為什么NBA和NFL這兩個最重要、黑人最多的男性聯(lián)盟在過去兩年，應(yīng)對危機(jī)的處理方式如此不同？正如弗里曼和杰克遜指出的那樣，這一切都與組織動態(tài)有關(guān)：結(jié)構(gòu)、文化、權(quán)力和利潤。?

2016年8月14日，舊金山49人（SanFrancisco 49ers）的四分衛(wèi)科林·卡佩尼克（Colin Kaepernick）在一次季前賽奏國歌時單膝跪地。起初沒人注意，但在他一次又一次單膝跪地之后，終于有人問起原因。他在8月26日解釋道：“我不會站起來，以為一個壓迫黑人和有色人種國家的國旗為傲。”輿論反應(yīng)不一，有支持也有反對。

On August 14, 2016, the San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem before a preseason game. Few people noticed at first. But after he had knelt again, someone finally asked why. On August 26 he explained: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color.” Reactions were mixed: support and vitriol.

五年半后的現(xiàn)在看來，卡佩尼克當(dāng)時有先見性的和平抗議產(chǎn)生的效果不容小覷。他的行動引發(fā)了一場運(yùn)動，以及職業(yè)運(yùn)動員對公眾影響的反思——還有職業(yè)體育聯(lián)盟放大或雪藏“雇員”所傳遞的社會信息。

Five and a half years later, it’s impossible to overstate the prescience and consequence of Kaepernick’s peaceful protest. It started a movement and raised fundamental questions about the role of professional athletes in public life—and of pro sports leagues in amplifying or muting the sociopolitical messages of their “employees.”

這些聯(lián)盟是價(jià)值數(shù)十億美元的企業(yè)，經(jīng)營者當(dāng)然非常清楚自己的決定會對利潤產(chǎn)生怎樣的影響。不出所料，他們對卡佩尼克及其追隨者的反應(yīng)也存在分歧。美國全國橄欖球聯(lián)盟（NFL）試圖壓制這名四分衛(wèi)，在來自球迷、特朗普總統(tǒng)和其他共和黨人的壓力加大后，NFL制定了一項(xiàng)禁止在奏國歌時屈膝的禁令。美國男子籃球和女子籃球聯(lián)盟（NBA與WNBA）強(qiáng)調(diào)了一項(xiàng)現(xiàn)有規(guī)定，即奏國歌時必須站立，但也鼓勵了利于商業(yè)運(yùn)作的異議形式。美國職業(yè)足球大聯(lián)盟（Major League Soccer）強(qiáng)調(diào)了球員以合適的方式進(jìn)行和平抗議的權(quán)利，而美國職業(yè)棒球大聯(lián)盟（Major League Baseball）和國家冰球聯(lián)盟（NationalHockey League）則沒有制定明確指示。

These leagues are multibillion-dollar businesses, of course, run by people who are keenly aware of how their decisions affect the bottom line. Not surprisingly, their responses to Kaepernick and his followers diverged. The NFL sought to undermine the quarterback, and after pressure mounted from fans, President Trump, and other Republicans, it instituted a ban on kneeling during the anthem. The men’s and women’s basketball leagues—the NBA and the WNBA—emphasized an existing rule mandating standing for the anthem but encouraged more-business-friendly forms of dissent. Major League Soccer reinforced the rights of its players to peacefully protest in any way they saw fit, while Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League set no clear guidelines.

2017年秋天，卡佩尼克實(shí)際上已經(jīng)被NFL除名，但他仍是社會行動主義的象征。在艾莫·阿伯里（Ahmaud Arbery）、布倫娜·泰勒（Breonna Taylor）以及2020年喬治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）事件之后，“黑人的命也是命”（Black LivesMatter，簡稱BLM）運(yùn)動勢頭強(qiáng)勁，各個聯(lián)盟的運(yùn)動員都在以前所未有的聲量疾呼，響應(yīng)卡佩尼克的語言和動作，甚至穿上了他的球衣。

By the fall of 2017 Kaepernick had effectively been blackballed from the NFL. But he remained an icon of social activism. As the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement gained momentum following the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd in 2020, athletes across leagues were speaking out in unprecedented numbers, echoing Kaepernick’s language and posture (and even wearing his jersey).

在這波抗議中，一些聯(lián)盟——NBA和WNBA——已經(jīng)成為企業(yè)社會正義的指向標(biāo)。NFL等其他聯(lián)盟只是曇花一現(xiàn)。最近出版的兩本書，《比賽不只是游戲》（The GameIs Not a Game）和《無畏的橄欖球行動派》（Football’s Fearless Activists）的作者都是資深體育記者，提供了關(guān)于體育運(yùn)動和行動主義發(fā)展歷程的實(shí)用參考資料。

Throughout this reckoning, some leagues—namely, the NBA and the WNBA—have emerged as beacons of corporate social justice. Others—namely, the NFL—have flickered at best. Two recent books,?The Game Is Not a Game?and?Football’s Fearless Activists,?both written by veteran sports journalists, offer some useful context for how we got to this moment in athletics and activism.

