Pros and Cons of Sports

[Earl]

An adult who simply wants to exercise is probably not going to play sports; but for children, who usually would find simply running or lifting weights boring, if not unsafe for them, sports are a healthier alternative to the TV/computer/video games routine that dominates many kids' free time these days. Your statement that participation in a sport usually the previous attainment of physical fitness is true once children have reached the junior high/high school age, because that's when organized sports usually start to become far more competitive. But at that age most of them would also be ready to begin weightlifting or any other kind of physical fitness program.

You and I have no disagreement here. We both agree that a child's involvement in sports should be voluntary. Unfortunately, this view was simply unheard of when I was your age. The reason why some kids are not physically active is because fitness has usually been advocated in the form of participation in sports. So, if a kid isn't good at sports, he's going to assume that physical activity just isn't for him. Besides, kids enjoy doing what interests them and what they can do well -- whether it's sports, video games, or something else. I'm convinced that the emphasis placed upon sports in traditional mandatory P.E. classes (such as Sergey's, apparently, by the way) has actually discouraged nonathletic boys from becoming physically active. As I've said so many times before, historically the physical fitness needs of nonathletic boys (who have been viewed by so many boys' P.E. coaches with indifference or disdain) have been ignored. Even today so many of those who profess to be concerned about obesity among children seem to think that only sports is the solution to this problem. Many of those people really don't seem to have much compassion for those kids who are bad off physically.

[Earl]

You are correct in that sports do not teach morality, but many people on here are also too quick to label them as immoral or harmful. Would I was trying to do with this list is admit that there is, as I believe you called it, a "dark side" to sports, but also say that sports are far from the only cause of these wrongs. But what I disliked the most is how you said that sports have only bad consequences.

Thank you acknowledging that I was correct (not that I think I'm right all the time, because over the years I've made more than my share of mistakes). To give a more extreme example of the importance of morality, science (which has been so beneficial to mankind) divorced from morality can have absolutely disastrous consequences. Witness, for example, the hideous medical experiments Nazi doctors performed upon concentration camp inmates.

I don't believe that there is anything inherently immoral or harmful about sports. I and other members of the forum do not object to what happens in an athletic event. What we object to are certain attitudes and the mindset associated with certain sports. Sports such as swimming, water polo, and tennis don't have this problem. I will say that I make no apologies for saying that machismo (properly defined) is wrong.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought sports have only bad consequences, because I don't believe that. If I had a teenage son who wanted to play football in high school, I would support him. But I think problems do arise when some sport has become like a religion to a lot of people. There is something terribly wrong when even whole communities rush to defend players accused of crimes against others. I know of specific instances of this happening.

I have gone back through this forum and read all of the posts from the beginning, and I read the post by Captain America. He made some statements that were certainly rude and bullying towards anti-sports people, but he did make a valid point when he said that sports taught him the discipline he needed to improve his grades.

I have some strong comments to make that I want you to understand are not directed against you. Judging from the comments you've made in your posts, if you were my son, I would be proud of you because you seem to be quite decent in the way you view and treat others. That being said (and I hope I wasn't too mawkish), sports may have taught Captain America to improve his grades; but the fact remains that he is still a jerk. He certainly is not disciplined enough to engage us in at least a debate, if not a dialogue (as you and Polite24 have done). Instead, he personally attacked individuals he didn't even know. Yes, I know that some of the anti-sports statements that have been made at this website are "in your face." If he had had enough self-discipline to control his anger long enough to actually give specific reasons why he was so offended, I would have been impressed with him. But notice that he did not care to stick around to talk to anyone. In fact, he's a coward, intellectually speaking. (I know what I'm talking about because I did this once myself at another website!) As far as I'm concerned, he's not to be admired, period. He's full of arrogance and no doubt expects others to bow down to him just because he's a football player. I know the type quite well. When I started high school, I quickly learned to fear and stay away from guys like him.

[greencom]

Sports gave Capt. America the discipline to better his grades? What a steaming load of bullshit! What subjects was he taking, maybe "Advanced Sweating 101" or maybe "Headbutting II" ? Capt. America is a sick joke of a human being and a perfect example of the typical asshole athlete.
Greencom

[Ray]

Pros

-Sports raise money for educational institutions.

