Log in:  

Register

What's more important in sport? Revenue or fair play?

A place to discuss all things related to current professional road races. Here, you can also touch on the latest news relating to professional road racing. A doping discussion free forum.

What's more important in sport? Revenue or fair play?

20 Jan 2013 07:35

Granted cycling does have economic barriers to entry for competitors eg necessity to spend at least €1,500 even to start to compete.

Once that requirement on an individual's finances is taken care of and enough people can take to a start line, what's most important then?
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 07:49

Who's asking?
The UCI doping Helpline if calling from Great Britain: 00 800 8884 8884.
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,327
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

20 Jan 2013 08:01

I am, it's for discussion. Does that matter?
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 08:05

revenue

the market decided.

this was a crucial aspect in Armstrongs dominance. 2003 Tour, without the team timetrial, Raimondas Rumsas beats Beloki for second. Rumsas was no mug. He had won Lombardia.

But he came second in the Tour, without Ferrari, without the USPS story, and without Stapleton and the US cancer revenues.

Change those elements, and have Armstrong with Kik's motokik doping program, and Rumsas has the USPS advantages, Rumsas wins.

The market has decided.

Also, many talent riders from Eastern and Central Europe, South America, South Africa, New Zealand do not get a look in. British and Australian and American riders always get more chances. If Bradley Wiggins was from Latvia he would never have got a chance after Cofidis. Or after Linda McCartney.
`I'm Anna, [SIZE="4"]we're the Armstrongs[/SIZE], my husband's Lance, he was just driving maybe too fast around the corner or something,'
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,072
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

20 Jan 2013 08:19

Hmmmm, but you can only generate revenue in sport on the basis that there is a value in sport.

All sports have rules to ensure fair play.

Sports exist and continue to exist only because they have rules.

Surely rules, and therefore fair play should take precedent over revenue?

Isn't that what gets jumbled with doping. Isn't that what happened in the Lance debacles.
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 08:25

your premise is flawed.

the starting point, your premise is you/I/we, are watching sport.

you are not. Its entertainment. And the entertainment is a business ;)
`I'm Anna, [SIZE="4"]we're the Armstrongs[/SIZE], my husband's Lance, he was just driving maybe too fast around the corner or something,'
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,072
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

20 Jan 2013 08:30

If you're the investor or the owner, then perhaps revenue trumps fair play. If you are the fan, or the athlete, fair play is most important. That's why it matters who's doing the asking.
The UCI doping Helpline if calling from Great Britain: 00 800 8884 8884.
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,327
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

20 Jan 2013 08:32

In Pro sports cash will always be king in the end.
Dazed and Confused
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,805
Joined: 27 Jan 2012 23:14

20 Jan 2013 08:33

blackcat wrote:your premise is flawed.

the starting point, your premise is you/I/we, are watching sport.

you are not. Its entertainment. And the entertainment is a business ;)


And I'd say ultimately your premise is flawed.

People watch sport as it relates to what they may have been maybe?

When kids kicking a ball or having a race, shouldn't fair play have applied. Isn't any sport just an extension of those principles?

Too merely simplify sport as entertainment is too convenient.

Might help the more than entertainment contention:

http://www.quora.com/Sports/Why-do-sports-really-matter-exist

If you are having competiton, you need rules. Simple!
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 08:36

Maxiton wrote:If you're the investor or the owner, then perhaps revenue trumps fair play. If you are the fan, or the athlete, fair play is most important. That's why it matters who's doing the asking.


But the whole purpose of this discussion is to look beyond self interests and try to establish ultimately what's best for society with the role sport plays in it.

Do you need to know where someone is coming from before you give your opinion?
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 08:38

Dazed and Confused wrote:In Pro sports cash will always be king in the end.


Only subject to that sport having rules and those involved abiding by them. Hence the rules should trump the revenue.
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 08:50

Basecase wrote:And I'd say ultimately your premise is flawed.

People watch sport as it relates to what they may have been maybe?

