In Ancient Greece, the figure of the hero was identified as a demigod, possessed of altruistic and virtuous deeds. When Pierre de Coubertin reinstated the Olympic Games, the athlete was personified as a modern hero. Its antithesis, the anti-hero, has more virtue that defects, no evil but he does not care on the means to achieve his goals. In the eyes of everyone involved in sports competition, these characters captivate and at the same time, create conflicts of ethics and aesthetics. (...) The purpose of this paper is to perform an ethical reflection linked to principles that contribute for the human growth and accomplishment, as well as the aesthetic on the perception of the sensitive, reverberated by sensations and feelings emerging from athletes. Connecting the ethic with the aesthetic spheres, we could have in the sports a phenomenon walking toward a common point between moral and aesthetic, between the good and the beauty. (shrink)

Critical commentaries on the burgeoning industry of sports betting have focused on either its potential (i) to promote problem gambling or (ii) to encourage betting-related corruption. In this paper we explore a third and distinct line of inquiry according to which sports betting is of considerable moral concern insofar as it undermines the ideals of sport by transforming the manner and modes in which spectators engage with and value sports. Technological, cultural and legal changes have led to greater integration between (...) many sporting leagues and gambling practices. Elite sport has long been commodified; however, we argue that such integration should be understood as a form of ‘hypercommodification’. By analysing sports betting as a form of hyper-commodification, we argue that it may promote objectionable instrumental modes of regard towards sport among individual spectators and fans. We also argue that increasing integration between sports and gambling practices may undermine the social conditions required to express appropriate modes of valuation towards sport. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie 50+1-Regel soll im deutschen Profifußball den beherrschenden Einfluss eines Muttervereins über eine Profifußballabteilung gewährleisten, wodurch historisch geprägte Mitbestimmungsmöglichkeiten von Vereinsmitgliedern bzw. Fans bewahrt werden. Die anhaltende Diskussion um die Zukunft der Regel gibt unter Beachtung des Stakeholder-Ansatzes Grund zum Anlass, die Interessen von Fußballfans zu fokussieren. Erstmalig wurden dazu in den Jahren 2011 (n=3114) und 2017 (n=3739) die Argumente für eine Beibehaltung, die Argumente für eine Aufhebung sowie die Präferenz hinsichtlich der Zukunft der 50+1-Regel empirisch erhoben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen (...) eine zeitunabhängige Befürwortung der Beibehaltung der Regel, wobei ergänzend (a) eine anhaltende Befürwortung partizipativer Argumente für eine Beibehaltung, (b) die zunehmende Befürwortung des Ausschlusses von Multi-Club Ownership durch die 50+1-Regel sowie (c) der Rückgang gesellschaftlicher und von Tradition geprägter Argumente für eine Beibehaltung hervorzuheben sind. (shrink)