Since the publication of the article regarding the star Met player, sports talk has been full of discussions centering around whether professional team sports is ready for an openly gay player. By and large, players--and former players--interviewed have said yes, with some (Rob Dibble and Sean Salisbury on ESPN) stating they had played with people who had come out to some members on their teams. They stressed that there was some standard locker room ribbing but that the sexual orientation really wasn't a big deal. And yet, every sports reporter and non-playing pundit has been extremely negative about the current climate for an openly gay team player. They usually cite the macho ethos of athletes and (that old warhorse) team unity.

Why do you think there is such a disparity in the views of joks vs. pundits?

~Adam

Well alot of the jocks, with a microphone in front of them, may feel the need to be politically correct. On the other end, the so-called pundits feel the need to be controversial. I think the truth is somewhere in between-not as rosy as the athletes say, not as doomsday as the pundits say.

I believe that the real backlash would come not from teammates, but from fans and mostly sponsors. Face it, like Dibble's experience, the athletes already know some of their teammates are gay. While some may be uncomfortable with it, I think they realize they have to play with them.