Athletes don’t exist merely in the silos of their on-court selves, but also as humans with their own lives, off the court. We have unprecedented access to athletes like never before, from social media to day-in-the-life documentaries. As a result of this access, fans often believe they know these stars personally when, realistically, they are just getting a glimpse into their lives, the pieces the stars choose to show. Documentary formats enable fans to take a behind-the-scenes peek at what the day-to-day looks like for their favorite athletes and see their “real” personalities on display. When the cameras are rolling, are we really getting the authentic stars or curated versions of them?

As Jia Tolentino (2019) puts it, at home we feel like we can stop performing altogether, like we’ve made it backstage; but if the cameras are still rolling, it turns into a perceived backstage. As a result, there is plenty of skepticism around the authenticity of celebrities when seen on camera, off set, or off the field. The lack of backstage change leads to the appearance of a continuity in their performance, potentially owed to image management. Stars, including athletes, have valuable images that are expensively maintained by publicity professionals; it is a fair assumption that the same artistry is shaping the images we see off stage. The new documentary formats, tracking the everyday lives of athletes, and allowing them to speak on public and private occurrences throughout their seasons, seem to grant an opportunity to truly get to know favorite athletes on a personal and intimate level. Yet, we remain suspicious that the documented responses are strategic and only somewhat authentic; this can be attributed to the fact that many of these athletes need to maintain a carefully managed, positive reputation due to their affiliation with brands through sponsorship deals and their individual teams. It’s a tough task to tell what is true and what is not, especially on account of the many years of practice responding to press and being on camera. Could a calibrated form of authenticity, tailored to the back (or middle) stage of these private-life scenes, be especially tempting to produce–as an alternative to, but also an extension of, the more “produced” on-stage (and on-court) selves?

Following the Script

When influential people are asked to take part in a filming of their lives, they get to take time meticulously determining how they’d like to present themselves. These prized athletes get to blend an already inflated “extant self”—how they see themselves—with a “desired self” and a “presenting self” when on camera (to borrow from American Sociologist, Morris Rosenberg, who separated those three regions of the self-concept in his 1979 book Conceiving the Self). All people in front of the camera in interviews are situated in a position to blend together as much or as little as they choose. When one is a star and sees oneself as such, one may want to be a star who is seen in a good light. In that vein, stars can frame themselves in a positive manner when on camera, and also “off” camera on the performative stage (the onstage backstage), blending the three regions of the self-concept together and leaving the audience to choose whether to receive the figure at face value or to look deeper for further interpretation. I’m left asking the question, is the backstage really the backstage?

The Starting 5 documentary on Netflix follows the lives of five NBA stars through the 2024-2025 NBA season. We get a closer look at the lives of Kevin Durant, James Harden, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jaylen Brown, and Tyrese Haliburton. We are taken through the season where we get to follow the team dynamics (through the lens of the players), personal first-hand responses to the stars’ on-court performances, and home lives. Through interviews and actual footage of gameplay, the audience gets an intimate look at the NBA stars’ lives, as shared through them.*

*I had initially wanted to discuss this topic following either the Quarterback or Receiver documentary, following NFL athletes, on Netflix, but felt a bit of confirmation bias occurring. These athletes seemed to participate in the perceived backstage in a way that I personally believed was sometimes very staged. I am not claiming that these athletes acted fake or out of character (who am I to judge?); I am simply stating that some actions and moments seemed to be done for the camera blatantly, or at least were easily interpreted with skepticism. I acknowledge that a certain perception is necessary for brand deals and contractual obligations; however, when moments in documentaries feel too scripted, it is hard to accept them as genuine. I decided to pivot to Starting 5 to get a fresh look at a documentary following a league filled with athletes who are regarded as flashier than some of the other leagues.

Rather than judging disingenuous or scripted actions of others, it is important to consider the reasons why someone may put on an act. As German Psychologist, Erich Fromm, (1947) wrote, “He who wants to get ahead has to fit into large organizations, and his ability to play the expected role is one of his main assets” (p. 82). As members of society under capitalism, we are incentivized to act in accordance with cultural norms, standards, and expectations. When we stray too far or too sharply, we may experience repercussions that are unfavorable. The need to put on an act may be essential to getting ahead and maintaining a positive, lasting image. This becomes ever-present and important for those who get brand deals or have brands that use their likeness. As Goffman (1959) proposes, everyone presents a staged self in everyday life (I will utilize Goffman’s breadth of knowledge to reinforce points throughout this piece). Outside of an organization in the traditional sense, athletes often get sponsored, and the most successful actually get their own segments within a brand; in the NBA, this is often represented by shoe deals.

