I have two theories:

1. They're still earning their livings as "retired jock." Even if they aren't still associated with the game -- coaching or in the business end -- they're job depends on their cachet as ex-jock.

2. During their playing days, they looked forward to some privacy when they could just settle down with their loved one in splendid anonymity. So why surrender that anonymity? There could be a decent number of retired utility infielders or back-up linebacker/special teams players who have quietly settled down into anonymous suburbia, but because they didn't make a public announcement, we don't know that the guy is living his retirement as half of a gay couple. Billy Bean was semi-involuntarily outed largely because he was dating a high profile restauteur in South Beach.

There's a difference between being "out" and being "OUT". Some could be discretely "out" to close family and friends, but who's going to gossip cross the country about a 45 y/o guy who pitched middle relief a few years for three or four teams that never made the playoffs?

Possibility #3: They're chickenshit, terrified of being called "queer".


You were doing ok in making a case until that last paragraph, Mikey22. Is that really what you think is the point of being honest and open about your sexuality? Making a "big public announcement" about who you're having sex with??? Geez, c'mon man, that's a simplistic, reductionist comment that I would only expect to hear from someone with no gay acquaintances who had never given a moment of thought to the question. Let's assume it was a brain-fart on your part. wink . Let's assume it was a brain-fart on your part. wink

In the last few pages of his autobiography "Going the Other Way", Billy Bean examines the issue from a number of points of view. They're all of interest, but two of his comments struck me in particular.

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"A baseball clubhouse is one of the most diverse places on earth. There are as many prejudices as there are players. Most of the differences have nothing to do with race, religion or even sexuality. As Doug Brocail put it so well, it's all about character -- whether a guy's a team player, whether he plays through injuries, whether he comes to play every day. Everything else is irrelevant."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"It's asking a lot for a ballplayer, having devoted his life to the game, to shoulder the burden for a cause, no matter how worthy. The stakes are extraordinarily high. Who protects him -- or her -- from bigoted fans? And from the manager or the free-rein front office? All you have to do is look at what happened to Glenn Burke. Times have changed, sure. But how much?"

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All the reasons for a pro team athlete to fear coming out publicly are enumerated in previous posts in this thread -- the innate conservatism of professional sports, lack of experience with and identity as a member of the "gay community", the stereotypes of us gay folks as weak and inferior, bible-thumping bigotry, media exploitation, loss of privacy, endorsement contracts, "gay activists" with an agenda, even fear for one's personal safety... Realistic as these concerns may be, none of them is insurmountable. They're all assumptions, projections, excuses -- justifications for saying "I can't."

One day, someone will have the motivation and courage to say "I can, and I will."

Hey, I understand that not everyone sees things in as "simplistic" terms as me, but trust me when I say I've given plenty of thought to the question. That's why I asked, am I the only one who feels that way? It wouldn't shock me if I were. And while I might not have expressed my point very well -- that comment was, admittedly, an afterthought -- I stand by the sentiment. Put differently, it's my personal belief that saying I'm gay tells you precisely one thing about me: that I sleep with men (or hope to again, someday soon wink ). It doesn't say a single other thing about the person I am, and I find it unfortunate that the word tends to carry with it a whole list of social, political, and behavioral -- often of the stereotypical variety -- connotations that may or may have any relevance in the life of the individual gay man.

So if I'm a ballplayer, a paid entertainer and a celebrity, I don't think it's invalid or cowardly to want to keep my personal life out of the public eye. What bearing does being gay have on my abilities, or my career? Why is it pertinent to what I do as an entertainer, at all? Which is not to say that, as a community, we wouldn't all like to see an openly gay athlete. But as the individual athlete goes, I don't think in any way that he owes it to me to be my poster boy. If (when) someone comes along with the sense of purpose and the strength of desire to be that standard bearer, then I welcome that, but I hope it's because he feels called to the cause, not because he feels obligated to it. As several people here have said already, being out doesn't mean being OUT...it's likely that those close to gay athletes are aware of their orientation. I don't think that means those athletes are living in fear, or in hiding, or being dishonest, because they don't feel beholden to make you, me, and the worldwide media aware of it as well.

Personally, when I see straight celebrities on tv doing tell-all interviews about their love lives (are you listening, JLo?), I wonder, why would you do that? Don't you want to keep anything to yourself? Again, I understand I may be the minority here, but I have much more respect for celebs who answer questions about their personal lives with a no comment. And I certainly don't begrudge any celebrity, gay or straight, athlete or otherwise, their desire to try and maintain some semblance of a private life.

Yep - as an example of "keep it to yourself" I think that Brittany Spears latest comments as to how she lost her virginity with Justin Timberlake none of anyone's business and frankly I DON"T CARE who she has slept with. Why would she feel the need to tell us???

Mikey22, thanks for elaborating. I had second thoughts about the word "simplistic", just meant that sexual orientation is a lot more complex and meaningful than simply where you stick your dick.

