Coakley and Eitzen both make the case that sport is not a meritocracy, but that social class and social class relations stack the deck against those in the lower class (limit opportunity for success a

Coakley and Eitzen both make the case that sport is not a meritocracy, but that social class and social class relations stack the deck against those in the lower class (limit opportunity for success among those of the lower class). In response to the case that the two authors make, answer the following questions. Support your answers with information from the module readings or outside resources.

1. In what ways does social class affect the opportunities for success in sport (in youth, college, and pro sports)? 

2. How does the media substantiate the contention that sport is a meritocracy? Does the media promote or silence any of the stories of lower class athletes?

3. Who benefits from the prevalence of the "rags to riches" narrative, and does (how does) the narrative sustain the power of those who dictate the organization of sport?

If you disagree with Coakley and Eitzen, and believe that sport is a meritocracy (that opportunity and the positioning of athletes in the lower class is not affected, or is positively affected by the organization of sport), respond to each of the above questions with support for your contention.  

3 to 4 pages