WRONG. There are numerous sources that accurately report that sports are, at least financially, a losing proposition. Here's only one:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... tudy_N.htm

Inescapable conclusion: sports are a drain on the rest of college activities (and the rest of humanity). BOO YAA!!!

You left out the schools that did receive subsides, where the more than half of the programs (about 57 percent to be more exact) were profitable. Also, college sports are just like any other kind of business, and depending on a variety of variables and factors, some businesses will gain money, and some will lose it.

WHAT? Do you know what subsidies are? It's money given that wasn't earned --like welfare. Subsidies means that the school had to take money from their profitable operations and DONATE it to the sports section to keep it afloat. That's nothing to be proud of. Unless you count being on welfare as coming out a winner. Oh --maybe you do.

[Ray]

Sports teams weren't even ON my list when I was looking at colleges. But I'm probably not the best example.


In a time when more people than ever are obese, sports are a way to exercise. (Only one of many, and a lot of obese people tend to WATCH sports rather than play, which isn't exactly exercise, unless you count jumping around like an idiot when your team scores.)

-Sports teach children how to follow rules, as well as that there are penalties for breaking them. (Parents and teachers do that too! Or should, anyway.)

-Sports teach the value of teamwork, which is concept needed in any kind of job or career. (Don't need sports for that either.)

-A great number of jobs are directly and indirectly provided by the sports industry. (Yes, and a great number of jobs aren't.)

-All of the major sports leagues and their teams, as well as many of their players, are involved in charity. (Don't have to be in sports to be involved in a charity.)

-Sports teams can make a person proud of their city or school. (If the only thing you have to be proud of regarding your city or school is the sports team, then it's probably not much of a city or school.)

-Sports raise money for educational institutions. (What Ray said.)

-Sports scholarships have enabled many students to go to college when they would not otherwise be able to afford it. (So basically kids who aren't interested in sports are screwed, right? Except, isn't there also a little thing called financial aid?)

-Successful sports teams make colleges more desirable and prestigous to students. (For academically elite universities such as Duke and USC, this was a big factor in them getting to where they are.) (Again, what Ray said.)


If you insist on attaching a "but" to all the cons, I can do that to the pros.

Right on! Your buts make a lot more sense than his though!

[SportsGuy92]

So it's both a con and pro. These things dominating kids free time isn't a negative influence.

It is a negative influence when it affects peoples' health.

[Sergey]

This is just sad... he tries to make the cons look better than they are without bringing up the problems with the pros. So until you stop that fucking act I'll say video games > sports. Oh and for the record video games have mind boggling amount of spectators too.

[Earl]

You are correct in that sports do not teach morality, but many people on here are also too quick to label them as immoral or harmful. Would I was trying to do with this list is admit that there is, as I believe you called it, a "dark side" to sports, but also say that sports are far from the only cause of these wrongs. But what I disliked the most is how you said that sports have only bad consequences.

I know I'm repeating myself, but I did not say that sports have only bad consequences. I'm not irritated with you. I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstood. Sports, after all, are morally neutral in the same way that learning to play a musical instrument, for example, is morally neutral. However, some of the attitudes associated with certain sports are not morally neutral. To say that sports are bad is too broad and is not what I believe. I may see the need for reform in certain sports as institutions, but that doesn't mean that I think everything about sports is bad. On the other hand, I think that the sports establishment should be subject to the same critical evaluation that other institutions are subjected to in this country, which is something that the sports media has repeatedly failed to do.

[Earl]

So it's both a con and pro. These things dominating kids free time isn't a negative influence.

It is a negative influence when it affects peoples' health.

I don't think that video games cause children to become physically inactive. If there were no video games, they would find some other way to enjoy themselves, such as by reading books or by watching TV. It could be argued that historically mandatory sports-centered P.E. caused nonathletic kids to shun physical activity by subjecting them to humiliating experiences. I remember the social divide that was common between athletic and nonathletic boys when I was a kid. The situation doesn't seem to have changed.