From time to time I like to check in on American sports to
see what is going on. They are after all, as with many other American
industries, the most extraordinary apex of possible competitiveness, combined
with greed and commercialisation. The recent scandal about ‘bounty prizes’ for
injuring other players in American Football has made me think quite a bit (see
bottom for links to good coverage of this issue).
Sports spectating is such a popular escape hatch for many
ordinary Americans otherwise trapped in the intensity of their country’s
work-ethic and material consumption, which may be why professional sports there
are subject to such intense scrutiny, and at times, false moralising. Sports
stars are often held to a far higher level of accountability than ordinary
citizens – whether it be in their conduct (drunk-driving, gambling,
womanising), or their beliefs (racism, religious intolerance, chauvinism) –
despite the fact that all of these sins are unfortunately widely shared within
society at large. So when I first read that there is a bounty hunting scandal,
I was thinking that this would be more sanctimonious hand-wringing from morally
upstanding citizens who somehow nevertheless enjoy the violence of American
football.
However, looking more closely at the issue, I can
immediately see that there is a huge gap between giving a team-mate a prize or
winnings of a betting pool for making the best tackle or defensive play in a
game, as compared with intentionally setting out to hurt people. The morality
play around gambling is out of place here as long as players are only gambling
on positive outcomes (i.e. betting on themselves to win, not fixing games to
lose), we all know that millions of people love Las Vegas and Native American reservations
because they too like to gamble. However, it raises questions about whether
there is such a thing as the spirit of sportsmanship. Is it naive to imagine
that sportsmen participate, even at the highest levels, not only for money and
power, but also because the game is a source of stimulation and drive in their
lives? And if so, surely they treasure the game for its roots in personal
satisfaction and enjoyment, even if the pressures they face are much higher?
We will always have situations where people lose sight of
what is really important to them – sports history is littered with stories of
those who fell by the wayside as they lost what connected them to that life. And
to my mind, setting out to deliberately hurt a fellow competitor in ways not
officially prescribed within the sport (it’s ok to aim to concuss someone in
boxing, that is after all the definition of a knockout and it is agreed by both
competitors, while it’s not ok to bite your opponent’s ear out of frustration),
is a definite example of this. However, sports is hardly unique in this loss of
principles – there are perhaps even more stories of this in business life and
politics – other men under pressure are no less fallible or less likely to make
decisions which betray their original motivations.
At a higher level however, there is a real question about
what the role of those entrusted with the overall direction of a sport are
motivated by? In Peter King’s article (linked below) he mentions that Roger
Goodell, the head honcho of the NFL, is a hard man when he needs to be. But I
think one could take that a step further – he may also be quite a cynical one:
having to walk a fine line between public outcry over the deliberate fostering
of violence in the sport, and knowing that fans watch in part because of this
violence, and that fans watching is what pays the bills. As is so often the
case in America’s litigious culture – one wonders whether Goodell is more
concerned about player welfare, or the threat of lawsuits as it emerges that
the extent of injuries to players during their careers is often life-defining
in their retirement. The NCAA, the governing body for collegiate amateur sports
in America, is very similarly in contradiction with itself – purportedly
protecting proud amateur traditions through a myriad of rules and regulations
which can be incredibly punitive against players accepting any sort of reward
for their efforts beyond their college scholarships, while also presiding over
negotiations for ever-increasing television rights money which is raised as a
direct result of the performances of these young sportspeople. This sort of
hypocrisy has reached a point in basketball where young players are now no
longer permitted to leave high school and directly enter the NBA – despite
ample evidence that many of them barely acquire the rudiments of a decent
college education in their lone year there, given the incredibly intense (and
near-professional) training regimens they are subjected to as college players.
Even my own beloved Rugby is slowly sliding in the wrong
direction. And unfortunately it seems to be a trend which those who are empowered
to change, are least likely to act upon. The International Rugby Board and
similar regional bodies such as SANZAR, continue to add to the total number of
teams and fixtures being played at the highest levels. With the result being
that Super Rugby and French Top 14 are both too long to allow for sustained
excellence throughout the competition. And worse, the surfeit of fixtures
throughout the year has reduced the public’s enthusiasm for attending games,
resulting in disappointing atmosphere and a lower quality experience for fans.
If the welfare of a game is at stake, and money is not the only objective, then
we should be looking to shorten the season and increase the intensity of the
games rather than watering down the product (the length of the season in
several major league sports in America renders many of the games meaningless,
and American Football is threatening to also extend their season, when in fact
one of the great advantages of the sport is that every game matters and
spectators rush to buy tickets knowing that the season is only four months
long).
Yes, we know that the revenues raised at the highest levels
of rugby are said to be paying for the development of the game in new countries
and at lower levels. However it is very unclear to what extent that money is
actually filtering through the levels of bureaucracy attached to the game, and
reaching the grass-roots. It seems that too many other office-holders stand
between the top and those most in need of better playing fields, better
coaching, and greater access to support and long-term planning.
Like so many things, it appears that decisions in
professional sports are being made in reaction to pressure from the media, and
legal threats. Those who are empowered to make decisions which can effect real
change, are largely judging matters based on commercial reward rather than
necessarily in the best interests of the game...