在第一本書中，羅伯特·斯庫普·杰克遜（Robert Scoop Jackson）介紹了格雷格·波波維奇（GreggPopovich）和史蒂夫·科爾（Steve Kerr）兩位NBA教練、“小皇帝”勒布朗·詹姆斯（LeBron James）等針對有關(guān)問題積極發(fā)聲的人士（當(dāng)然也有卡佩尼克），還介紹了一些大家深有感觸、媒體頻繁提及的話題，如“不被尊重的”女性運(yùn)動員、數(shù)據(jù)分析的偏見、“橄欖球的倫理和種族道德”。作者精心整合列舉了各個角度的特寫，呈現(xiàn)出一個與現(xiàn)實(shí)世界政治緊密聯(lián)系，但仍希望與之隔絕的行業(yè)。杰克遜寫道：“我發(fā)現(xiàn)，最高盈利層做決定的大多數(shù)，都是離比賽核心文化最遠(yuǎn)的人?！?/p>

In the former, Robert Scoop Jackson presents incisive profiles of some of the leading voices on these issues (including the NBA coaches Gregg Popovich and Steve Kerr, the “God” LeBron James, and, yes, Kaepernick) along with deeply felt and reported pieces on subjects such as the “UnRespected” female athlete, the bias of data analytics, and “the business of football’s ethic and ethnic morality.” It’s an artfully curated collection of close-ups that, when set side by side, tell the story of an industry that is inextricably tethered to—but still hoping to be insulated from—real-world politics. “For years,” Jackson writes, “I’ve noticed how most of the people making decisions at the highest money-generating level are those furthest removed from the cultural center of the games.”

第二本書的作者是邁克·弗里曼（Mike Freeman），詳細(xì)講述了卡佩尼克的故事，深入挖掘他做出屈膝決定、保守派媒體對他的攻擊，以及他被逐出橄欖球界的過程。在形容NFL特派員羅杰·古戴爾（Roger Goodell）對國歌抗議的（不當(dāng)）處理時，弗里曼直截了當(dāng)?shù)卣f：“古戴爾不能像NBA特派員亞當(dāng)·西爾弗（Adam Silver）那樣支持卡佩尼克，因?yàn)楣糯鳡柎砹耍ㄇ蜿?duì)）老板，而大多數(shù)老板不喜歡卡佩尼克的做法，害怕其對自己的收入造成影響，或許二者皆有?！?/p>

The second book, by Mike Freeman, provides a detailed account of Kaepernick’s story, delving into his decision to kneel, conservative media’s attacks on him, and the mechanics of his exile from football. When describing the NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s (mis)management of the anthem protests, Freeman lobs a blunt observation: “Goodell couldn’t take Kaepernick’s side the way, perhaps, the NBA commissioner Adam Silver would, because Goodell was a representative of the [team] owners, and the majority of owners disliked what Kaepernick was doing, were afraid of the financial impact, or had some combination of the two.”

回到2020年，當(dāng)美國被疫情期間一場呼吁種族正義的抗議所打亂時，NBA和NFL的反應(yīng)形成了鮮明對比。NBA立即發(fā)表聲明支持BLM，許多球員參與、甚至帶頭游行，而沒有受到指責(zé)。與此同時，NFL則一直保持沉默，直到18名球星發(fā)布了一段視頻，要求老板站出來發(fā)聲。古戴爾發(fā)布視頻回應(yīng)說，應(yīng)該及早聽取球員意見。

That brings us back to 2020. As the United States was roiled by racial justice protests amid a pandemic, the contrast between the NBA’s and the NFL’s reactions was stark. The NBA immediately issued a statement supporting BLM, and many players joined—even led—marches without rebuke. Meanwhile, the NFL was silent until 18 of its stars released?a video?demanding that their employer speak out. Goodell responded with?his own video, saying he should have listened to players earlier.