Your points are well taken -- privacy is indeed a precious commodity, and none of us has the right to judge that another "should" be publicly out, or owes it to anyone but himself. But so many of us put our honesty and self-respect as gay folks out there every day, it seems a shame that those who might have such a significant impact should always choose to "keep their light under a bushel". One hopes and assumes that like each of us, they're doing what they can outside the public eye to live honestly and contribute to the common good.

[ July 13, 2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Might be a simplistic answer, but I think the reason lies in when you are closeted for so long, that is your "safe" area, it is what you know. So that is where you stay, even when you see others all around coming out. It's what you know, so that is where you stay.

I also think many pro athletes might be concerned with their legacy, even if they may not be tapped for entrance into a Hall of Fame. Look at the debate over Pete Rose: great athlete by all accounts, but brought down by one scandal. Retired athletes may be concerned that a stellar record would be tarnished by their admission of an orientation that is not fully accepted. And maybe some are still holding out for broadcasting jobs...look how many ex-players are employed by college and pro football announcing jobs. I wish things were different -- and I know they will be someday -- but an "out" former pro probably would not be able to get a contract for one of those jobs.

I think you could also just make this more general, why do any closeted guys stay in the closet given that today there is arguably more acceptance than at any time before. There are a number of reasons of course. Fear of violence. Of being written out of a will. Of being shunned and ridiculed. Of being labeled a deviant. The list goes on.

Many ex-jocks want to continue to be involved in the game after their playing days end. Being openly gay would preclude that. If I'm not mistaken, Dave Kopay said in his memoir that he was unable to get any coaching, front office, or League jobs because of his coming out. An openly gay player also would not be able to work as a commentator or columnist. It goes without saying that any endorsements that a gay player had would be seriously jeopardized.

As a result, we are not going to see many players come out voluntarily. This will continue to be the case until the career damaging "stigma" further subsides.

I realize I'm waaaaaaay late here, but...
They're called wedding invitations. Most people don't consider them silly.

Good one jqueer

Also on the question of retired jocks - could self-image be an issue in their remaining closeted? I mean, aside from wanting to coach or commentate or otherwise be involved in the sport, and aside from the economic loss of endorsements (although a lot of the athletes with any sense have enough $$ to last them a lifetime), athletes are mini Gods to a lot of Americans, and I would think they love the attention and admiration they receive, even as ex-athletes. It would be really hard to give that up, which is a possibility if one comes out.

Maybe I am being naive, but I think a retired athlete would be more upset if some fan returned a jersey with the athlete's number because the athlete came out than if that athlete lost an endorsement over coming out.

Just a thought.

Good answers by DownLow and CPTDoom; it does make sense to me as to their motivation, even if I wish it were different.

Keep in mind that not only do a lot of former athletes go into the media/TV world, but also the sports world in general. Many former athletes go on to work for teams in rather public positions. For example, Tommie Frazier does fundraising for Nebraska. Not to say it would be bad to have someone that is publicly gay do fundraising for a university, but I think it would make him a little less effective, especially in a situation like Nebraska, which isn't exactly gay central.

Many former athletes also go on to coach. Again, an iffy area for a public gay figure.

Billy Beane is a tremendous example of a gay in sports, particularly in the situation he is in. He is very well liked by the team and as far as I know, it doesn't really create any problems.

I think the sports world needs another couple prominent people to come out, whether it be an athlete, or a person in the prominent position in sports, to really make any waves.

The fact that Rice University head football coach Ken Hatfield is still listed on the staff despite the Hoopla that followed the expression of his decidely homophobic opinions speaks to the futility of expecting a gay pro athlete to come out any time soon. It is asking a lot for a gay athlete to refute centuries of religious-based homophobia when the coach OKs it.

And also, as alluded to above, football coaches tend to be more conservative

I think you may be confusing Billy Bean, the openly gay former Tiger, Dodger, and Padre, with Billy Beane, the General Manager of the A's. According to his webpage, Bean is currently not involved in baseball, and is working in real estate in Miami.

Two additional points.

First, I think many of these sports figures want to be remembered for their play on the field, not their sexuality. Greg Louganis was the dominant diver of his generation and possibly the best ever, but he's still going to be remembered as much for coming out and being HIV+.

I have a bit of experience in the second area. This is a very micro example, but back in freshman year when I was semi-involved in LGBT on campus the coordinator wanted to know if I would consent to being quoted in the college paper's article about gay athletes. At that point, and this may still be the case, there were no out gay male athletes at my school. There had been in the past, but they had always come out publicly after quitting whatever team they were on.

I declined to be interviewed not because I was scared of being found out as gay -- I was out -- but because I didn't want to become The Out Gay Athlete and deal with the responsibilities such a position creates. My friends and teammates knew I was gay (although I had only directly told one of the guys, I assumed correctly that it was common knowledge) and they seemed to have no issues. But there is a gigantic difference between having everyone know on a personal level and announcing my sexuality to the world in the newspaper. I just didn't want to deal with the phone calls, the emails, the questions, the responsibilities one has when thrust into what is essentially an activist's position. I would have been the gay poster boy for my school's athletics, and I didn't want to be a poster boy for anything, let alone that.

