AS I SEE IT COLUMN: Is sport the opiate of the masses?

According to Noam Chomsky, once one of the world’s leading intellectuals, sport is the opiate of the masses.

His theory is that sport exists to “entertain, pacify, and discipline the working class to protect capitalist interests.”

When you consider the volume of time that many sports fans devote to following whatever the latest sporting issue or debate is, while ignoring much more serious issues, issues that threaten life on this planet and our independence as a sovereign nation, Chomsky appears to be making an accurate assessment.

Think of the untold hours sports fans in Manitoba devoted to the saga of Connor Hellebuyck. Do those same sports fans know – or care – that 1.4 million children in Canada live in poverty and 2.5 million children live in conditions of food insecurity?

Think of all the air time devoted to debating whether or not Scott Arneil should be fired as the head coach of the Jets as a result of their abysmal start. Do those sports fans understand that Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed over 20,000 children, giving Gaza the horrific distinction of making it the world leader in child amputees per capita?

Think of the endless hours sports fans invest in Jets and Bombers pre- and post-game shows, where fans can be listening to the radio two hours before the game, then the two to three hours of the game itself, followed by a 1.5 hour post-game show. What if Manitobans spent that kind of time learning about the very real threat to life on this planet if convicted felon Donald Trump goes through with this threat of “obliterating” Iran and starting a nuclear war?

Think of the amount of money Canadian sports fans spend on sports betting, estimated to be between $15 billion and $25 billion a year. What if that money was spent on matters of real importance, like eradicating child poverty, hiring more doctors for our over-stretched healthcare system, building more schools or fixing our crumbling infrastructure?

Society’s priorities seem completely out of whack when you consider the desperate needs we have with homelessness, hunger, poverty, and a host of other societal ills, while we spend endless hours dissecting the most esoteric issues in sport that do absolutely nothing to make this a better world.

Chomsky’s argument, that sport is a distraction from issues of real importance, distractions that fatten the bank accounts of billionaire owners of sports teams and their millionaire players, seems more valid today than ever.

Perhaps a better way to understand this sad reality is to do a thought experiment and invert the debate. What if sports fans in Manitoba and across Canada spent a few hours every day, and a lot of money every year, helping to alleviate the many serious issues that our nation and the world faces, while only spending a tiny bit of time and only a little money being entertained and pacified by sports?

In the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t the world be a significantly better, healthier, safer place?

Us sports fans would still get our fix of sport that entertains, excites and inspires us; the argument here isn’t to end sports as we know it.

It’s to bring some kind of balance and moral proportionality to how we spend our time, money and efforts.

When people are more concerned about issues and players in professional sport that have no real bearing on our lives, than they are about the well-being of the communities and nation they live in, isn’t something horribly wrong?

What if sports fans gave up one Jets game a month and instead donated those several hundred dollars (if you take a family of four), to a local food bank or women’s shelter?

If there is a moral argument out there that posits that society is better off when large swaths of our citizenry are heavily focused on frivolous sporting issues, like who the new coach of the Jets should be, I’d love to hear it.

I don’t think it exists.