Several opponents of stricter immigration enforcement have been appearing outside stadiums during the recent Arizona Diamondbacks road trip in Denver, Chicago, and Houston to protest Arizona’s new law. The protests are not necessarily aimed at the Diamondbacks just because they play in the state that passed the controversial bill, but also because Ken Kendrick, the Managing General Partner of the organization, has given considerable donations to the Republican Party. Kendrick has not explicitly stated his support of this immigration bill, as he should in order to look out for the organization’s interest of not alienating its fan base, but he did release a statement last week in which he said this law came as a result of “federal inaction on illegal immigration” and that the federal government needs to address the issue once and for all. The MLB Players Union also released a statement in which they expressed disapproval of the bill due to the effects the bill will have for players who travel to play Arizona. Others, most notably the classless Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, have voiced the possibility that they would boycott the 2011 All-Star Game in Arizona. Whether there is any motion to that or not is way too early to even consider seriously. Yet again, I have never taken something Guillen has said seriously.

That whole explanation of the immediate effect the immigration bill has had on baseball in Arizona does raise a debate surrounded by one question. Is the mix of Politics and sports beneficial or is it a lethal combination that only hurts the game? When I give the question only a little bit of thought, I come to the conclusion that the combination of politics and sports tends to hurt the game because it distracts from the Sport itself. But once I started thinking of a few exceptions to the rule, I came to a more appropriate hypothesis that accounts for those exceptions.

I saw a commercial on ESPN the other day that was promoting the upcoming the World Cup, which you can see below. It carried the striking message that for a few weeks all the competing nations will put aside their differences and soccer will become the major focus. This is not to mention the fact that this year’s World Cup is being played in South Africa, a country that had apartheid until 1994 when Nelson Mandela became president. History has shown, however, that putting these major political differences aside for international events is not always in the best interest for games. The 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Berlin were almost boycotted by the United States because of the civil rights issues the country faced under Adolf Hitler. Some Jewish Americans boycotted despite the USA’s involvement. There were the Olympic boycotts, most of which were just threats, between the United States and USSR during the Cold War. One could argue in these Olympic cases that the United States had strong political interest to send a message to the world by not participating, but we would be asking athletes that put every drop of sweat and blood into being a world class Olympian to wait another four years so that the nation could make a political stance in order to exert global power. That is not fair to dwindle the athlete’s hard-earned hopes and dreams.

Then there was February 22, 1980. This was the day where for one game hockey became a political tool that has become a staple in any discussion of the Cold War. I still remember the “Miracle on Ice” being taught in school textbooks once the Cold War material came up. We never read about the Yankees or Celtics dominance. Instead we read about a group of amateur hockey players beating the biggest and fastest team hockey has ever seen. It had global significance because it showed a great weakness in an area that the Soviets were supposed to annihilate us in. If on the same day Jimmy Carter had eliminated all federal taxes, the USA men’s hockey victory would still be the top headline in the newspapers. So here we have the protypical example of how sports and politics were one in the same, but ended up being a very positive thing. And to think a USSR boycott could have made it all a moot point.

The examples I have used thus far are mostly international issues, but there have been positive and negative examples domestically as well. Jackie Robinson is seen as a political figure (although he was never outspoken about race during his professional career) for breaking the color barrier in baseball. Muhammad Ali, however, was criticized during his boxing career for his view towards the “white man” and his dodging the draft during the Vietnam War.

This brings us back to the outrageous boycott chatter of the 2011 All-Star Game in Arizona. Sports and politics only mix well together when the result can promote politics. The “Miracle on Ice” was a positive mix of sports and politics because it brought a nation together against its bitter enemy. It promoted nationalism and gave the country hope that defeating the Soviets in any situation was possible. Jackie Robinson opened the door for other African Americans in sports during a time of racial segregation. Even the location of the World Cup this summer in South Africa will promote how far the nation has come since apartheid. Boycotts, on the other hand, don’t do anything but spark controversy that the media would love to cover. America loves its sports heroes as much as we love the downfall of those heroes- just ask Tiger Woods. The USA men’s hockey team and Jackie Robinson set out to do something positive for their people while boycotts only shine a negative light on issue. Leave the immigration issue to the state and federal legislators and don’t try to make a positive difference by shining that negative light on the sport you call your career. As a Diamondbacks fan myself I have a better chance of boycotting them for their bad bullpen rather than the views of the Managing General Partner.

Just as a final sidenote, the first post of each month will be related to the mix of sports and politics. This is obviously just general commentary on spoprts and politics so future posts will tackle more specific contemporary issues.