When kids kicking a ball or having a race, shouldn't fair play have applied. Isn't any sport just an extension of those principles?

Too merely simplify sport as entertainment is too convenient.

Might help the more than entertainment contention:

http://www.quora.com/Sports/Why-do-sports-really-matter-exist

If you are having competiton, you need rules. Simple!


rules, like how the nba picks the refs who will call the game for the big market teams, LA Miami Chicago NYC Boston. too easy.

the problem in my view, is where the transition occurs. this is the quandry or paradox. When does one graduate an what alma mater.

it is hazy, there is not a clean response.
`I'm Anna, [SIZE="4"]we're the Armstrongs[/SIZE], my husband's Lance, he was just driving maybe too fast around the corner or something,'
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,072
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

20 Jan 2013 08:54

Basecase wrote:Only subject to that sport having rules and those involved abiding by them. Hence the rules should trump the revenue.


Probably should, but in many cases doesn't.

Even Football/Soccer, one of the most conservative sports on the planet, tweaks the rules mostly as a result of revenue considerations.
Dazed and Confused
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,805
Joined: 27 Jan 2012 23:14

20 Jan 2013 09:07

Dazed and Confused wrote:Probably should, but in many cases doesn't.

Even Football/Soccer, one of the most conservative sports on the planet, tweaks the rules mostly as a result of revenue considerations.


Can you give me an example in soccer of what you are talking about?
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 09:08

blackcat wrote:rules, like how the nba picks the refs who will call the game for the big market teams, LA Miami Chicago NYC Boston. too easy.

the problem in my view, is where the transition occurs. this is the quandry or paradox. When does one graduate an what alma mater.

it is hazy, there is not a clean response.


Are you standing by your previous contention that my premise is flawed and sport is just entertainment?
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 09:15

Basecase wrote:But the whole purpose of this discussion is to look beyond self interests and try to establish ultimately what's best for society with the role sport plays in it.


I must have missed that in your OP.

Do you need to know where someone is coming from before you give your opinion?


In this land of trolls, yes, it would be advisable.
The UCI doping Helpline if calling from Great Britain: 00 800 8884 8884.
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,327
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

20 Jan 2013 09:18

Basecase wrote:Can you give me an example in soccer of what you are talking about?


Winning a game used to give 2 points, just one more than what a draw would yield. Matches were often dull (read:tactical), so the rule makers decided to give the winning team 3 points instead. Better entertainment, more fans etc.

Most of the rule tweaks are driven by revenue consideration.
Dazed and Confused
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,805
Joined: 27 Jan 2012 23:14

20 Jan 2013 09:18

Maxiton wrote:I must have missed that in your OP.



In this land of trolls, yes, it would be advisable.


Maybe you missed it yes - was in the subtext. In that sport could be defined as a sub set of society. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Advisable? Who gives you authority to advise on such? and on what premise does this advise come from?
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

20 Jan 2013 09:19

Basecase wrote:Granted cycling does have economic barriers to entry for competitors eg necessity to spend at least €1,500 even to start to compete.

Once that requirement on an individual's finances is taken care of and enough people can take to a start line, what's most important then?


Judging by the threads you've started today, we're now all aware that you just finished your first read of The Fountainhead. Let us know if you need more help with the book report for your high school literature course.
jam pants
Junior Member
 
Posts: 110
Joined: 21 Aug 2012 03:25

20 Jan 2013 09:20

Dazed and Confused wrote:Winning a game used to give 2 points, just one more than what a draw would yield. Matches were often dull (read:tactical), so the rule makers decided to give the winning team 3 points instead. Better entertainment, more fans etc.

Most of the rule tweaks are driven by revenue consideration.


That didn't change the objectives of the game though or the rules on the field as such.

It was akin to upping prize money so to speak.
Basecase
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 12 Sep 2010 23:11

Next

Return to Professional road racing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bumeington, distanced, dusty red roads, giamakr1, Google [Bot], LightBing, mme de guermantes, nobilis, Noverca, rhubroma and 53 guests

Back to top