BY EVAN PERRY
With ESPN’s new list of the top 100 athletes of the 21st century officially out, it begs the question of what biases might influence the rankings on this list.
It is inevitably a difficult list to put together, but how should we look at it? What questions should we be asking about how we could assess so many athletes on an even playing field?
With ESPN being primarily based in America, it is understandable that the sports media company would focus more on specific sports their target audience would watch and the sports that make them the most money to stream.
In a survey done by Statista.com, the three most watched sports leagues in the United States were the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), and the National Basketball Association (NBA). This ranking also coincides with the most profitable sports leagues in the US in a different Statista survey done in 2022.
When counting up the athletes on ESPN’s list based on the region and sport they participate in, 54 per cent of the athletes on the list play for the three most watched and most streamed sports by ESPN. On top of that, there are 67 North Americans featured on the list, 56 of them American.
The number of ESPN-favoured sports and athletes on this list raises the question of how ESPN makes their list.
According to ESPN’s Methodology, “Experts in individual sports were asked to vote to rank the top athletes in their sport since Jan. 1, 2000 (no accomplishments before this date were to be considered). Those votes pared down pools in each sport to lists of 10 to 25 athletes each, which constituted the overall candidate pool for the top athletes of the 21st century so far. Each voter was presented two randomly selected names and asked to pick which one has had the better career in the 21st century. Across repeated, randomized head-to-head matchups, more than 70,000 votes were cast at this stage, and using an Elo rating system, the list was pared down from 262 to 100. That list was then evaluated by a panel of experts for any inconsistencies or oversights, resulting in the top 100 ranking seen here.”
Furthermore, according to Kevin Ota, a writer for ESPN’s Press Room, “More than 75,000 votes were cast by ESPN’s reporters, analysts, producers, editors, and experts around the globe to whittle the initial list of 400 athletes to 100.”
The list clearly took a lot of work, and thoughtful methodology to put together. However, it’s, inevitably, not infallible.
Taking a step back, there seem to be biases placed on the athletes who play for ESPN’s most watched sports over other sports and athletes who may not get as much attention from ESPN. There is especially a heavy emphasis on American athletes. Simply put, it is the athletes that their mainly American audience is going to care and know about.
Another issue comes with the difficulty in comparing individual sports athletes to team sports athletes. It is hard to compare two athletes who compete in such different sports, circumstances and competition.
For example, let's take ESPN’s number one athlete on their new list and the most decorated Olympic and competitive swimmer of all time, Michael Phelps. Phelps only has to focus on being a better and faster swimmer than all the other swimmers in the pool he's competing against.
Compare that to Leonel Messi, who is arguably the greatest soccer player and someone who has achieved everything there is to achieve in the sport of soccer, yet he is number three on the list. But soccer is also a much different sport compared to swimming.
In soccer, a lot is going on. You have to be able to know where your teammates are to pass the ball, dribble around other players when you are attacking, and play defence and offence. As a soccer player, you have to focus on a lot of tasks at once compared to swimming. In addition, unlike swimming, which is done within a few minutes, a soccer match lasts at least 90 minutes.
Not to mention, there are soccer leagues all over the world, players and teams of a variety of strengths and situations, and only a World Cup every four years. It would take a lot for Messi to reign at the top of his sport so long and so dominantly as Phelps did in swimming.
You can see how things can get complicated when comparing two sports and their respected athletes like this. Messi can't swim anywhere as well as Phelps can, and Phelps can’t play soccer at any level comparable to Messi.
The point is not to compare levels of difficulty across sports, but to note how different they are and how difficult they must be to compare.
Altogether, we can see how difficult it can be to assess which sport is harder and which athletes are better. This means bias and opinion are bound to flow through in a list like this.
With all this being said, at the end of the day, ESPN is a business, where monetary gain is the main focus. Their American audience pulls in an estimated 29.5 billion dollars annually, according to S&P Global. That's around 40 per cent of the worldwide sports media market. So can you blame ESPN for showing a little bias towards the sports and athletes that grow their brand and make them the most money? Is this list biased or is it just good business?
Comments