Participating in shoe deals or serving as brand representatives means that the actions of the athlete are inevitably going to be tied to the brand. Similarly, representing a brand while being a member of a sports organization may eventually affect that organization in some unintended ways–this may also be true when it comes to the sports organization affecting the brand being represented by one of its own. Therefore, acting outside the expected social norms as established by sports organization, brand, or market for that matter, will impact not only the individual representing the brand or the sports organization but possibly both. When a team’s public relations doesn’t actively participate or openly support a cause that one of the players strongly believes in, the perception the player may have for the organization may change, as well as the perception of the fans of the player towards the organization; same goes when a player acts in a way that either violates or demonstrates aberrant behavior deemed inappropriate by the organization or inconsistent with the organization. For brand deals, the actions of the athletes can directly affect sales, so there is a close eye on the athletes’ actions. This alone can inhibit some of the athletes’ natural tendencies and create a forced shadow over their personalities, so as to not ruin their relationship and ruin their deal; the deals can be terminated for eliciting certain behaviors forbidden by the fine print. The perception of an athlete needing to act in accordance with a team or brand is there, even if it’s not a factor of importance in any given moment. Stardom can exceed the importance of brand compliance to a certain extent; however, as a player’s value can be deemed worth more than brand image (think NFL stars who maintain contracts even when getting in legal trouble). Harden has not shied away from his public image, one that involves partying and hanging out with rappers. He may be an example of an athlete who doesn’t cater to expectations from the public, but rather lets his gameplay talk for him. In the doc, he admits to partying, compliments the beauty of women in LA, and jokes about how he got in touch with his girlfriend; he is comfortable in HIS shoes and does not shy away from expressing his unique personality. Some athletes craft their image more delicately.

Not only do athletes have to act in accordance with the rules of their contracts, constraining and controlling their personalities, they also come to participate in a bit of self-commercialization. Emily Hund (2023), discussing influencers, referred to “the expanding repertoire of tools that allow people to monetize their digital presence and adopt the ideology of the marketplace for their own self-expression” (p. 8). Her point can be extended to athletes in the ways they engage on social media and in these documentary settings, or even in press conferences and post-game interviews. Athletes have a strong public presence; continuing to maintain and strengthen their fandom is in their best interest for a multitude of reasons, prosperity incentives included. Alison Hearn (2008) invokes self-branding as a cultural practice: “Here, celebrity functions not only as a cultural resource in and through which individuals construct their identities, but becomes a generalizable model of profitable self-production for all individuals” (p.208). Applied to athletes, off the court there is active work to maintain that public persona. As she puts it, the production of self involves active labor, creating a public persona that can be used for practical or relational purposes. Maybe this version is different from one that existed before public appearance mattered; what now matters is maintaining this image, considering that it is the one that has been put forth. Once produced, this self becomes second nature, integral to our personality (Goffman 1959).

Throughout The Starting Five, we are taken into what is portrayed as the personal lives of these star athletes. Aside from the cameras and crews that viewers don’t see is an apparent backstage—an entrance into the everyday existence of our favorite players. We get detailed backstories of how relationships came to form, father-son dynamics, hobbies and instances of partying, casual neighborhood strolls with pets. The stage is set for a closer look than we usually get, one where the frontstage we normally view—the basketball court—gets set aside for the backstage of the athletes’ personal lives. The closer look at NBA stars’, and other celebrities’, lives is becoming more common, serving as less of a spectacle and more of an established genre of “In the life of.” We, as an audience, are expected to take what happens on screen at face value. As an audience, we are left to wonder, no matter the reality, if the people in front of the camera are focusing on responding truthfully, or are consciously responding in the hope to be well-received. In the documentary, Shai and Tyrese both present a desire to appear as normal people. While the documentary introduces Haliburton’s personal life, it shows him walking his dog with his girlfriend, him talking about his Chick-fil-A points, and his passion for High School Musical. He shows he is only human by discussing his struggles with emotion regulation in the second episode: “I’m not perfect. I’m a guy who is very shitty at hiding his own emotions.” It must be extraordinarily difficult to always be “on” when on the court, with cameras capturing every moment. In the first episode, Shai states: “I want people to learn that I am no different than you are. What you do in your everyday life I probably do in mine.” He also claims he never repeats an outfit but would at a grocery store, which opened up the door for questioning by the producers, who asked if he goes to the grocery store, which he admits he doesn’t. Like the producer who questioned Shai, commentators and fans alike question the actions and comments of athletes constantly. Athletes are under constant scrutiny and are called out accordingly, sometimes wrongly. We often see “freelance” cancel culture reps, serving as online investigators, which jump at any opportunity to call out athletes for speaking inconsistently or referencing previous comments to highlight discursion in the athlete’s persona. This thin ice on which athletes are required to walk on creates a further need to act in accordance with societal expectations; some athletes simply don’t care about said transgressions and skate by unbothered. Really though, just because so much is televised and publicized, why can’t professional athletes be allowed to change, while normal citizens can? Let’s please not claim it’s because of the “receipts.”

