Family Matters

Over the past few weeks, there have been two incidents of misguided buffoonery that center on what, for some reason, is something of a controversial topic in sports: family.  It seems really strange to me, as many of these leagues and their players raise tons of money to help kids of various conditions and socioeconomic statuses, or for family-formed organizations, like MADD.  And yet, some in the sports world continue to believe that being a professional athlete means you can’t be present for the birth of a child.

Most recently, Troy Westwood, a Winnipeg radio reporter who you will likely never hear of again, took Winnipeg Jets captain Andrew Ladd to task for missing a game to be with his wife after their second child was born.  At the time, the Jets were on the very fringes of the playoff hunt, six points out of the last Wild Card playoff spot, with very little going their way.  The Jets lost that night, 2-1, to the Dallas Stars, another team fighting to make the postseason.  Said Westwood: “this is pro freakin’ sports, your team needs you, get to the game.”

On Wednesday of this week, Boomer Esiason similarly commented about Daniel Murphy, the Mets second baseman who left the team to be with his wife after their child was born.  Dr. Boomer added opined a suggestion: “Quite frankly, I would have said C-section before the season started.”

These comments encapsulate what is one of the worst aspects of widespread pro sports: that of hero worship by its followers, which becomes bastardized into a misguided thought that athletes are not ordinary humans with some ordinary cares.  While I have long believed athletes must be cognizant of the image they project to fans (particularly when it comes to public conduct), that conviction does not mean athletes are not people with jobs.  That their job gets televised does not change the fact that Andrew Ladd and Daniel Murphy have a job.  Sure, it’s a job that’s very unique and doesn’t require desk-surfing, but professional athletics is, first and foremost, a job.

As such, it’s worthwhile to consider the rights of almost any other American who has a job.  One right, which I’m certain is in both Mr. Westwood’s and Mr. Esiason’s contract, is that of maternity or paternity leave.  The factory worker, the postman, the team’s GM, the janitor, and the corporate CEO all are legally entitled to that right.  Whether they take it or not is their business, but to think a pro athlete can’t avail himself of a legal right is ridiculous.  It becomes particularly absurd when we consider that there are 162 games in the Mets season.  If we were talking NLCS Game 7, the calculus certainly changes, but the right still exists.

And, frankly, it should.  Folks can take the Mike Florio approach who referred to “nine month family expansion activities.” In reality, the birth of a child means much more than that.  I can certainly tell you that the mother of said child, after labor, would not see it as just an “activity.”  She’d likely call for more morphine, which I’m told is how my mother handled the aftermath of one of the two births she experienced.  There are few, if any, greater expressions of love than bringing a new life into the world.  That someone would criticize a father for not wanting to meet is child after supporting his wife through pregnancy and labor is, frankly, heartless.

I should add, the argument given does not stand up to much scrutiny.  Sure it is “pro freakin sports,” but if a player can’t skip one game for a birth, what are they supposed to do about a death?  Does being an athlete preclude them from taking a day off to grieve and support loved ones?  If it doesn’t (and no, it doesn’t) then we should rightfully treat comments by Westwood and Esiason with scorn.  In effect, they are saying a major family event like a birth is not important enough to skip one game in a career.  Not only does that attitude completely submarine the very real importance of each new birth, but we should then rightly ask if any family event is that important.  If addition to the family isn’t, then subtraction certainly isn’t.

I should note that Esiason makes a little more sense than Westwood.  Each game in the NFL does mean more than it does in hockey, so I can understand his perspective being a little different.  Still, I’m not entirely sure how pleased his wife would be if he “said C-section.”  (Also, who can blame Murphy from taking a break from the putrid Mets!?).  Either way, the comments of Esiason and Westwood are an awful manifestation of extreme jock-sniffing, which results in criticizing players who rightly value what’s important in life: family.