Steven Adams: caught between competing ideals

Whether or not Steven Adams should play for New Zealand in this year’s Basketball World Cup has stirred up widespread interest. The active debate shows how Adams, like other elite athletes before him, is caught between two competing ideals in sport —  patriotism and professionalism.

Following Basketball New Zealand’s tweets about Adams’ unavailability for the Tall Blacks, Marc Hinton stirred the pot in a Stuff column questioning whether Adams’ decision threatens his sporting legacy.

Hinton wondered how Adams’ consistent refusal to play for New Zealand could be reconciled with his equally consistent statements about his pride as a Kiwi and financial and personal investment in basketball camps for Kiwi kids.

Hinton’s column and public responses on Twitter and news sites clearly highlight the tensions that arise when historical, amateur notions of loyalty to the nation confront the realities of professional sport.

The debate over whether and why Adams should play for New Zealand reflects the country’s ongoing reservations about the effects of professionalism on the expectation that our best sportspeople will represent us in international competitions.

We are relative latecomers to professional sport, with men’s rugby only turning fully professional in 1995, and many other sports still functioning in a semi-professional context. This may explain why older ideas about patriotism and sacrifice for the nation still hold power, and why we idolise those who win for New Zealand on the world stage.

The debate about Adams’ decision shows that we are still conflicted. Those who see playing for New Zealand as the appropriate way for Adams to express his patriotism wonder if he is using his proud Kiwiness “as a gimmick” to support his NBA image. Others interpreted his decision as sulking, petty, hypocritical or reflecting a chip on his shoulder about lack of support in his early career.

Others strongly disagree. They accept the realities of professional sport, understanding that playing basketball is his job and discussing the financial risks if he is injured playing for New Zealand.

Some recognise his efforts to increase opportunities for young Kiwi players outside Basketball New Zealand’s structure. Others suggest he is a great ambassador for New Zealand, and attribute the increasing popularity of basketball to his NBA visibility.

Since he joined the NBA, basketball has risen from the fourth most popular high school sport to the number two spot behind netball, a growth rate of 29 percent.

The debates over Adams’ decision catapaulted me back to the national outrage that erupted when America’s Cup sailor Sir Russell Coutts made the decision to leave Team New Zealand and sail for a rival syndicate after New Zealand won back-to-back America’s Cups in 2001.

The immediate vitriolic responses to Coutts reflect the same issues. Like Adams, Coutts chose not to ‘play’ for his country but to privilege his professional sporting career. He too was heavily criticised for this choice.

Almost overnight, Coutts went from national hero to national traitor, labelled a defector, turncoat and mercenary mariner who put love of money above love of nation.

Coutts thought Kiwis understood the realities of professional sailing but quickly discovered that while they might understand leaving for greater rewards, few supported him competing against, and later defeating, his home nation.

Adams is not proposing to play for another country but there are some parallels. Some commenters correctly suggest that his absence matters because the Tall Blacks’ World Cup performance may directly affect their chances to qualify for the 2020 Olympics.

In the future, Kiwis may reach a point where we are comfortable with elite athletes pursuing sport as a job, but the current debates suggest we’re not there yet.