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

Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
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?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
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.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
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.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
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 ;)
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
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.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
blackcat said:
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!
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
Maxiton said:
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?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Basecase said:
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.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
Dazed and Confused said:
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?
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
blackcat said:
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?
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Basecase said:
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.
 
Basecase said:
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.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
Maxiton said:
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?
 
Aug 21, 2012
138
0
0
Basecase said:
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.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
Dazed and Confused said:
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.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
jam pants said:
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.
Can you leave out the personal jibes and stick to the topic. I hope you have more to add?
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Fair play. Pro sport as it is is a freak, representative of the times we live in. In sport in general fair play is more important. Imagine for a second strictly no money changed hands in sport - everyone does it for it's own sake. Now imagine there is money, but no rules. The former would just be amateur sport, the latter basically organised crime, and irrelevant to the subject of this forum.
 
Basecase said:
That didn't change the objectives of the game though or the rules on the field as such.
Well, football will always be about scoring goals, just like cycling will be about crossing the line first on a two wheel instrument.

Nevertheless the above example will often change the outcome of a football tournament (go back a check if you like) and it was all about revenue.

Last comment from me.
 
Basecase said:
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.
0-0 draws don't sell tickets. Forwards and midfielders sell tickets. Defenders have been increasingly emasculated over the last 20 years in the interests of safety, but if today's footballers wore the same boots and shinguards as those 30-40 years ago they wouldn't be so vulnerable to being injured. The emasculation of defenders was done with the interest of the revenue at hand (it was in the lead-in to the USA World Cup that tackling from behind giving a guaranteed card was introduced, with the aim of selling the sport to the USA with more attacking football and more goals, since the authorities believed for whatever reason that the lack of scoring was the obstacle to breaking through in America), and paved the way for a number of tightenings of the laws on tackling, all of which favour the attacker. It has led to diving being taught on training grounds and given the euphemistic term "simulation", while a player will run into the penalty area, stick his leg out at 45º to brush a defender, throw himself in a crumpled heap on the floor, and the commentators will be screaming "there was contact! There was contact!" as if just touching another player is enough to justify a penalty. Physical defenders are now a thing of the past, players that would get under your skin and intimidate forwards. They can't exist in today's sport, because it's all been tweaked repeatedly to favour the attackers, because they sell tickets. Paulo Montero was probably the last real footballer, with a shout out to Mark van Bommel for at least trying to keep the sport alive.

The offside rule was introduced for a reason, but it has been tweaked many times over the last few years, thanks primarily to people like Ruud van Nistelrooy finding loopholes and playing hard and fast with the limits of the rules.

Another thing on revenue that trumps fair play without changing the rules of football per se... remember South Korea in the 2002 World Cup (several of the matches but especially the Spain one)?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS