There exists a surprisingly nuanced debate about what constitutes a sport; elements of competition, physicality and skill are all important, but where do the lines lie between games and sports? And how clear are they?
What is a sport, really? The actual word, “sport”, comes from the Old French word desport, which at the time meant “leisure”, a “pleasant pastime” that offered “amusement or relaxation”. Since then it has evolved into something more narrow and at the same time more inclusive. It is now a word used to describe its own world that has been made to encompass a large and frankly ridiculous number of activities.
Once again, what is a sport? Chess? NASCAR? This? The list of ridiculous activities labeled as sports goes on and on. With the emergence of E-Sports, competitions such as Ninja Warrior, and the broadcasting of Cornhole tournaments, I believe that this question begs an answer now more than ever. The problem is, there does not exist one commonly agreed upon definition of a sport. If you check different sources, you run into a myriad of problems nailing down exactly what a sport is and what qualifies as one. Are board games sports? Is racing a sport? Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com do not even agree, so how can we? What qualifies under one definition does not qualify under another, and the formal definitions do not even begin to scratch the surface of what your high school track coach has to say on the matter.
In light of these ambiguities I would like to humbly posit a new definition of what a sport is, a “rigorous definition”, per se. Obviously this is a completely subjective area. But, I believe that conditions and definitions should be established within our shared lexicon so as to maintain the integrity of real sports and of our language as a whole. Does this really matter in the context of the broader events happening in the world? No. Am I just a random person with an opinion that holds no bearing on your life? Most definitely. Is this a hill that I am willing to die on? Absolutely.
Many activities such as cross country, golf, and swimming are called sports. I do not consider any of these to be real sports. They are competitive events. There is undeniably a mental factor involved in racing next to someone on a track, but you could control for outside influences and have an unlimited number of athletes across the world compete against each other in a race by marking down times and scores. Calling that a sport degrades what it means to play a sport. Direct physical competition is integral to the essence of a sport because of how it intrinsically affects the game. You could not remove this face to face aspect in hockey or any other real sport, and the intensity that comes from grappling with an opponent, overcoming them physically to achieve victory, is not present in merely beating their times or score. You are competing against the athlete’s score, not against the athlete themselves. Participants are often simply performing some physical activity repetitively, but more importantly competing against their opponent in a mental arena and against themselves physically rather than competing with their opponents mentally and physically. This can lead to athletes focusing on some arbitrary or abstract goal with no direct opposition other than their own mind. I believe that this does not follow the nature of what sports have come to be and is therefore a core point in the definition of the word “sport”.
This pedantry is not an effort to downplay the incredible fitness and prowess of modern athletes, the professional variety of whom are most likely better than me at every aspect of life, or the difficulties of participating in their chosen athletic contests. It is rather to point out that by allowing any competition, even physical in nature, to be a sport, you degrade the rest of the sports world and open the door to any number of competitions, no matter how ridiculous. I could make a game out of hitting my head against the wall as many times as I could bear, and if you were to do the same and we compared numbers and declared a winner, by many contemporary definitions we would have just competed in a sport. For this reason and for your reading pleasure I have defined below what the qualifications should be for a competition to fall under the definition, and coveted title, of a “sport”.
1.) An individual playing session, or game, is held between exactly two teams, each of one or more players. Furthermore, the teams compete directly on a field of play in opposition to one another, where one team’s actions affect the other team’s actions and force them to react accordingly.
a.) This rule is set to define the limits of competition in one way, since sports are meant to be a direct competition, and having an arbitrary number of teams degrades the level of direct competition. This means that teams compete physically and affect each other’s actions. This is not just in the sense that they elicit a response mentally, such as being motivated by another runner’s progress, but in the sense that you are moving to physically counter them, like a soccer player moving in to defend against an oncoming player or a tennis player moving to return their opponent’s shot.
2.) A game should finish with the result being that one team has won and the other has lost, or the that two teams have a tied score at the previously determined end point, e.g. a time limit.
a.) A sport is a type of competition, so there needs to be a definitive outcome.
