History of Games and Sports

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2021

In this paper, I am going to present a condensed version of my theory of what sport is from my book The Philosophy of Football. In that work, I took my starting point in Bernard Suits’ celebrated, though controversial view that a game is “the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles’ and a sport is a game that involves physical skills with a wide following and a wide level of stability. In the monograph, I carefully work through Suits’ theory showing which clauses of the analysis can be kept, which have to be amended and which should be rejected, while adding other elements to provide an adequate understanding of sport. Here I will not follow suit. Instead, on the scholarly issue of situating my view in the literature, I confer my reader to the book, and instead focus on presenting my own positive view of what sport is and my reasons for holding it. Sport is an extra-ordinary, unnecessary, rule-based, competitive, skill-based physical activity or practice where there is cooperation to fulfil the prelusory goal of having a competition, where mere sport participants endure or tolerate the implementation of a sport’s constitutive rules, whereas sport practitioners also aim at fulfilling sport’s lusory goal of winning, minimally not losing, whichever sport competition they partake in. I present the idea that sport is a social historical kind and how we should understand that before addressing my suggested analysis of sport and how it fits our concept of sport and sports as we find them practiced by us.

Sport is characterized as embodied, structured, goal-oriented, competitive, contest-based, and ludic in nature. The institutionalization of sport is highlighted in terms of the overall process of sportification with an emphasis on the underlying social processes of rationalization, legitimization, democratization, and globalization.

Sports, Ethics, and Philosophy, 2022

One of the most pressing points in the philosophy of sport is the question of a definition of sport. Approaches towards sport vary based on a paradigm and position of a particular author. This article attempts to analyse and critically evaluates a recent definition of sport presented by Jim Parry in the context of argument that e-sports are not sports. Despite some innovations, his conclusions are in many ways traditional and build on the previous positions. His research, rooted in the conceptual analysis, starts with a stipulation that sport is paradigmatically Olympic sport. He defines it then as an 'institutionalised, rule-governed contest of human physical skill' i.e., identifies six necessary elements of sport: human (not animals), physical (not chess), skill (not jogging), contest (not mountaineering), rule-governed (not 'field sports'), institutionalized (not hula-hopping). Our claim is that this definition, despite its methodological clarity, is not accurate and does not sufficiently represent sport outside the Olympic context. First, to say for something to be a sport it is necessary to be a contest leads to a narrow concept of sport. Secondly, Parry's account lacks the emphasis on game and play-like structures that are inherently present in sport (even in the Olympic sport), namely non-necessity, non-ordinariness, arbitrariness and gratuitousness. We try to direct the attention precisely on these structures and offer an alternative account of sport understood as a modern 'hard core' sport that nevertheless reaches important congruences with Parry's definition. The originality of this contribution lies in presenting the essential qualities of modern 'hard core' sports, which, although sometimes hidden in the modern emphasis on high level performances, competition, and results, play an important role in the question how sport ought to be played and approached.

International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2016

This paper focuses on the problem of social legitimization of eSport in the context of traditional sports. Its objective is to investigate knowledge and attitudes towards eSports, as well as their recognition as legitimate sports. The first part of the paper consists of the definition and differentiation between eSport and eSports. The second part provides an analysis of various definitions of sport and comparison of main qualities of eSport and sport. The third part includes identification of the most problematic features of eSports in public opinion and their analysis.

2016

In this paper we explore whether and how 'sport' can be an adequate and valid sociological concept considering the multitude of contested meanings and definitions attached to 'sport' by different stakeholders in the sports field. Firstly, we argue that essentialist definitions of 'sport' too often one-sidedly focus on physical exertion and neglect the socially distinguishing nature of sportive practices as part of a lifestyle. Secondly, survey questions reflect this physical definition of 'sport' and assume that 'sport' has an obviously similar meaning to respondents. However, reflecting the struggle to define 'sport' in the sports field, people with different socio-demographic backgrounds differ in their understanding of the concept. Because current measurement of 'sport' does not adequately deal with the open and contested nature of the concept, suggestions on how to collect survey data on sport participation are presented.

This chapter reveals ‘game’ as a contested concept, a concept which has direct genealogy to the use of games as codified sports or field games, such as rugby, football, hockey, netball etc. that Western Education systems commonly promote. The interesting tension between the concept of ‘game’ and the pursuit of physical games in sport, is the claim for their useful educational impacts on two counts: i. concerning moral and ethical [character] development of good citizens through the playing of field games, and ii, the preparing of children and youth to get on in life through the use of strategy and competition. The second point has become particularly powerful, almost dominating in a society driven by a Utilitarian ethic and Capitalism. For example, as a product of learning through ‘game’ (and sporting field games) doing well in life seemingly equates to maximising profits or gain (winning) to achieve the greatest good. Therefore, we see that Physical Education has a pivotal and influential stake in the grand educational plan of preparing young people for life, where a concept of ‘game’ is intrinsically connected to field games in PE. To explore this tension, a tactic in our chapter is to travel back and forth in time to see how the values and motives for games and ‘game’ have been promoted, shared, developed and contested. We discovered that while there has been much evolution and learning about sports culture and the impact of games and ‘game’ in our society over the last 150 years, the reasons, values and interests to include field games in curricula and extra-curricula activities has not changed over this period. This coincides with a period of evolution in formal State Education plans and policies, where ‘game’ and games have been imported, given that notions of strategy and competition in business and sporting pastimes through games existed long before this period. However, the status of Physical Education, with its key role and responsibility for nurturing an understanding of ‘game’ through the practice of games has diminished at the present time, become stuck in a cave, compared to the status of other subjects on the National Curriculum in the UK, almost to the point of non-existence in the Primary sector. Leading PE out of the cave and into the light is the CARE Curriculum, which is a new perspective on how to facilitate practical games experiences for learners, but placing the learner at the centre of operations for personal growth. Learners do not become subservient to ‘game’, having to adapt and keep up with the race, - or be at risk of dropping out completely. CARE is a more inclusive curricula for becoming physically educated through games, rather than merely honing survival skills where only the fittest can win or benefit. This is achieved by concentrating entirely upon Cognitive, Active, Relational and Emotional aspects of development through games and physical activity. CARE is a new lens of operating with the ‘game’ concept, utilising physical games for personal development that can enable Physical Education to assert its true status as the leading core subject in the grand educational plan for children and youth. Key words: ‘game’, competition, field games, codified sport, character development, CARE Curriculum