Athletes, and celebrities alike, are so accustomed to performance that perhaps the impulse to perform has become second nature, even “backstage.” Long-term media exposure has contributed to the experience gained through repetition that celebrities have acquired in front of the camera and in the spotlight; their ability to switch roles comes as second nature: “Sometimes the individual will be calculating in his activity but be relatively unaware this is the case” (Goffman, 1959, p. 6). Sociologist Erving Goffman, in his classic 1959 The Performance of Self in Everyday Life, discusses two types of communication–expressions given and expressions given off. Those on stage manage public perception (impressions given off) by considering the effect their actions will have on the audience. Goffman conjectures how individuals’ “traditions” (i.e., their habits and common practices) will create an impression of a particular kind and that they may be neither conscious nor unconscious in their disposition of creating the impression. For professional athletes, this enduring impression may have been fed or formed over the years by all of the people and mentors guiding them to this point of stardom, or could be self-conjured, or even occurring naturally as a reflexive response to the continuous barrage of publicity surrounding their lives. There are also expectations and pressures to be role models for those often in the public eye; the excessive weight and burden of that task only increases the onus for many athletes to engage in class-act behaviors and exhibit moral yet humble character. This doesn’t always translate in how they present themselves and is sometimes felt blithely by the athletes. Nonetheless, it is a point that must be made when monitoring real versus performance on any given stage act.

The perfect responses and seamless personalities we see on the documentary have been achieved with delicate design over years of practice and intent. Not to discredit his sentiment, but Shai, crafting an eloquent comment stated in Episode One: “I’m obsessed with the feeling of getting better at something. I’m not here for the fame. I’m here for the glory, the championship, the rings.” This comes from a man who dresses to impress for every tunnel walk as he enters the locker room before a game (something very common among NBA players). The stadium entrance tunnel, something that would be considered backstage, has become mainstage, with media present to capture the fits of the stars as they strut into the stadium. The success of how the persona is received is very dependent on consistency, so straying from the course of one’s long-standing brand can reduce the effectiveness or acceptance of the performance. Goffman (1959) highlights this point by suggesting that one’s initial projection commits him to “what he is proposing to be and requires him to drop all pretenses of being other things” (p. 10). Once public figures portray themselves a certain way, they are put into a box, one in which they must operate inside of to maintain a consistent image. In terms of the reception of consistency, Goffman adds that “being only a single note off key can disrupt the tone of an entire performance” (p. 52).

Negotiating Authenticity

An interesting dynamic of sports documentaries shown on major streaming platforms–such as Netflix–is the possibility of reaching new audiences. Many people watching may already have an understanding of or follow the stars featured in the Starting 5; this suggests that preconceived notions will impact viewers’ reception of the cast’s authenticity. However, some will encounter these stars for the first time; the showing of the documentary sets the stage for viewers to assign, categorically, their own assumption of character and personality for each of the cast members, which will serve as a reference point for actions to come.

Documentaries provide backstage access, enabling a personalization of those being showcased. From following the star around in their day-to-day lives to engaging in direct dialogue, the audience gets two types of data: passive and active, both of which foundationally create an experiential view of the star’s life that we can observe and critique. Without seeing the contracts around the shooting of the documentary, it is difficult to know how much access has been granted, what pieces of life have been requested to be excluded, and which questions are acceptable. The uncertainty the audience has around predetermined plotlines and forewarned narratives for the interview portions creates an even larger barrier between the candid nature documentaries claim to possess and the authenticity behind the athlete’s performance. According to Wenxuan Fang (2025), the audience participates in a “negotiation of mediated authenticity,” due to the mediation involved and the selectivity of scenes included in the final cut, leading fans to possibly doubt the authenticity of scenes (p. 52). The concept of candid and real-time is only as true as one believes it to be, and documentaries straddle the line of real and concocted. If the players in the documentary are provided more of a heads up, which they likely are due to their caliber, they have the ability and time to craft responses, or create a scene, accordingly, removing reflexive or on-the-spot, improvisational, reactions. Split-second decisions are crucial to showing sincerity (Goffman 1959).

