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
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.
Dazed and Confused wrote:In Pro sports cash will always be king in the end.
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:
If you are having competiton, you need rules. Simple!
Basecase wrote:Only subject to that sport having rules and those involved abiding by them. Hence the rules should trump the revenue.
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.
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.
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.
Do you need to know where someone is coming from before you give your opinion?
Basecase wrote:Can you give me an example in soccer of what you are talking about?
Maxiton wrote:I must have missed that in your OP.
In this land of trolls, yes, it would be advisable.
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?
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.
Users browsing this forum: 42x16ss, Eyeballs Out, fideluto, Google [Bot], Happy dude, hughmoore, kingoftheoverpasses, meat puppet, nightingale2016, No_Balls, One Eyed Aussie, the asian, TheGreenMonkey, Yahoo [Bot] and 70 guestsBack to top