As a sports fan who prefers Chomsky to O'Reilly, I usually like the work of Dave Zirin (EdgeOfSports.com). A lot. However, in recent weeks, Zirin has taken to pitching characters such as Diego Maradona (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1109-21.htm) and Terrell Owens (www.alternet.org/story/28242) as somehow being voices of the oppressed.

If Maradona, who Zirin lauded for joining Hugo Chavez in a protest against President Bush and U.S. imperialism is anything, he is the poster boy for Global Capitalism Without Borders, having earned millions of dollars during his career playing for teams in Argentina, Spain and Italy. Millions of dollars, it should be noted, coming in large part from the pockets of working class soccer supporters. Just because many of us agree with what the protest stood for does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to some of the double-standards on display.

In response to critiques of Maradona, Zirin wrote:

"John Tierney, conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times, slammed Maradona as a hypocrite who benefited from lucrative endorsement deals with global corporations, yet now condemns the excesses of global capitalism. But what Tierney and his ilk don't understand is that this only endears Maradona further to his people. The poor of Argentina know from bitter experience that, unlike Maradona, they will never taste the fruits of globalization. The fact that El Diego Dios now stands alongside them only cements his greatness."

No matter how much we might disagree with Tierney and his ilk, it is odd that Zirin considers this level of hypocrisy to cement Maradona's "greatness". Things are not quite what they seem. A visit to Maradona's official website (www.diegomaradona.com), for example, results in another page popping up: the online Maradona store. If you live in Argentina, the country that made Maradona famous, you can buy an autographed picture of the great man for a mere $200. I guess this is Diego "standing alongside" his fellow citizens, since for people living in other countries (such as El Salvador), the picture costs $350. Unfortunatley, $200 is way too much for most Argentineans, and, for Maradona fans in El Salvador, $350 is about one month's salary (per capita income was $4,900 in 2004). Maradona also has a television chat-show that airs on Canal 13 in Argentina (http://www.canal13.com.ar/lanoche10.asp) where he talks to sports stars and celebrities. Canal 13 is owned by Grupo Clarin (the U.S. investment firm Goldman Sachs has an 18% stake in Grupo Clarin), a conglomerate which has been criticized for excessive control and politicization of media content in Argentina.

It's great that Diego protests against IMF capitalism and Bushist imperialism, but the problem is that he is doing so when he's not signing grossly overpriced pictures to hawk via his website, or working for a large, vertically-integrated media conglomerate which perverts the democratic process through control of information. These seem like strange ways to "stand alongside" your people.

This brings us to the other anti-voice of reason pumped up by Zirin: Terrell Owens. As a San Francisco 49ers fan (where Owens played before his move to Philadelphia), and as someone who paid good money to watch Owens play in the flesh, I see it as more than odd that this is a guy who is portrayed as the victim of corporate greed, unfair NFL labor rules and censorship.

Where to start? Well, how about with the obvious? It is an insult to working people (you know, the people who make as much in one year as Owens makes for 5 minutes of football) to discuss this situation as if it has anything to do with real working life. For those of you unfamiliar with Terrell Owens, in 2004 he signed a 7-year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles for $42 million dollars. As part of this deal, Owens received a $10 million "signing bonus", which is money that Owens gets just for the "work" of signing his name. Nowhere in Zirin's article does he mention how much money Owens is actually making...which in 2005 is $200,000 per game, or $3,333 per minute per game

$10 million for signing his name. Let's put that into perspective: a person earning $30,000 a year would have to work non-stop for 333 years to make $10 million. If Owens were to make the full $42 million, it would take the $30K worker 1400 years to make the same money as Owens. So, if the fans really work hard, they could all be like Terrell by the year 3405. I'm sorry, but it is hard to get too worked up over a fight between the millionaire haves (like Owens), and the billionaire have-mores (the owners).

The second point worth considering is that Zirin frames the Owens situation as being connected to issues of labor rights and free speech. In my understanding of organized labor, one of the key issues is one of "horizontal solidarity", that is, that workers feel a kinship with each other and work together to right the wrongs perpetrated by greedy owners. By any stretch of the imagination, Owens does not fit into this model.

During his time in both San Francisco and Philadelphia, Owens has shown that he could not care less about his fellow workers, and he has managed to insult and disparage anyone and everyone who does not adhere to his self-centered view of the universe. Zirin also fails to mention that teams in the NFL operate under a "salary cap", which means they have a limit on how much they spend on player payroll. This is important, because the more money paid out to players such as Owens, the less money is available to pay other players on the team. Sure, Owens has the right to squeeze every penny he can from the Philadelphia organization, but in doing so he will be squeezing money from his fellow teammates...and he knows it.

Finally, we have the issue of freedom of speech. Zirin and Ralph Nader (http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1110-14.htm) have both argued that the worst Owens can be accused of is speaking his mind, and that his suspension by Philadelphia is tantamount to censorship. We could feel that there is some merit to this argument, were it not for the fact that Owens has used his free speech rights to hurl homophobic insults at a (then) teammate: San Francisco's Jeff Garcia. During an interview, as Zirin notes, Owens suggested that Garcia was gay by saying, "If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it is a rat." In the uber-macho, homophobic world of the NFL, Owens knew full well what this type of accusation would mean, and his choice of the word "rat" says more than enough about the type of person Owens is.

If the rantings of a multi-millionaire bigot get him suspended from his job (without pay), and if chances are that this guy will be rewarded with another massive contract in the 2006 season, then perhaps we should look elsewhere for symbols of resistance. If Owens had been a male, millionaire corporate executive who had hinted that a female colleague was a "dyke", and had a track record of alienating all of his co-workers (including physical fights...another issue about Owens that both Zirin and Nader failed to mention), should we be penning articles defending his free speech and labor rights?

Maradona and Owens have thrilled millions of fans with their skills, and I am glad (usually) that they speak their minds when the urge hits them. The fact that they are mere cogs in the global corporate sports machine, however, should not excuse them from scrutiny. If Maradona preaches about the evils of global capitalism, is it not fair to investigate his own involvement in that system? If Owens is supposedly denied his free speech rights, and is the victim of unequal labor rules, is it not fair to question his use of those rights, and his commitment to the working welfare of his teammates?

Christian Christensen PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Communication at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, Turkey. He can be reached at bahcesehircc@yahoo.com.