise. For example, there was a booth for a company that sold the paint used to paint the lines on soccer fields. Another booth featured a business specializing in cookies, popcorn, and other snacks, which can then be sold by teams, at a marked up price, as part of fundraising efforts.  Another sold special headbands meant to help prevent concussions.  Clearly, such products are only sometimes necessary.  But producers, who need to make money, advertise that the products will make participation more convenient, or improve a child’s performance, thus making a purchase “required.”  Other products, like the headbands, are successful by preying on parental concerns about their children’s safety.

Because parents are willing to invest a lot of money in these activities, there is a lot of money to be made.  Profits are high because prices are high; teachers and coaches can charge a lot since there are often not many competitors in their areas of expertise, which would help keep prices down.  While some parents express discomfort that some adults are “making a living off of” their children (childhood is supposed to be a sacred time, after all), they still pay up for fear of their child being “left behind.”

Notably, the funeral industry and some industries associated with children (like preschool) are regulated in an attempt to limit exploitation of a vulnerable population.  What is problematic is that children’s after-school activities have become so commodified, with little to no regulation of their practices.  How much are you willing to spend on the “art world” surrounding your child’s afterschool life?

Sync or Swim: Reviewing the Trials, Tribulations, and those Nose Clips

No, those girls aren't in white face. They have just slathered on sunscreen to protect their skin from the sun as they spend upwards of eight hours a day training outside in a swimming pool. And, no, they aren't addicted to Jell-O. Instead,they are buying boxes of gelatin in order to slick back their hair during competitions. This is the sport of synchronized swimming and it is the subject of a great documentary, just released to DVD-- Sync or Swim.  The film, originally released to festivals in 2008, follows the selection process and the competition at the 2004 Olympics.  As one of the swimmers explains, "synchro" is not a glory sport. There aren't any big endorsements.  The Olympic experience is the pay-off.

The director, Cheryl Furjanic, does a great job showing the everyday dedication required to be an elite-level synchronized swimmer.  Every swimmer must work at the local Bingo hall once a week to raise funds. Many give up jobs, or have parents who give up jobs, and move across country to support their dreams. All while spending upwards of 8-12 hours per day physically training.

And, while many often make fun of synchro for the glitz and make-up associated with competitions, the daily reality is glitz-free.  During training, and even Olympic Trials , no glitz is in evidence as all the women don similar black suits and white caps with only a number identifying them.  Sure there is a focus on "looking good," which means being attractive and competing with a smile, but synchro requires that these women be tremendously strong and flexible athletes.  Sync or Swim helpfully explains the key elements in a routine (like the "egg beater" and the "heron"); turns out that in a typical synchro routine swimmers complete four laps of the pool while performing.  In breaking down the training the DVD reminded me of one of my favorite (though often unappreciated) sociology books-- Daniel Chambliss' Champions: The Making of Olympic Swimmers (for a shorter summary of one of the key concepts in the book, check out his article "The Mundanity of Excellence").

Just as Furjanic breaks down the training and elements she also, wisely, chooses to give the viewers some context and history.  Synchronized swimming was originally known as "water ballet" and "ornamental swimming" when it started in the 1920s. As the sport became more technical, with rules and judges' scores, the name change occurred (again, I can't help but point out the timing of when this competitive structure started, and how that coincides with other competitive activities prior to WWII-- see an article I wrote on this here). Popularity came after the 1939 World's Fair and the rise of Esther Williams. Williams was originally a speed swimmer, but due to WWII no Olympic Games were held and she was recruited to join the Aquacades, which helped her land a movie contract, and the rest is history. Synchro became an Olympic sport in 1984 (before that it had been an exhibition event) and the US dominated the medal podium until 1996. Since then Russia, Japan, and Spain have proven to be strong competitors.

Chris Carver tells much of this history in Sync or Swim. Carver is a formidable woman, coaching the swimmers from high above.  All the coaches tend to sit above the pool, looking down, and they use a microphone to bark commands and corrections that can be heard underwater as well. With her ubiquitous voice head coach Carver seems a God-like figure.  She also reminded me of the director in A Chorus Line, who similarly uses a microphone to control his charges from a disembodied high perch.

Carver is also featured in another recent documentary about synchronized swimming-- 2008's Synchronized Swimming, released by PBS as part of their "The Pursuit of Excellence" series (I must tell you, if you haven't seen the Ferrets episode that is part of this series, you are seriously missing out. It is a real-life/too-much-to-be-believed version of Best in Show... but with ferrets).  Though this came out before Sync or Swim, it takes place after the main action of it.  In this documentary Carver is no longer Olympic head coach; instead she is coach of the Santa Clara Aquamaids, one of the top synchro clubs.  Also featured in both docs is Anna Kozlova.  In Sync or Swim she is a competitor (winning two Olympic medals), and in The Pursuit of Excellence episode she is a coach of the Aquamaids.  (A nice touch in the 2011 DVD of Sync or Swim is that the bonus features give you a 2010-11 update on where the swimmers and coaches are now-- and many of them have gone on to great personal and professional success in and out of synchronized swimming [particularly noteworthy is how many have received top-notch higher educations].)

While Sync or Swim is definitely more comprehensive and edited better, which also means telling a more compelling story with lots of drama (including the story of one swimmer who was involved in a tragic car accident that leads to jail time), I did like that The Pursuit of Excellence episode discussed boys in the sport of synchro whereas Sync or Swim was  mute on this issue.  One talented young man is featured, and his dedication is all the more admirable given he is not currently allowed to compete in major international events, like the Olympics.  Though, if you can only purchase or view one, my vote goes to Sync or Swim, for its superior editing, narrative arc, and contextualization of the sport.

