People of privilege, whether through bank account, skin color or other circumstances, hate it when the rules change. That's because they've always made the rules. They know no other domain.

And boy, is it fun to watch them squirm.

Case in point: People of privilege are powerless now amid the changing context of sports. No longer are sports what Howard Cosell once famously called the "toy department." Sports have become a blossoming canvas for political expression, such as what writer Charles Pierce called in the latest issue of Sports Illustrated "athlete activism."

Sure, there's always been a Muhammad Ali who has used a sporting platform to arouse and espouse. But now? The marriage of sports and politics is officially at the altar, perhaps the inevitable conclusion to the country's political climate that's both pervasive and contentious.

And the people of privilege hate it. Because of their privilege. They've always had, to varying degrees, what they want, when they want it. Until now. Other voices, perhaps echoing the heretofore voiceless, are being heard. It's an aria to many ears. But not to people of privilege.

Stick to sports, they harrumph. Hardly original. Or insightful. But it's all the people of privilege can muster, perhaps because they, like Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, can't handle the truth. Or maybe there's this: Sports, forever awash in metaphorical richness, have always been a microcosm of society. And the rhythms of this society have become about civil unrest.

At least in the eyes of the voiceless.

This is where athletes and their activism become as significant of a story as their production. Stick to sports? OK, so what does that mean now? Does that mean we should ignore LeBron James when he wears a hoodie in honor of the late Trayvon Martin and merely report that LeBron scored 30 that night?

Are we supposed to ignore Colin Kaepernick's choice to kneel for the Star Spangled Banner and only break down whether he can identify nickel coverage?

Ah, but that's what people of privilege want. Keep the voiceless ... voiceless. By espousing narratives with which only the privileged approve.

Sorry. Doesn't work that way anymore.

Pierce wrote: "The same horrible and preventable fate that befell those innocent people will be visited on a well-known athlete sooner or later. And when it happens, far too many people who know better will pretend to wonder why."

Pierce shoots, Pierce scores.

So, sorry, but "stick to sports" is a nonstarter. The rules of the privileged, for the privileged and by the privileged are no longer sacrosanct. They are being questioned in many different corners of society. Sports are no different.

What are the privileged to do? They can't turn to sports anymore to get away. The walls are closing in. Maybe they retreat to their underground caverns. Or gather with all the other folks who look like they do and sound like they do and act like they do. That way, everything they say can be fully substantiated by their own opinions.

Meantime, maybe athletes and their burgeoning activism is nothing more than preventive. For athletes. After all, as Pierce wrote, Dee Brown (1990, Wellesley, Mass.) and Michael Bennett (2017, Las Vegas) have been held at gunpoint for no good reason. One false move ...

"It doesn't matter whether the victim is an athlete or not, famous or not, rich or not," Pierce wrote, "sooner or later we are going to lose a person we cheer for to one of these situations."

Indeed. This is what "sticking to sports" has come to mean: sports reflects society now more than ever. The privileged helped create this climate. Now they're seeing the residual effect. And they don't like it. Problem is, they can't change the channel anymore.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro