For me the two most entertaining events of the fall are the U.S. Open and the World Series. Nonetheless, despite the aesthetic enjoyment as well as instruction to would-be athletes these events provide, their political legacies are more ambiguous.

Recently in a reflective and wide-ranging interview with the Tennis Channel, Martina Navratilova celebrated the role of sports in advancing egalitarian sentiments and practices. The integration of baseball in the late ’40s helped promote the economic, social and political interests of African Americans. College scholarships for female athletes, secured by Title IX, expanded women’s horizons not merely in sports but also in the business world.

Although sports on occasion have been a venue and catalyst for social progress, some of their modern, hyper-commercial variations express and encourage the most retrograde aspects of our culture. Sports stars, including Navratilova herself, can justifiably take pride in the affluence they have achieved. If their wealth were derived exclusively from fans’ purchases of tickets or specific cable packages, there would be little reason for complaint. Yet many U.S. citizens, including some with no interest in sports of any kind, contribute involuntarily to the inordinate salaries of the top athletes.

Most consumer products are produced by large conglomerates competing in highly concentrated markets. Competition in those markets hinges more on advertising initiatives than on price or quality. If I want a camera, I will almost inevitably have to pay a tribute to Maria Sharapova, Andre Agassi, or some other multimillionaire sports legend even if I can’t tell an overhead from a drop shot.

If consumers are often bilked, so too are taxpayers. Like many other corporate executives, team owners and sports promoters blackmail state and local governments to provide subsidies and tax favoritism. Though careful economic development studies consistently show that most local governments lose money by subsidizing new stadiums, political leaders routinely yield to threats to relocate a much-loved pro sports franchise. Even the U.S. Open remains in New York City only because of a sweetheart deal negotiated by then mayor – and tennis lover – David Dinkins.

Surprisingly, even when large sums of ill-gotten wealth pour into franchise owners and promoters, professional athletes, even the superstars, bear unexpected costs. In an interview for the Guardian (London) before Wimbledon, Navratilova pointed out that even in the Grand Slams, the most remunerative events in tennis, only 5 to 10 percent of total revenue is budgeted for player prizes. Most of that sum goes to the top few. After the first two rounds, 75 percent of that extraordinary talent pool has been eliminated and must struggle just to break even.

All the players also labor under difficult physical circumstances. When I was growing up, my physician father urged me to play tennis rather than baseball because the former was a “sport for a lifetime.” After years of failing to hit the curve ball, I came around. At the pro level, however, the rulers of the sport seem to be doing everything to make tennis a game only for the very young and super-fit. Play is on many different surfaces with different balls. The only off season is December. Not surprisingly, the incidence of overuse injuries has increased dramatically.

Tennis, however, unlike our other major spectator sports, seems to lack one of the most repellent sports phenomena, the quest for goats. Tennis is neither a team nor a community- based sport. Commentators do not single out individual players as lazy or uniquely incompetent fools upon whom the fate of teams – and by extensions their communities – can be blamed. Thus there is no tennis equivalent of Bill Buckner, whose sad story is more a commentary on the pathology of our culture than on him. It would probably surprise most baseball fans to read his near hall of fame career statistics. A careful review of the tapes of that infamous 1986 loss to the Mets also reveals several other errors and misplays committed by teammates. Nonetheless, his late inning error was singled out by supposedly loyal fans of the team, who them virtually drummed Buckner out of public life.

Sports commentary has always offered us stars and also-rans. Now, we need superstars of larger than life proportions and goats of singular infamy. Perhaps such commentary reflects a quest for certainty in a world in the grip of ever more rapid and uncontrollable flux. Our sports and our culture are the worse for this development.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net