We compete like we have something to compensate for. Perhaps we know how frail and fragile the human body is, and so we push ourselves to achieve records in speed, height, distance and other demonstrations of specialized skills such as object manipulation, counting the frequency that the object is struck or missed or hits a target. For every individual person who dedicates themself to upskilling in such specialized activities, the rest of humanity sits back and vicariously revels in their victories or commiserates in their losses. Win or lose, the competition alone is enough for exuberant vocalizing, releases of nervous energy — random or coordinated — while sharing food and drink with others who are just as invested in the outcome. For an activity to be called a ‘sport’, competitors and supporters are equally required to play their respective roles described above. Competitors without an audience are merely playing games.
Perhaps to an alien who has little knowledge of human culture, it might seem strange that masses of people seem to take credit and feel just as jubilant over a sporting victory that they did not themselves compete in. They did not train, risk injury, live disciplined lives of personal sacrifice of the athlete who rose above their challenges to secure the giant, shiny thing at the end of the competition. A flag to the victorious athlete’s family crest is not raised. Instead the national flag goes up, to the triumphant rendition of the nation’s anthem. That doesn’t seem fair.
A prime example of how unfair it seems for the athlete to win and the nation takes the credit is how Singapore’s swimming legend, Joseph Schooling, achieved an Olympic gold medal in the Rio Summer Games and his nation resonated with what should have been his own joy at triumphing over his own role model and hero, Michael Phelps. Singapore, the nation, was not able to provide the support young Schooling needed to compete at Olympic level. On his own family’s expense, he left the country to train in the USA while studying for his college degree. Technically, Schooling’s nation contributed very little to his eventual sporting success, yet Singapore’s national flag went up, the band played Singapore’s national anthem, and Singaporeans felt an undeserved euphoria for a week after Schooling struck gold — now claimed to be Singapore’s first ever Olympic gold medal. Wow. Unfair much?
But this is the nature of a ‘sport’ as opposed to a ‘game’. Games are informal, sometimes even impromptu, contests of skill (or chance!) between or among people who are unlikely to have put in much training or even physical conditioning to improve their odds of winning. Games are usually played for recreational purposes among informal gatherings of competitors displaying little skill that would attract much attention from non-participants. More importantly, rules vary and adapt to the situation with great flexibility. A ‘sport’, however, has fixed rules prescribing every aspect of the activity from regulation attire, squad composition, standardized equipment, and so on. Only by having such rigorous governance can nations compete against one another, making the sport a true contest of skills. For every sport, there are clear objectives and expectations which make goal setting possible for developing a training curriculum. Competing within a rule-based environment means that no nation can be exclusively advantaged. Timelines for specific competitions are clearly spelled out so that every competitor has the exact same amount of time to prepare for their event. There are also external independent governing bodies that oversee that the rules (such as anti-doping rules) are strictly adhered to according to standards that are transparent for all to see. It is only when competition is made fair that nations send their representative athletes to compete in ‘sports’.
Within the nations, once sporting standards are set and clarified, they pave the way for national investments in sporting infrastructure, for funding the various athletic bodies and their support professionals to train athletes who will go on to represent, not themselves, but their nations who made their participation possible. Athletes themselves are proud to represent their nations. Without national support, their talents might have gone to waste playing recreational games that, while healthy and uplifting to the individual, is still lesser of a feeling than uplifting the World Cup for Brazil along with the commensurate psychological and financial payoffs to come from a grateful (and hopefully generous) nation.
Individuals compete in games and nations compete in sports. An athlete representing their nation wins, but the win is for the nation, not for themselves. The win is a boost to national pride, a chapter in the annals of national history, and encouragement for the nation to pursue even more sporting success. And like the laurel wreath champions of the ancient Olympic games, many triumphant national athletes today are compensated well enough into retirement should they choose to never compete again. The trade-off is fairer than it looks.
(817 words)
Inspired by Singapore-Cambridge GCE ‘A’ Level H1 General Paper (Paper 1) 2020 Question #3