one could say society may still have a long way to go on some things. I do wonder if an athlete or team decide to make a political statement (planned or unplanned), then how would society react to it? What I find fascinating about the relationship between sports and politics is that sometimes what history defines as a political statement in sports may not have started out with that intended purpose.

Based on the interviews I have seen the decision to play the Loyola-Mississippi State game doesn't appear to be politically motivated. Yes, the players and coaches were aware of the political issues and the climate at the time. However, it seems their competitive desire and the bad taste of a "forfeit" in the NCAA Tournament would leave in everyone's mouth were bigger factors in the decision. It wasn't until after the game was played and everyone allowed the moment to really sink in that they truly realized the political significance of their action.

Based on an interview Mrs. Robinson gave one time, it sounded like Jackie may have had a similar experience. Up to the point when he signed the contract, Jackie seemed to have been motivated to prove that he belonged in MLB and the competitive desire to play against the best in baseball. Yes, he knew he would be the first African-American, but it sounded like he truly didn't understand the magnitude of what that meant until he started experiencing all that negativity (on and off the field) because he signed the contract.

When history looks back on this period of sports and connects a sporting event to a political movement, then it is possible that the event didn't intend to have that purpose. It may have taken on a life of its own after the event took place. A perfect accident if you will that ultimately made a significant impact/change on humanity.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 05/10/2016 3:07PM]