There is a lot of hype around the documentary formats I touched upon earlier around following the lives of our favorite celebrities. I personally enjoy these types of documentaries, thoroughly, as my curiosity around these athletes is especially high, leading into their respective seasons. I appreciate the footage and the intimate feeling around these formats, truly feeling like I have a better understanding of the players after watching. For example, I never fully came to terms with Harden’s departure from the Oklahoma City Thunder; Episode One of the documentary showed how difficult of a time it was for him, with him claiming, “It’s one of those sad stories for real!” These intimate moments allow fans to better understand or accept league events that, too, affect the players. In 2007, Ian McDonald wrote a piece for the Journal of Sport & Social Issues where he dives into the art of sport documentaries. The access we have today is unparalleled, aside from the occasional releases of more historical footage in documentaries such as The Last Dance, tracing Michael Jordan’s career. Ian spoke of sports documentaries in the mid-2000s as bearing the responsibility to make a powerful promise of taking the viewer behind the scenes. He correlates the backstage we see on screen with the authentic self of the characters we follow; we seem to see the unmediated reality behind their performances. Ian acknowledges that viewers should proceed with caution in accepting everything projected at face value because documentaries construct the backstage as opposed to discovering it: “The ‘behind-the-scenes’ glimpse so central to the sport documentary must itself be understood as a rhetorical device.” If camera crews showed up unannounced, then we would likely get a more accurate portrayal of the real backstage, the one we are supposed to believe we are seeing.

In the hypothetical that crews were to show up unannounced, the real backstage reveals itself. Goffman’s (1959) still-relevant reminder about the backstage is applicable here, more literally in documentary settings: “It is here that the capacity of a performance to express something beyond itself may be painstakingly fabricated; it is here that illusions and impressions are openly constructed. Here stage props and items of personal front can be stored in a kind of compact collapsing of whole repertoires of actions and characters” (p. 112). Aside from small moments of bickering, disagreements, fights, or impatience that we may get a few of in these structured documentaries around highly visible stars, we get pretty tame and manicured outtakes. To quote Goffman yet again, “Often it seems that whatever enthusiasm and lively interest we have at our disposal were served for those before whom we are putting on a show and that the surest sign of backstage solidarity is to feel that it is safe to lapse into an asociable [sic] mood of sullen, silent irritability” (p. 132). Although we seem to assume the personality of those on screen, or have assumed it prior to watching, having moments where one acts out of “character” as we know it may be the most authentic thing the on-screen performer can do.

Kevin Durant (KD) doesn’t seem to struggle as much with acting “out of character,” because he has accepted his role as a major celebrity who actually responds to criticism, hate, and comments online. Funny enough, he receives hate for responding to the hate due to his status; people wonder why he wastes his time and energy responding, meanwhile he just finds it entertaining to do so. In Episode Three of the doc, KD talks about interacting with fans on social media. He says he is especially active on social media when rehabbing: “I’m on edge. When I wake up at 8 o’clock and I go on my Twitter, and if I see something that’s too edgy, I’m going right back at you. That’s like my coffee in the morning.” James Harden (The Beard) reinforces this narrative, claiming many fans just want clout: “People get on social media and start just doing anything. In reality it’s just like making up shit.” Many other athletes have followed suit in responding to hecklers, not accepting a responsibility of being “bigger than” the low-stooping keyboard warriors who feel safe behind their computer screens, alias accounts, and anonymity. Responding to targeted attacks as a method of self-defense and responding for fan engagement purposes, we find a mixture of intentional posturing and entertainment serving social media participation. On Twitter, now X, “celebrity” is practiced through appearances and performances surrounding backstage access. The amount of personal sharing can be utilized to create a sense of intimacy between the poster and the follower, especially impactful for celebrities (Marwick & Boyd 2011). People may not resonate with Durant’s online antics and personality, but they should be able to appreciate his consistency and the reasoning for why he responds to fans in certain ways; he is a human after all. There is something refreshing about a celebrity interacting directly with fans in a manner that is deemed out of the ordinary for someone of their status. We judge athletes on the court for their performance and off the court for living their lives due to expectations around both performances. Breaking from the norm is, to me at least, a moment of authentic expression, as is complaining, retaliating, arguing, and celebrating on the court. As Schiller puts it, “[Man] is only fully a human being when he plays.”