3.) A score is assigned to each team corresponding to the number of times certain predetermined actions are performed by that team. The only judgement involved by an official is whether the actions were performed, and the outcome of the game is determined by the final score.
a.) This is meant to lead to a definitive outcome. The point of this inclusion is that the actions to complete the score are not arbitrary, but rather set and officials only have to judge whether or not an action was completed based on the rules, not judge the quality of the action, i.e. assuring that the ball has entered the end zone vs the assigning a score to the quality of a dive.
4.) The players regularly engage in rapid, self-propelled locomotion, such as, but not limited to, swimming, running, or skating.
a.) Sports are physical activities, not just mental games to be played.
5.) The duration of the game is limited either by time or by the completion of a preselected number of play units, the scope of which is determined by the completion of certain events during play.
a.) This places limits on games so that they do not go on forever. This is included in this definition to create further boundaries on the definition of a sport.
6.) The objective of the game does not involve directly harming an opponent.
a.) This has to do with the bounds of play and somewhat with the bounds of reason. In games you do not look to hurt the opponent physically because sports are meant as a recreational event to have fun and play and stay fit. Also, if you bring harming an opponent into the definition, where does it stop? At death?
b.) Some might say that this unnecessarily excludes boxing and other competitions and devalues the skill that goes into them. Boxing, MMA, etc. involve an enormous amount of skill, and I do not mean to deny that. On the other hand, many events such as these are based on harming your opponent until they give up or cannot fight, and if you do not succeed, you are arbitrarily judged by a panel of supposedly unbiased people, which adds a level of ambiguity to the game. The definition of a sport should not rely solely on the level of skill it takes to compete with someone, as there are many highly skilled activities that are not sports.
7.) There is a well-defined and consistent field of play that limits the motion of players within the bounds of said area so as to centralize gameplay and demark certain areas used for scoring or the administration of rules (i.e. end zone, out of bounds line, free throw line, etc.).
a.) This definition is meant to take out ambiguity in the definition of a sport, specifically by putting bounds on how one may define the field of play. If there is no definition or consistency put on the place where athletes can compete, the game changes constantly and efforts to establish rules and scoring become far more difficult.
8.) The status of a solid inanimate object, movable by the force of one player, is of central importance when play is active. Furthermore, when play is active, the object is not physically attached to any player.
a.) This means a ball, puck, or some such object, and it focuses the play of the game. By the rules of grammar one plays a sport or participates in a sport, and this seems to imply that the focus is not on the athlete playing the game. As with all of the points, this also serves to firm up and narrow what may be counted as a sport.
9.) Only humans participate in the game.
a.) For the safety of animals and humans involved, I think this should be included in the definition of a sport. Adding animals into the game adds another variable of play to the equation that, while somewhat reliant on the humans involved, is something that cannot be completely controlled and goes against the nature of directly competing with your opponent.
Now, I am sure that one can come up with some ridiculous activity that can be finagled into fitting the rules laid out above. However, for all its failings, this definition is more concrete than what currently exists. Take to all the points, just some, or none as you see fit. And for those of you who are rightly pointing out that this is far too long of a definition to fit in to a dictionary, I would counter that the words I string together should never go into something as formal as a dictionary. On top of that, definitions for many words transcend what you can fit in to a couple of sentences. The real definition, the true essence, of a word and in this case what qualifies as and defines a sport is decided by how society uses the word and what we mean when we speak it. A treatise could be written on every word in the English language with the purpose of defining each one fully and without question and yet we would still debate their meaning and usage without end. This is merely my proposal for the definition of one such word and my personal effort to bring a concrete meaning to a word I fear has lost all exclusivity and weight.
From dorm cafeterias to office lunch tables I have espoused my controversial views on this subject, and I hope that, even if you do not agree with my points, the definition I have put forth makes you dwell a little deeper on the topic and that the same staunchly held views which have caused multiple friends to nearly attack me may lead to fruitful, or at least interesting conversations in your life.
This content has been reposted from Medium.com/ for informational purposes only.