In this article, I will examine a difficult subject in competitive sports: loss and defeat. Defeat is painful because we do not enter into competitive games to be defeated, although defeat is a strong possible outcome of the game, especially among more or less equal contestants. If losing a game is an existential condition that lies ahead of every athlete and team, even the best ones, why is defeat difficult to accept, especially in modern times in contrast to ancient times? (...) I will explore recent studies and ideas on sacrifice, especially those of Bataille, and discuss Heidegger’s notion of being-toward-death within the context of defeat in sports. Every defeat presupposes a form of sacrifice, understood in the loose sense, and every sacrifice presupposes a certain disposition toward death. Not only is defeat an inevitable condition in sport-making, but it is intrinsically linked to regimes of victory. Nietzsche acknowledges this intrinsic connection between defeat and victory. I will detour into this are.. (shrink)

In The I in Team, Erin C. Tarver argues that fandom ‘is a primary means of creating and reinforcing individual and community identities for Americans today’ and submits fandom to a critical eye...

This article considers the social construction of mental toughness in line with prevailing social attitudes towards success and dominance in elite sport. Critical attention is drawn to the research literature which has sought to conceptualise mental toughness and the idealistic rhetoric and metaphor with which it has done so. The concept of mental toughness currently reflects an elitist ideal, constructed along the lines of the romantic narrative of the ‘Hollywood hero’ athlete. In contrast, the mental and moral virtues which should (...) form the basis of mental toughness are often neglected when an athlete ‘fails’. Currently, mental toughness exists as a characteristic used to describe successful athletes and is only applied in hindsight. Finally, we recommend that the morally problematic association of mental toughness (within the media, society, and the research community) with ultimate success needs to be removed in order to rescue the concept from the elitist discourses which currently surround and suffocate it. (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)

In this article I argue both that an understanding of sport’s general character as competitive play can help us to read Homer more insightfully and that this reading can boomerang back to us to further illuminate the sport as competitive play thesis. My overall method is that of (Rawlsian) reflective equilibrium. The three sections of Homer that I examine are the Phaiacian games in Book 8 of the ‘Odyssey’, the Patroclos games in Book 23 of the ‘Iliad’, and the Penelope (...) games in Books 21–22 of the ‘Odyssey’. (shrink)