From a young age, many of these stars have been in the public eye; whether it be through local news or regional awareness, they have experienced some sort of stardom due to their incredible athletic capabilities. In the first episode of Starting 5, Kevin Durant speaks to his celebrity tenure: “I’ve been around for 18 years. I been doin’ mad interviews. I done did mad [sic] commercials. You done see me since I was 18. When people say I’m a mystery, I sit there like maybe you just wasn’t focused.” KD claims his public persona has been available and is unwavering, consistent across his career; he has no intent to come off as mysterious. The lack of privacy in the lives of celebrities is unfathomable for most who do not share that social status. Alfred Archer and Catherine Robb (2022) dive into this topic in Being a Celebrity: Alienation, Integrity, and the Uncanny. They underscore a divide between public and private, sharing that they are not in simple opposition but at a complex interplay of distance and intimacy. The authors believe the ability to juggle the two selves, so that the private self can persist and evolve even under public scrutiny is key to avoiding alienation or loss of self. Even when high profile individuals such as athletes try to separate the public from their private lives, a blend occurs, creating an overlap of themselves. I’m sure it isonerous to keep secrets and stay unnoticed when many people have personal interests to follow and share your whereabouts and activities. On the contrary, one may argue that the willing participation in documentaries is an invitation to further blend the two versions of the performers. I may also add that it is the stars’ opportunity to take personal ownership, or psychological ownership, over the sharing of their personal selves. The ability to share on their own terms is likely part of the appeal, while other reasons could be the financial incentive to participate and the attraction to maintaining a strong celebrity presence, something documentaries can help yield.

Consider the behind-the-scenes access, the breaking of the fourth wall, and the exhibitionary nature of these specials. These are all reasons why documentaries are so successful and captivating. We may soon take for granted this type of media showcase due to the prevalence of them, but their reach will continue to grow along with the stardom of the casts. What is important is that we as people don’t forget those on the screen are not objects for our enjoyment but people as well. We may spend time judging their authenticity and critiquing their every move; but unless we are in their shoes or are put in similar situations to experience life in the public eye, we should give those people on-screen and on-court some grace. Although NBA stars are technically not actors, aside from a few with side pursuits on-screen, they have been proctored in a way to perform in an expected fashion, not all conforming to those expectations. Some who stray become cultural icons, while others become products of disgrace and disapproval; all publicity is good publicity when one monetizes around the use of one’s image. When people in the public eye veer away from their expected roles or personalities, may we consider the fatigue of meeting those expectations and give benefit of the doubt. Arlie Russell Hochschild (2003) noted that “whenever people do acting for a living, even if they have some control over the stage, they inhabit their own stage faces with caution: behind the mask, they listen to their own feelings at low volume” (p. 189). I propose that we consider this quote every time we begin critiquing or judging others whom we willingly participate in watching as opposed to claiming their salary is enough of a reason to receive the judgments. Let’s allow humanity to re-enter our train of thought and consideration when creating opinions of others and remind ourselves that we too put on performances, everyday, knowing our best act is the one without a script.

____________________________________________________________________________

References

Archer, A., & Robb, C. M. (2022). Being a celebrity: Alienation, integrity, and the uncanny. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 9(4), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2022.28

Carter, M., Henderson, J., Byron, P., Mims, R., Obama, B., Obama, M., Malhotra, V., Lewis, E., Manning, P., Horowitz, J., & Pepper, S. (Executive Producers). (2024). Starting 5 [Documentary series]. Uninterrupted, Omaha Productions, & Higher Ground Productions; Netflix.

Fang, W. (2025). When intimacy goes public: Gossip-based engagement in audience responses to sports documentary Break Point (Master’s thesis, Lund University). https://lup.lub.lu.se/

Fromm, E. (1947). Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315009827

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Hearn, A. (2008). “Meat, mask, burden”: Probing the contours of the branded self. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540508090086

Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (20th anniversary ed.). University of California Press.

Hund, E. (2023). The influencer industry: The quest for authenticity on social media. Princeton University Press.

Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856510394539

McDonald, I. (2007). Situating the sport documentary. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 31(3), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723507304608

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schiller, F. (1795/1967). On the aesthetic education of man: In a series of letters (E. M. Wilkinson & L. A. Willoughby, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Tolentino, J. (2019). I and the Internet. In Trick mirror: Reflections on self-delusion (pp. 125–160). New York, NY: Random House.