Who Should (and Shouldn't) be Role Models?

I was listening to the radio on the way home from the gym this past week. With Tiger Woods returning to the golf course for this week's WGC event, the question was asked 'Are you rooting for Tiger this weekend?' One of the responses bothered me: "No. How can I ever root for Tiger again? He was supposed to be a Role Model."

I am one of the biggest sports fans I know. I'll get into baseball, basketball, football, hockey, golf, lacrosse...just about any sport besides soccer (I can't stand soccer...but that discussion is for another day). I've been a huge sports fan for years. I love watching sports. I love playing sports. I love reading about sports. My fanhood stands without question. But...I know this: Athletes are not on our TVs to be role models.

Athletes have a certain skill set...they can play a sport very well. The ability to play a sport does not come with the inherent ability to know what moral lessons the children of America are in need of. The ability to grab a ball out of the air does not mean that the athlete knows how to raise your child. The ability to get a small white ball to obey the athlete's will does not mean the athlete is the standard for morality that we should all strive to emulate.

If people want a role model, they should look to people that have put themselves in a position to be a role model. Ecclesiastical leaders, teachers, community volunteers, and most importantly, parents should be the people that we look up to in society. I feel no need to place an athlete in a position as a role model. I may look up to their ability within their sport...I feel no need whatsoever to use an athlete as my moral measuring stick. There are plenty of other people to look to for that kind of guidance and leadership. I'll just enjoy watching the athlete play his/her sport on TV.