The notion of competition depicted in sport literature appears to be inconsistent with the goals of current European soccer competitions. This paper examines two misconceptions of fair competition which are prevalent in these competitions. First, it aims at refuting the view that professional soccer only requires some basic equality of chances beyond the differences in players’ skills and managers’ knowledge of game strategy. In other words, it refutes the view that professional soccer only demands a notion of fair competition understood (...) as fair play. Second, the paper also aims at refuting the view that fair competition, in professional soccer, is simply a matter of financial viability. Hence, it calls for both genuine legal and ethical reforms, since professional soccer competition requires a notion of equality as both a goal and a right. Such a notion, we argue, must conceive of the differences in players’ skills and managers’ knowledge of game strategy as one of the primary factors in establishing a platform founded in fair competition. Therefore, this paper calls for a radical change of attitude toward or a radical approach to fair competition among European sport fans, policy-makers, and administrators. (shrink)

In 1972 I attended the Pre-Olympic Scientific Congress in Munich. For the first time science and sport were brought together in connection with the Olympic Games. The organizers presented a book Sport in Blickpunkt der Wissenschaften (Sport from a Scientific Point of View) that summarized history and state of the art of the main sport scientific approaches (41). The German philosopher Hans Lenk gave a presentation of a broad array of past and present interpretations of sport from a philosophic viewpoint (...) (49). The congress in Munch and Hans Lenk's presentation of sport as a suitable philosophic topic became decisive for my own lifelong interest in philosophy of sport. Soon after the Munich conference some American philosophers convened to launch the Philosophic Society for the Study of Sport. In 1973 the first issue of Journal of Philosophy of Sport was published (35). In several ways 1972 was a turning point for philosophy of sport as a serious academic discipline and for my own interest in sport philosophy. From here sport philosophy found its way to Norway and through this and along several other roads to other Nordic countries. (shrink)

Fairness in sport is not just about assigning the top prizes to the worthiest competitors. It is also about the way the prize structure itself is organised. For many sporting competitions, although it may be acceptable for winners to receive more than losers, it can seem unfair for winners to take everything and for losers to get nothing. Yet this insight leaves unanswered some difficult questions about what stakes fairness requires and which principles of stakes fairness are appropriate for particular (...) competitions. In this article I specify a range of different principles of stakes fairness that could regulate sporting competitions. I also put forward a theoretical method for pairing up appropriate principles of stakes fairness with given sporting competitions. Specifically, I argue that the underlying rationales for holding sporting competitions can provide useful guides for identifying appropriate principles of stakes fairness. I then seek to clarify and work through some of the implications of this method for a sample of real world controversies over sporting prize structures. I also attempt to refine the method in response to two possible objections from indeterminacy and relativism. Finally, I compare and contrast my conclusions with more general philosophical debates about justice. (shrink)

In this paper I establish a normative limit of spectator interaction. I argue that attempts by non-participants (e.g. spectators) to affect the outcome of a contest, whether intended or merely foreseeable, are unsporting and ought to be discouraged because they undermine fairness, which is a fundamental premise of ideal competition. Because this is at odds with the participatory ethos of contemporary sports fanaticism (e.g. ?12th man? campaigns, visual distractions by spectators, etcetera) I anticipate several potential objections. I refute concerns that (...) my thesis is empirically dubious; that it is impractical; that it is subordinate to financial considerations; that it is nullified by participant acquiescence; and that it is subordinate to spectator interests. (shrink)

Even though talent identification in sport is considered by many to be a positive phenomenon, there are several controversies associated with the issue. This article deals with these disputations f...

Since the manipulation of sport competitions became one of the main threats to sport integrity, both the academy and international organizations have sought to establish a coherent conceptual framework that defines what criteria determine a manipulation and what are the factors that might cause it. Although the literature has shown that the manipulation of sport competition is a multifaceted phenomenon that includes individual, relational, organizational and institutional variables, most of the authors have focused their explanations on individual factors, and institutional (...) prevention campaigns continue to understand match-fixing as a problem of moral failure of on-field sports actors. This work proposes a novel dynamic framework for analysis based on the theoretical roots on Morin’s paradigm of complexity and Archer’s critical realism. In addition to articulating the micro, meso, and macro factors together, the paper defends the idea of three conceptions of integrity, personal, competition and institutional, often operating simultaneously in the same space. Each one of these integrities, operates across individual, organizational and structural levels, acting recursively on the others, generating the gears of the global sports integrity. We then discuss the reasons, structures, opportunities and incentives that each of these integrities creates and fuels. We argue that the errors and ineffectiveness of the fight against the manipulation of sport competitions are largely due to a lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the different conceptions of integrity and their interactions that require different approaches and differentiated public policies. We conclude with innovative possibilities for more effective policy-making processes in this space. (shrink)