You make the call: Is military recruiting through university sport “out of bounds”?

It’s a play right out of the U.S. military playbook: use university and professional sport — particularly football — as a channel to recruit new soldiers for the armed forces. Following a tradition long established by their counterparts to the south, the Canadian Armed Forces have adopted this play for their own purposes, albeit with a twist. Our military has recently increased its visibility through sponsorship of sporting and cultural events, most notably last weekend’s Grey Cup and the upcoming Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) football championship, the Vanier Cup.

Historically, this makes sense to us. There was a time when the strength of a nation was measured by a fit population ready for military service. Drill exercises in school physical education programs introduced young men to the discipline demanded in a world on the brink of conflict. This early training invariably led to enthusiastic participation in organized sport, particularly those traditionally manly sports like football.

If you ask former CFLer Jason Kralt (now a recruiter for the Canadian Forces), as a reporter for CBC did during the Grey Cup pregame telecast, he would tell you that there is no difference between playing on a football team and serving in the Forces. The decision-making skills, brotherhood and readiness for action learned on the field of play are directly transferable to the field of combat. Sure, the consequences might be greater in the military, but Kralt smoothly downplayed such trivialities.

But what is ironic is that this sponsorship comes at a time when the Canadian military has waived its requirement of a minimum fitness level to join the service. While this is clearly one sign among many that the Forces are on a desperate mission to increase their numbers, apparently general recruitment has little to do with requiring fit bodies. The thrust to recruit soldiers via football suggests that there must be some congruency between military and sport cultures.

We see this in the spectacular Grey Cup telecast. Much like the Americans, the Canadian military pulled out all the “good stuff” for the game. A fly-pass by the Snowbirds, a car crushed by a Leopard tank, players and cheerleaders escorted by armoured vehicles all served to deliver just enough of that element of risk and adrenaline rush to be both fun and sexy for would-be recruits.

The twist on the American playbook, however, comes in the Canadian Forces’ slick new TV advertising campaign. While inspiring to patriotic Canadians, commercials portraying the role of the Forces as an exercise in civic nationalism while downplaying interventionist foreign policy seems disingenuous at best. Fighting forest fires in British Columbia, battling floods in Manitoba, and rescuing those in distress off the coast of Nova Scotia are literally and figuratively miles away from the roadside bombs and live fire faced in combat zones like Kandahar.

But you don’t need to be all that media-savvy to recognize the real message being put forward in these marketing ploys — just read the headlines. The commitment to maintain the current operation in Afghanistan is reinforced almost daily by the unified front of Harper, Hillier, O’Connor, and MacKay. Other news announces the retraining and redeployment of Navy or Air Force personnel to service on the ground, the new mandatory tour of duty for fresh recruits, and the extended tours for existing troops. It is no secret that the Forces need more bodies in the Middle East.

Thus, the recent sponsorship agreement with the CIS. For a reported $500,000, the Canadian Forces secure championship sponsor naming rights as well as the opportunity to be on prominent display with direct access to interested athletes. While their presence at events like the Vanier Cup is not new, the branding of the sport with the Forces logo is definitely a step in a very American direction. As such, it might be wise for us to take a look in that direction to see what might be in store as a result.

Pat Tillman was a patriotic American who left a lucrative career in the NFL to fight with the U.S. Army Rangers alongside his brother. Deeply impacted by 9/11, both took the bait and signed up for what they believed was a right and honourable duty. Pat was killed by “friendly fire” in Afghanistan.

What is unique in the case of Tillman is how the sporting world, following the lead of the government, continues to valorize his death as if he fell honourably at the hand of the enemy. On one hand, he posthumously received the Silver Star and Purple Heart; on the other hand, his uniform number was spectacularly retired from active duty by his university and professional football teams. The culture of sport continues to work at the service of the state and its military apparatus.

Of course, the choice of an athlete, or any Canadian, to enlist in our armed forces is a deeply personal one that should be respected. But when the business of sports intersects so dramatically with the decisions of our political and military leaders, we should take pause. Canada should support its soldiers, but if war is a continuation of politics by other means, that support should begin before they are sent off to fight. In other words, when the slick marketing campaign is pulled back, are the right questions being asked? And if so, are the right answers being given?

Pat Tillman’s family doesn’t think so.

Frustrated with the U.S. government’s initial cover-up of the friendly fire incident and disenfranchised with the political justifications for war, the family no longer supports an American military presence in the Middle East. Pat’s brother Kevin recently released a letter that makes it clear the two were unaware of the full consequences when they enlisted. “Somehow,” he wrote, “a narrative is more important than reality.”

As a proud Canadian, a CIS or aspiring athlete, or an avid fan of our uniquely Canadian brand of football, in support of our soldiers we strongly encourage you to think about the narrative that has been crafted by the Canadian Forces and Harper government. Those other TV clips showing bodies returning home in flag-draped boxes should serve as a constant reminder of the real conditions recruits will face not long after enlistment dispels the magic pixie dust of the marketing agencies.

While celebrating “Canada’s finest” on the battlefield that is Griffiths Stadium in Saskatoon for this Saturday’s Vanier Cup, you are being asked to join a fight that has far more drastic consequences than simply winning or losing a game. In return, we must ask tough questions about our nation’s role in international conflicts. It’s fine to have a playbook, but the players must make the plays. Chasing after long bombs rather than dodging roadside bombs sounds more like play to us — a freedom we cherish dearly.

Rod Murray is a PhD candidate and sessional lecturer in Sport History and Ethics at the University of Alberta. Sean Smith is a lecturer in Sport Management at Brock University and former CIS athlete