It's almost like reading the rest would clarify my opinion, but then, only someone whose ego doesn't bruise so easily would bother with that.

Well... Admiring people who succeed in what they do, especially in something as competitive as most sports are, isn't really a bad thing. If you think some of those people are shit-heads in real life, then just encourage people to admire those that are role-models outside of the ring as well.

I find this interesting. I think that people with exceptional physical prowess are admired everywhere, but it sounds like in the US it may be more than in other place. This fits the image that I get from movies and other US tidbits and stereotypes, such as jocks and cheerleaders being a different class, people going to college based on their sports prowess and not expected to actually do good at studies, that kind of thing.

Tennisman Federer, in Switzerland. I tend to call the tv news the "Roger Federer Show".

In France you had exemples such as Zidane, or David Douillet. Sports stars, that became notional symbols, and, as they represent a nation, represent All That Is Holy. They are important cards in the political game (which side will "get" them), they weight a lot in the humanitarian business, and their presence on tv shows are crafted to present them as absolute moral exemples of Wisdom, Humility, and Compassion. It's what they incarnate, the Values of a Population, which goes way beyond sport results. Though it's linked to the general idea that competition (in any field) favours the Best Person.

You also get this with "national stars" in other activities (actors, etc), but sports is more basic, allowing for a more simple, nationwide, "rorschach bolt" effect.

Ok I read it. Nope It's almost like my first judgement was the correct judgement, and I shouldn't bother putting up with posts that give a bad first impression. The local Tebow Jesus story? That's some dipshit crazy locals deifying Tebow, not the media, so that was pointless. The part where you say"but to say we don't elevate people who can move their bodies better than others, or as you kind of suggested, people who are better looking or more talented is just silly. " just makes you look like you completely lost my points about the actors/musicians. etc. I never suggested we don't elevate people with talent or people that are better looking. if anything I suggested that we DO elevate people that we find entertaining. I even agreed with the guy who said" I think what he's trying to say is that while they are held in high regard, it's hyperbole to say that they're deified." Get it yet?? Saying "deifying" is hyperbole. The rest of your post? Not interesting.

Respect. When anyone is able to say not sure I want to applaud. :)

What you define as social is where we might end up splitting hairs over. Humans are far from being the only social animals, and athlete worship has obvious parallels with hierarchical structures in non human "societies". I don't think you'd disagree.

As to your question on what is better, if it can overcome reality; I am not sure myself. Without saying it, you are kind of asking if there is a go(o)d, aren't you? :)
After all, believing conflict of some sort is the root of life and evolution, does not imply a moral judgement of "better"or worse. It is what it is. So when you ask what you ask, you're pretty much at the roots of ethical debate.
Let's park that for some other occasion?

To try to go back OT, my opinion is that the same kind of tendencies to emulate that are at base of "worship" behaviors in sport contexts, are also involved in the processes of love. (to be clear, in the idealized side, not the lust side, think of family contexts, although this is there for regular coupling contexts as well)

If you agree on that premise, then I would summarize: I find it hard to imagine a society so individualistic that idealized figures would not aquire social/influencing power by virtue of their physical attributes.

@scampywiak
We don't disagree on role model possibilities.
I believe the above also answers you, why I do not expect athletes to stop being idolized any time soon.

The British definition of "athlete" seems to be much narrower than the American one (footballers, tennis players and so on are never called "athletes", they're referred to as "sportspeople"), but it never ceases to amaze me how much of a cult has developed around Tom Daley in the UK.

I honestly don't know how the guy is in real life, but the image I've been getting of him on TV and seeing the countless memorabilia in shops of him of late doesn't really tie in with the image of a shy Plymouth lad that was projected of him during the olympics. He even has his own TV show now about teaching celebrities to swim.

And yes, Plymothians seem to absolutely worship him to an almost ridiculous extent.

Sure, but how ingrained is that? Animals have socialization as well, and the animal kingdom shows not just male dominance but also female dominance when the female is the larger sex. With that in mind we could hypothesize that animals are simply socialized naturally to respect (or fear and submit to) the larger and stronger animal in the pack.

Of course you could counter this by saying a baby left in the wild with no social structure or lesson would probably fear a larger animal more than a smaller one, so perhaps it roots in simple ingrained recognition of larger threats. That tingle in the back of our heads we can't shut off when someone larger and different in some way is walking behind us in the dark.

Interesting. If the modern God is or becomes the society as a whole then surely Athletes are Bishops as they represent not only the society itself in competition but also the pinnacle of physical achievement as an example for everyone to strive for.

Indeed.

My goal would be more to "spread the love" as they say, and give equal or greater worship to people who excel in science or the arts. We do that for actors but little else.

Sounds like something from National Review (a far right magazine) almost, looking at liberals as trying to replace God with the pure human. It's not far off though, really, in some aspects.

There was a british made movie about a brazilian formula 1 pilot called Senna, it's made solely by splicing up together news reels of him.

I know it's not exactly what you're asking about but I think it's interesting because it shows how much his story could fit into one of a prototypical hero... right down to dying in a blaze of glory when he was at the top.

Is that what that movie is about? I think I saw it on Netflix but didn't know whether or not it would appeal to me. I'm definitely going to check that out now, sounds awesome.

Tim Duncan?

I am doing my PhD in science yet I am more impressed with Tom Brady and Tim Duncan than myself. These athletes are the best at what they do. The top biologists are renowned (Craig Venter as an example) in a similar fashion in the scientific community, sports simply has a broader appeal.

Tip:

The read sports heroes can be found at sports, which dont make any money and the general public is not aware of. These are sports, which people dont do for money or "job" - but simply because they love doing them.

This reminds me a class reunion a few years ago. While we were catching up with each other with the usual "what are you up to lately", I heard a classmate's name being mentioned and so I asked, "What's up with Gaizka lately? I haven't heard of him in ages". All conversations suddenly stopped, people stared at me like I was some sort of alien, until some guy said "dude, he's playing on the local football team, on first league".

btw, he apparently didn't attend our last get-together dinner this christmas because he had a match on the national selection the following day. Idiot athletes and their stupid excuses.