Even in this tiny bubble and even in an individual sport in which I would have suffered little to no repercussions, it was way too easy for me not to declare myself the Only Gay Male Athlete. I can imagine that people in the national spotlight who want to go about the rest of their lives in a somewhat normal, nonactivist fashion have an even more clear-cut choice. It may not be the right one, but it's definitely understandable.

[ September 15, 2004, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: golfer 21 ]

Excellent reply Golfer.

No one should be forced to carry the "token" banner when it is apparent what would happen when they do. They are reduced to a label. Their triumphs are heralded by the LGBT cause and their downfalls are mercilessly taunted by their opponents.

Am I wrong? Who would welcome this into their lives?

While I agree that many endorsement opportunities with corporations who are trying to be "politically correct" and satisfy ALL consumers would diminish (just look at the reaction that Proctor and Gamble is receiving this week from several "pro-family" groups) until a professional athlete in one of the team sports actually comes out we'll never know for certain how much backlash there would be....having said that, though, I may be overly optimistic but based upon the endorsement opportunities that Martina Navratilova and Greg Louganis, among others, have been given along with the support that the GLBT community has received from major corporations like Volvo, Ikea and Coors in recent years (albeit with Pete Coors now supporting anti-gay groups during his Senatorial campaign) I believe that endorsement opportunities for a openly gay baseball, football or basketball player would still be significant, though not overwhelming, in number.

As for your comment, DownLow, that a retired athlete who was out would be precluded from working as a commentator or columnist, I again respectfully disagree, particularly where the latter occupation is concerned....while some "pro-family" groups may still want the public to believe that many segments of the electronic media would be unwilling to hire an openly gay broadcaster out of fear that they might "alienate" some potential viewers/listeners one need only look at the recent influx of gay characters on television and the success of shows like Queer Eye and Will & Grace to recognize that at least some network execs are willing to "take a chance" and let the American public judge that employee based solely upon his/her performance, regardless of their sexual orientation.

As far as print journalism is concerned, the Boston area columnist who publicly came out last year (whose name escapes me at the moment) is one of MANY sports writers who are proving that stereotype to be incorrect on a daily basis.

~Joe

There is a difference in perception of most other on-air personailties in the broadcast industry and the "sportscaster".

Someone like Anderson Cooper might not have a problem. An openly gay ESPN on-air analyst would, at the very least, face some serious ribbing, that could distract from his work.

How much would happen beyond that is up in the air, so to speak, but noone wants that spotlight.

Gamecock, your points are well taken. I will concede that the times are a changin’ and things are getting better, but a lot of prejudice is still out there. Being openly gay cannot possible help an ex-jock in pursuing a post-playing career and it will certainly hurt. We can argue about the degree to which being out would be an impediment, but the fact remains that it would be a handicap. An out ex-jock (who is prominent enough) would be able to secure some niche endorsements, but it would hurt his pursuit of the lucrative endorsements that really count.

Mike Freeman, in his book Bloody Sundays, quotes “Steve Thompson,” his closeted source, as saying that he will remain closeted because of homophobia. Thompson says he wants to coach some day and later become a general manager, and perhaps work in the league office in New York. He concludes “If I announced I was gay, I would never be able to do any of those things. The doors would shut in my face.”

The sports writer who recently came out that you are thinking of is Ed Gray of the Boston Herald. The fact that you did not remember his name illustrates a central point. Gray is not a high-profile individual and thus he is able to “fly under the radar” of the public. In other words, he is not visibly gay in the sense that he is not instantly recognizable and associated with homosexuality. I would again offer Dave Kopay as an example. I’m sure he’d be more than interested in working as a football commentator or columnist—but he hasn’t received too many offers.

Concerning your examples of Queer Eye and Will & Grace as symbols of the growing acceptance of gays: I would submit to you that those programs are in essence gay minstrel shows. Queer Eye and Will & Grace are intended to titillate their audiences by playing on the stereotypes of gay men. I suppose it can be argued that this represents “progress” in that gays are finally achieving “visibility.” I would argue, however, that the real issue is dignity, not visibility.

The "minstrel" example is valid. Seeing gay people act exceptional as sterotypes requires no thinking and make many people comfortable that they (straights) are different from that; that gay people are on stage and not like "me." But to see a gay person doing the same thing and feeling the same things as a straight person makes a person shift their thinking and that is work. Blacks and Yellows and Pinks are 3 dimensional and don't live on a stage for the benefit to entertain simple minds.

So then we ask, where are the stories with normal gay people doing exceptional things, such as in sports where we know they are?

The comment that Queer Eye is a "minstrel show" is such an oversimplification, but that's for another topic.

If you're referring to public figures as compared to, say, Outsporters, their stories are not being told. Why? Because they are too scared shitless to come out and tell their stories. It's the "minstrels" like the Queer Eye guys who have the real balls.

Just read this article Is it safe to be out? from the SF Chronicle and wasn't sure where to put it... so I'm putting it here.

The article mentions Outsports, quotes Gumby Anderson, has some supportive quotes from various MLB players, and mentions the San Francisco production of Take Me Out.