We already know what happens after bursting housing bubbles.  And, we have heard more than we want to about "there being enough blame to go around" for the financial collapse and its accompanying ethical lapses. Further, even though those who should have seen it still cling to the "no one saw it coming" defense, we now know that bubbles DO burst.  Even ethics bubbles. In hindsight.

Except there is one arena where the bubble never bursts. Oh yes, it is pinpricked  on any given day. But the bubble the sport establishment controls is burst proof. Even when there is enough blame to go around for the ethical lapses that occur routinely on and off the field. 

Consider a few recent  sport ethics situations.

Tiger Woods returned to golf after revelations of his car accident with a fire hydrant and his serial philandering. True, the Tiger still doesn't seem about to control his ungolf-like blasphemies ("Jesus Christ!") and self-critical outbursts ("Tiger Woods...you suck!") during play. But the only importance of  these old revelations on the outbursts is that they now, in hindsight, seem to be ominous predictors of other Tiger moral tics. Never mind that it is within Tiger's free speech rights to yell at and on the greens. But I am wandering away from the current story which is:  Tiger made it through the first phase of the standard athlete redemption narrative rather unscathed. And we can just forget mentioning the  business school case study possibilities of the gothic advertisement that Nike and Tiger put together. It is not worth learning about, anymore than what Tiger was supposed to learn from... What? The reasons his corporate endorsement guarantees have been downgraded from triple AAA to BB?

Ben Roethlisberger, the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback, got a summons from the NFL Commissioner to talk over current charges of sexual assault as well as other accumulated bad behaviors, including previous charges of sexual assault. According to one account, the Pittsburgh fans are angry and have turned against him, because of his disrespect shown to the Rooney family, the revered owners of the Steelers. What about the charges of sexual assault and his disrespect toward women?

And finally, the NCAA announced three rules changes to college football.  First, no more wedge blocks, the type increasingly common on kickoffs, given the safety risks they pose of the concussion kind. Second, the rules on taunting have been tightened in order to increase incentives for sportsmanship.  And third, the change I find most ethically curious:  the new rule on eye black. No, eye black is not banned. It can still be used by players based on its claim as sunblock protector. It's the messages that have been blocked. The rule prohibits players from using their eye black for instant or otherwise messaging. Didn't the NCAA know? Most athletes have moved to tweeting anyway.

The rule change on wedge blocks will not be contested. Football's concussion problem has been noticed by too many other institutions, including Congress. Politicians love to conduct and preside over sport hearings.  It gives them a chance to grandstand, claim loyalty to their state (and constituency) teams, and to do nothing but sponsor even more hearings, until the sport powers decide to do something. Moreover, the dangers of the wedge block have even been damned by some high profile college coaches, among them the influential Mack Brown, head coach of Texas.

Instead, most of the ranting in the media and in sports bars across the land will be heaped on the taunting restrictions. And yes. There will be many fleeting, snarky and laced with irony comments and comedic routines reserved for the new eye black message rule. But most fans will regard it as minor. Not worth learning about or giving respect to.

But I don't want this eye black moment to pass without a message of my own design. This rule is of some significance. For what, of course, it doesn't say.

Significant because:

Athletes are coddled and allowed to be careless from the time they become "the chosen."  Think Tiger and Ben. Their handlers, entourages, enablers, posses, human enhancers and whatever you want to name them in any given era, are assigned to take responsibility for their ethical lapses and clean up the consequences of their moral messes.

As a result, 'the chosen' athletes, rarely if ever, have to learn to think for themselves. Among what is done for them and many other things, their speeches are written by others and their messages are spoken for them.

Most people don't care whether athletes have their messages ghost-written.  On one hand, they assume athletes can't speak or write anyway. On the other hand, they claim athletes express themselves and communicate through their sport performances. In this view, an athlete's creativity is what he or she does on the field. It is not surprising then, that some athletes choose to deliver messages on the field through their uniforms, and through their body art, such as tattoos and piercings. Not to mention their eye black.

It doesn't really matter whether the eye black messages athletes have chosen are self-promoting, personal branding or  sentimental honors, and religiously or socially mindful. 

These messages should be regarded as protected speech.

Oh, it would be one thing if the messages on the eye black were unruly speech, that is speech that would be defined as hate speech or has the potential to incite violence. These forms of expression are not protected speech anyway. It is another thing, however, if these messages represent  "the marketplace of ideas" and thoughts.

There are two ethical problems I have with the eye black message ban.

Taking away forms of expression from athletes, no matter how small,  just reinforces the customs of the coddled education and training that most elite athletes have gotten used to and profit from. With this rule, the NCAA acts as an athlete institutional enabler. To use an overused phrase during this time of financial bubbles, it keeps athletes from "having any skin in the game"...that is for being ethically accountable, for what they say in their eye black messages. 

If the NCAA, in its educational role was actually serious about teaching athletes how to think for themselves, then it would offer a semester tutorial on free speech, which includes a discussion with athletes about being responsible for what they say and how they say it. This small step might encourage the NCAA to think too.  About the much larger problem of detaching elite athletes from the enabling structures they have grown used to and accept. Without questioning. The fact that athletes don't question these rules is critical here. And brings up the second ethical problem.

While we generally regard free speech and political speech as an individual matter, the recent Supreme Court decision approving no limits on corporate and labor union contributions to political campaigns on grounds that political free speech of corporate entities is constitutional, highlights the free speech rights of institutions. It is easier for institutions, among them corporations, to speak out on issues  in their vital interests and of value to them than it is for their individual employees to do so.

The relevant reason is that corporations have the power and the money to publicize their messages. Some employees, working for the corporation who gets out its message, may not advocate what his or her employer does. In fact, they may regard the corporation's support for a particular campaign or money spent on a message as morally wrong and against their most cherished views. Yet, can we really believe that an individual employee will speak out against his or her employer? And risk losing his or her job? 

So, too, we can liken the NCAA and its member universities to corporations (even though legally they aren't). And elite athletes as employees of the NCAA and their universities (even though legally they aren't). Yet, can we really believe that an individual athlete will speak out if he or she opposes a message the NCAA has used its free speech rights to publicize? And risk losing his or her scholarship?

It is, of course possible to strengthen individual speech rights and "the marketplace of ideas" by joining together to counter "the marketplace of money" available to corporations. Come next football season all fans should wear eye black...with a message voicing their own ideas. My eye black will read: Free Speech.