There was a time when becoming part of the national sports conversation was remarkably difficult. If an athlete wanted his or her opinions heard by millions of people, those opinions typically had to be shared through a newspaper, magazine, television interview, or press conference. Editors, producers, and journalists served as gatekeepers, deciding which stories were important enough to share with the public. Today, everyone has a microphone and a chance to be heard — but is that a net-positive, or has it resulted in a lot of mindless drivel and static to work around when seeking legitimate news stories, information, and credible opinions?
Everyone has a voice today
Athletes host podcasts. Former players produce YouTube channels. Social media allows anyone to instantly share opinions with millions of followers. In many ways, this is a positive development. Fans gain direct access to athletes, and athletes no longer have to rely entirely on traditional media to tell their stories.
But there is also an unintended consequence.
We’ve reached a point where having an opinion often seems more valuable than having expertise. Turn on sports television today and you’ll quickly notice that much of the discussion isn’t about the games themselves. Instead, we’re treated to athlete podcasts, social media arguments, reactions to other reactions, celebrity appearances, and endless debates over comments someone made on another platform. Before long, the original athletic competition almost feels secondary to the conversation surrounding it.
We’ve reached a point where having an opinion often seems more valuable than having expertise.
Why has this happened? The answer may be surprisingly simple. Attention has become one of the most valuable commodities in modern media. Thoughtful, balanced discussions rarely go viral, but outrage and conflict does. So do personal attacks, as well as bold predictions. The louder and more controversial the opinion, the more clicks, views, and engagement it tends to generate. Algorithms understand something psychologists have known for decades: people are naturally drawn to conflict, controversy, and novelty. As a result, sports media increasingly rewards the most interesting voices rather than the most informed ones.
Ironically, many of today’s biggest sports stories aren’t actually about sports at all. Instead, they revolve around what someone said about someone else. One athlete makes a controversial comment, another athlete responds. Next, a podcast discusses the response, and television shows debate the podcast. Social media then reacts to the television debate. Suddenly, an opinion has become a three-day news cycle, even though no actual competition took place.
None of this suggests athlete podcasts are inherently bad, as many provide fascinating insights into leadership, teamwork, preparation, and the realities of professional sports. Giving athletes a direct voice is, in many respects, a positive step forward. The concern is what happens when media incentives reward controversy more than substance.
Final thoughts
Perhaps the question isn’t whether athletes should have podcasts or social media platforms, but whether we’ve confused having a platform with having something meaningful to say. Sports have always produced extraordinary stories through authentic competition. Hopefully, we don’t reach a point where the games themselves become merely the backdrop for the endless stream of opinions surrounding them. The constant arguing and negativity can wear fans down, but until we stop clicking we should expect more rage, arguing, and sensational takes.
drstankovich.com