On a final note, in The Pursuit of Excellence episode, coach Chris Carver does *guarantee* that at least one of the young swimmers featured will someday make an Olympic team. I did a bit of digging and couldn't find that any of the "stars" made the 2008 team. Can anyone confirm if any are up for next summer's 2012 London Games?  Based on the timeline in Sync or Swim, the training squad should already be taking shape (note Trials are this November).

Lions, Tigers, and Bear Moms- Oh, My! (from Contexts)

A piece I wrote on the aftermath of the Tiger Mom Amy Chua controversy recently appeared in Contexts-- a sociology magazine for the general public. Hope you enjoy it and would love to here what you think!

On January 25, 2011, Stephen Colbert announced, “My guest tonight is a Yale professor who has written a controversial book about the demands Chinese mothers put on their children. Not Harvard? Her mother must be so disappointed. Please welcome Amy Chua!” Chua’s appearance on The Colbert Report capped off a whirlwind media tour that most academics can only dream of. Today Show? Check. CNN? Check. And, then, of course, Colbert.  Chua’s month of controversy started on January 8, 2011 when The Wall Street Journal ran a story, “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior,” in advance of the January 11^th release date of her book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. 

The Journal article, comprised of excerpts from the book, spread like wildfire as people emailed, tweeted, and shared the link on Facebook.  Over 8,000 people commented on the article on the Journal’s website, telling Amy Chua their thoughts on her parenting practices, which include: calling her daughters trash when they do not perform up to her expectations, forcing the girls to practice their musical instruments for at least three hours a day, and even denying them dinner if they do not perfect a piece.  The comments definitely weren’t all pretty.  But the press helped propel Battle Hymn to the New York Times’ Bestseller list, giving credence to the adage “all press is good press.”

One of the most common memes in press coverage was an attribution of public agitation to abiding fears of the “China Threat.” A few weeks before the Chua controversy, educators had been stunned by the superlative test scores coming out of Shanghai on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).  Some commentators thought Battle Hymn could be America’s new “Sputnik moment”—except that Amy Chua was born in the United States and her parents grew up in the Philippines as Chinese immigrants.

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING THE FULL ARTICLE!

Shrinking and Pinking: "Little" League Edition

The Little League World Series is upon us. While we will have to wait until August 28th to find out who the champions of the sandlot are this summer, the qualifying games are already in full swing. But "little leaguers" have been busy all summer, participating in a variety of sporting activities around the globe. 1. Eight-year-old "Princess" Jasmine Parr faced a shrinking and pinking backlash after a June kickboxing fight against Georgina "Punchout" Barton.  The seven- and eight-year-olds duked it out in Australia, where their fight was ruled a draw.  They kicked and hit one another in front of nearly 500, some of whom gave them cash tips.  Girls and competitive activities have created quite a furor in Australia this summer (see some of my coverage of this summer's child beauty pageant conflict in Australia). What's interesting is that many of the complaints between the two activities are similar-- claims of child abuse, along with concerns about physical and emotional harm (although the immediate physical danger of potential brain injury is clearly far greater in a kickboxing match).  In both cases calls for government investigation and intervention were made; and, in both cases, the parents of the involved girls defended their decisions citing the child's enjoyment and preparation for the realities of life.

What's interesting to me is that I think there would have been an issue whether it was girls or boys participating in child beauty pageants in Australian. I'm not so sure the reaction would have been so similar if this was a bout between seven- and eight-year-old boys.  Of course, many would have been appalled, but I don't think the reaction would have been as strong as young girls fighting, because "Princess" and "Punchout" trangress gender norms in a very different way than Eden Wood (child beauty pageants can be said to over-emphasize femininity).

Australia seems to be at the forefront of confronting issues of competitive childhoods. Many Aussie parents seem to be moving in a more "American-style" direction with structured childhoods, while others resist it. Case in point: I've been fascinated for some time that Peggy Liddick was brought to Australia from the US to run their women's artistic gymnastics program (Liddick had coached World Champion and Olympian Shannon Miller, among others).  The US has famously made us of coaches from the former USSR, but now American coaches are being exported to help jumpstart aspiring programs. Will Australia tend to follow in competitive parenting traditions of the US, or establish her own patterns?

2. In an example of how even the most quotidian childhood game can turn competitive, look no further than reigning queen and king "mibsters" Bailey Narr and Brandon Matchett. After seeing their accomplishment written up in the August 8th Sports Illustrated, as part of "Faces in the Crowd," I had to look up the National Marbles Tournament. I discovered that those who are serious about competitive marbles are called "mibsters" and that these eleven- and twelve-year-old members of marbles royalty each won $2000 scholarships.  The National Marbles Tournament has been held since 1922-- a time when many other competitive children's activities also got their start (like the National Spelling Bee, for example).  Yet more evidence that the American tradition of transforming children's games into serious, money-making endeavors is nothing new.

3. It is Little League Baseball which has, arguably, most successfully transformed a youthful, summertime pastime into a highly competitive and lucrative enterprise.  The Little League World Series  (LLWS) is evidence of the spread of American-style youth competition across the globe. And it seems that the World Series does help identify future Major Leaguers. As a recent piece in the current SI Kids shows, professional athletes often get their first taste of high-stakes competition in Williamsport, including current Major Leaguers Jason Varitek (Red Sox catcher, LLWS 1984) and Colby Rasmus (Cardinals centerfielder, LLWS 1999).  Most interesting is that Chris Drury played in the 1989 LLWS-- helping lead his US championship team from Connecticut to victory.  Drury pitched and hit in the Series. Yet Drury is now a star in the NHL, playing center for the Rangers.  Drury's success just goes to show that young athletes don't have to specialize so young.  They can, and should, pursue multiple sports and activities in childhood-- including kickboxing and marbles, of course.