"Heroic people take risks to themselves to help others. There's nothing heroic about accepting $5 million to go out and run around chasing a ball, although you may show fortitude or those other qualities while you do it"
About this Quote
Gregg Easterbrook draws a hard line between excellence and heroism. Heroic people, he argues, knowingly accept risk to themselves for the sake of others. The point is not that athletes lack courage or discipline, but that the basic transaction of professional sports undermines the claim to heroism: when someone accepts millions to play a game, the risk they take is compensated, expected, and primarily for personal reward and entertainment value. The moral center of heroism lies in altruism under danger, not in the spectacle of skill.
The language targets the cultural inflation of the word hero. Media narratives often crown star athletes as heroes for game-winning moments, as if victory itself conferred moral stature. Easterbrook pushes back, distinguishing virtues like fortitude, perseverance, and physical bravery from the ethical act of placing oneself in harm’s way to protect strangers. A firefighter running into a burning building, a nurse staying in a pandemic ward, a bystander intervening to save someone from violence: these match the definition because the risk is borne for others with no guarantee of reward.
That does not deny the value of sport. Athletes can inspire, model discipline, and sometimes perform genuinely heroic deeds off the field or in emergencies. They may even display a kind of courage within the game. But inspiration is not the same as moral sacrifice, and guts under contract is not heroism. By underscoring the difference, Easterbrook critiques a celebrity culture that confuses entertainment with ethical nobility and pays outsized sums to those who entertain while undervaluing those who protect.
Context matters here: Easterbrook, a longtime commentator on football and public life, has often questioned how we distribute praise and money. His challenge is not anti-sport; it is pro-clarity. If hero becomes a synonym for famous winner, we lose sight of the quiet, costly acts that keep communities whole. The label should be reserved for those who take risks for others, not for those who are well paid to perform.
The language targets the cultural inflation of the word hero. Media narratives often crown star athletes as heroes for game-winning moments, as if victory itself conferred moral stature. Easterbrook pushes back, distinguishing virtues like fortitude, perseverance, and physical bravery from the ethical act of placing oneself in harm’s way to protect strangers. A firefighter running into a burning building, a nurse staying in a pandemic ward, a bystander intervening to save someone from violence: these match the definition because the risk is borne for others with no guarantee of reward.
That does not deny the value of sport. Athletes can inspire, model discipline, and sometimes perform genuinely heroic deeds off the field or in emergencies. They may even display a kind of courage within the game. But inspiration is not the same as moral sacrifice, and guts under contract is not heroism. By underscoring the difference, Easterbrook critiques a celebrity culture that confuses entertainment with ethical nobility and pays outsized sums to those who entertain while undervaluing those who protect.
Context matters here: Easterbrook, a longtime commentator on football and public life, has often questioned how we distribute praise and money. His challenge is not anti-sport; it is pro-clarity. If hero becomes a synonym for famous winner, we lose sight of the quiet, costly acts that keep communities whole. The label should be reserved for those who take risks for others, not for those who are well paid to perform.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Gregg
Add to List
