Loyalty should go both ways for Favre

The public has blasted NFL quarterback Brett Favre but columnist Ian McPhail says he should be supported.

By: Ian McPhail

Posted: 7/15/09

As Brett Favre's return to football with the Vikings seems certain, many columnists and fans are tired of this annual retirement soap opera.

Unfortunately, these opinions are often influenced by an overzealous media, attempting to garner interest in a sport with a season that lasts less than half a year.

Favre's countless accomplishments and influence as a positive role model throughout his career should entitle him to un-retire without alienating millions. Favre's retirement and banishment to the New York Jets was not the result of his mistake in retiring, but a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign by Green Bay's management and NFL pundits to replace Favre with a younger player.

With a hall of fame career and a great final year in 2007, Favre tearfully said goodbye to the game. With concerns about the continued health of his body, and a desire to spend more with his family, Favre seemingly decided to end his career on a high note.

Last summer, as fans bemoaned the loss of their leader, Favre's retirement started to sound too convenient to the Packers. In 2005, management had selected Aaron Rodgers in the first round to be groomed as Favre's replacement. In the last year of his contract, the team needed to see what Rodgers was capable of before it expired. But before long Favre wanted back on the field. He asked the Packers to either put him back under center for another season, or to release him to find another team that wanted him with no hard feelings.

The Packers did neither. For nearly a month they stalled Favre's comeback in an effort to subvert the negative public relations backlash. From offering him a $25 million for re-retirement, to giving Favre the chance to spend his last year in Green Bay as a backup to Rodgers, the Packers created a media circus as a distraction from their poor treatment of a sports hero who brought a Super Bowl back to Green Bay without them.

Favre gave everything to Green Bay and their fans, and when he asked to play or be released, the Packers traded the quarterback. A spiteful management decided that allowing Favre to succeed in his last season or two would be a public relationship nightmare, so they exiled him to the hapless Jets. And Favre did not complain; he suited up in Jets green and almost single-handedly turned the franchise around.

The Packers typify the current problem with teams and ownership through their treatment of a man who has done so much for them and for the league. In the NFL, as soon as a player reaches the end of his career, he is often discarded for a fresh piece of meat such as Joe Montana was. Favre's situation has proven that no player, no matter how remarkable, can stand up to the combined public relations power of the league, the team and the sports writers, whose paycheck depends on the financial success of the league.

Maybe in a response to the lack of fans' patience with a bad team, the general managers who run the show have decided to sacrifice quality players for a better chance at winning.

The league and its teams need to decide whether it wants society to view athletes as role models or just random employees to be discarded as soon as they break or someone better comes along. It simply is not right to allow the media to switch between demonizing and worshiping players like Favre whenever it becomes convenient for a team's bottom line.

This is the problem with professional sports and the "media" that calls propaganda covering the sport. Mere months before journalists and the league decided to tarnish Favre's image, they were idolizing him as the reason for Green Bay's unlikely 2008 playoff run. Favre garners interest in a sport with a painfully dull off-season, and few writers will admit that stories about his un-retirement sell. Ironically, NFL media members are able to linger around Favre's house, report ridiculous Vikings deadline rumors, and stalk the quarterback, while blaming him for causing this media frenzy in the first place.

Watch the live interview with sports broadcaster Joe Buck on HBO, and hear Favre explain his side. For several months he has been silent to avoid a media backlash, letting reporters rip him before telling fans he wants to be sure his arm has healed before committing to the Vikings.

Ultimately, the reason the NFL and their unaccountable puppet media is allowed to be as two-faced and terrible to its players is because we let it. Fans lament the loss of quality human beings in the sport, while refusing to throw our support behind a good man like Favre. During the weeks in which the Packers planned to force Favre into Rodgers' backup, fewer than 200 fans bothered to show for a nationally advertised weekly protest for their quarterback at Lambeau Field. Loyalty should go both ways.

Pundits will spend this summer continuing to lampoon Favre for considering un-retiring, but true supporters should want to see him take another chance with the team of his choosing. Fans seem more than willing to excuse Rodgers' shortcomings last year, but because of Favre's age and the controversy around him, few will allow any excuse for a decline in play. As a former fan who bled Packers green and gold, nothing would please me more than to watch Favre and the Vikings beat up on his former team. If Americans will open their eyes to the poor treatment of players by teams, perhaps we can get a better class of athlete. But as long as we throw our support behind the Rodgers instead of the Favres, expect sports role models to continue to disappear.

Ian McPhail is a sophomore history major.