據(jù)娛樂體育節(jié)目電視網(wǎng)（ESPN）報(bào)道，NBA為了在疫情期間安全度過本賽季，開始在“泡泡”（Bubble，代指隔離賽區(qū)）中比賽時，聯(lián)盟人員投入了很多；并非所有指令都是由管理層發(fā)出。球場上貼著BLM貼紙、球衣上印著“說出他們的名字”（Say Their Names）等標(biāo)語，賽后采訪常會涉及社會正義。在另一名黑人男子雅各布·布萊克（Jacob Blake）事件后，球員們抵制比賽，直到NBA同意在選舉日開放體育館作為投票站。而NFL的復(fù)賽則大不相同：教練戴著口罩，球員沒有戴，而且不在“泡泡”中比賽（因此有更多新冠病例）；只有比賽而沒有訓(xùn)練（隨后幾名知名球員受傷）；球星在BLM問題上直言不諱，聯(lián)盟的協(xié)調(diào)信息姍姍來遲。

Reporting from ESPN indicates that when the NBA began playing in “the Bubble,” its Covid-safe way to finish the season, it was with a great deal of input from the league’s talent; management did not call all the shots. Courts were decked with BLM decals, jerseys were printed with “Say Their Names” and similar messages, and postgame interviews often addressed social justice. After Jacob Blake, another Black man, was shot by the police, players boycotted games until the NBA agreed to open arenas as Election Day polling places. Compare all that to the NFL’s comeback: masks for coaches but not for players on the field, and no bubble (thus many Covid-19 cases); games but no practice season (followed by several high-profile player injuries); and outspoken stars but a belated move to coordinated messaging from the league on BLM.

為什么這兩個最重要、黑人最多的男性聯(lián)盟在過去一年，應(yīng)對危機(jī)的處理方式如此不同？正如弗里曼和杰克遜指出的那樣，《哈佛商業(yè)評論》的讀者也會明白，這一切都與組織動態(tài)有關(guān)：結(jié)構(gòu)、文化、權(quán)力和利潤。

Why have the two most prominent male and majority-Black leagues handled this past year of crisis so differently? As Freeman and Jackson note, and readers of HBR will appreciate, it’s all about organizational dynamics: structure, culture, power, and profit.

NBA規(guī)模比NFL?。∟BA有30支球隊(duì)，每隊(duì)15名球員；NFL有32支球隊(duì)，每隊(duì)55名球員）。NBA約75%的球員是黑人，NFL為70%。NBA更依賴那些擁有較長職業(yè)生涯和巨大場外影響力的高薪球星，如勒布朗·詹姆斯和斯蒂芬·庫里（Steph Curry），有更強(qiáng)大的球員工會和對球員更有利的集體談判協(xié)議。NBA的聯(lián)盟高管、球隊(duì)老板、經(jīng)理和教練似乎明白，自己的角色是與球員合作，而非監(jiān)督。此外（可能也是關(guān)鍵），NBA球迷的種族背景比其他聯(lián)盟的球迷更多元，NBA直白地支持BLM不會像NFL那樣對收視率或收入產(chǎn)生影響。

The NBA is a smaller league than the NFL (30 teams with about 15 players each, versus 32 teams with about 55 players each). About 75% of the NBA’s players are Black, compared with 70% of the NFL’s. The NBA also relies more heavily on highly paid stars who have longer careers and outsize influence off the court. (Think LeBron James and Steph Curry.) It has a stronger players union and a collective bargaining agreement that’s more favorable to players. For their part, league executives and team owners, managers, and coaches seem to understand that their role is to collaborate with, rather than oversee, the talent. Also (and this, sadly, may be key), because NBA fans are more racially diverse than those of other leagues, an unabashedly pro-BLM stance doesn’t threaten ratings or revenues the way it might for the NFL.

如果有一本記錄“泡泡”的書，講述的會是那些勇敢追隨卡佩尼克的球員的故事——而不是勇敢的億萬富翁忽視電子表格的故事，而且和所有營利性組織一樣，NBA對利他主義的預(yù)算有限。盡管如此，在此前一年的抗議中，NBA（連同WNBA）在展示良好的管理和企業(yè)社會責(zé)任方面已經(jīng)大大超越了NFL，讓我們更接近一個把初心置于利益之上的職業(yè)體育聯(lián)盟世界。就目前而言，這是值得稱贊的。

If a book chronicling the Bubble is ever written, it will tell the story of brave players following Kaepernick’s lead—not brave billionaires throwing spreadsheets to the wind. Like all for-profits, the NBA has a limited budget for altruism. In 2019, for example, it was reluctant to back a manager who tweeted support for Hong Kong protesters for fear of alienating its Chinese business partners. Still, over the past year of protests, the NBA (along with the WNBA) has run circles around the NFL in demonstrating good management and corporate social responsibility. It has moved us closer to a world in which professional sports leagues put purpose over profits. For that, for now, it should be applauded.

拉姆齊·考鮑茲（Ramsey Khabbaz）| 文??

柴茁| 譯?? 蔣薈蓉 |校?? 孫燕 |編輯

拉姆齊·考鮑茲是《哈佛商業(yè)評論》助理編輯。

原文請見《哈佛商業(yè)評論》中文版2021年1月刊