Cesar R. Torres

Indigestion?: An Apology for Ties

As an object of analysis, ties have been conspicuously absent in the philosophy-of-sport literature. Even though ties are a plausible resolution of most sport contests, they have been confined to the backstage of the academic field by an ongoing fascination with the winning–losing dichotomy and its concomitant dilemmas. This attitude toward ties can most likely be attributed to an ethos that affects both sport and the culture in which it is embedded. Although welcoming close competition, this ethos encourages us to question the validity of contests that end in a tie. In fact, the trend of sporting institutions is to force an outcome rather than allow for contests to end in a tie, regardless of the parity of play displayed throughout the contest. In other words, using Fraleigh’s terminology (12: p. 38), a good dose of sweet tension is valued, but sportspeople eventually wish for the uncertainty brought about by the contest to be resolved within the binary winning– losing scheme. Reflecting on the tension that is produced from appreciating evenly matched athletic performances and excellence and the desire to establish a recognizably superior side, Guttmann has noted that “ties are possible, but the entire tendency of modern sport is to eliminate them by extra innings in baseball, by ‘suddendeath’ overtimes, by rematches, by some device that will end the ambiguity” (11: p. 75). One such device was implemented in Argentine football during the late 1980s with disastrous results. At the time, the governing body established rules such that all games played during the course of a season ending in a tie were to be decided by a penalty-kick shootout. Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano reveals the potential awkwardness of demanding a winner from each contest with his description of a penalty shootout between Argentinos Juniors and Racing Club, two Argentine clubs, in 1989:

Furthering Interpretivism’s Integrity: Bringing Together Ethics and Aesthetics

One important limitation of the current renditions of interpretivism is that its emphasis on the moral dimension of sport has overlooked the aesthetic dimension lying at the core of this account of sport. The interpretivist’s failure to acknowledge and consider the aesthetic implicitly distances this realm from the moral. Marcia Muelder Eaton calls this distancing the separatist mistake. This paper argues that interpretivism presupposes not only moral but also aesthetic principles and values. What it sets out to demonstrate is that interpretivism is an integralist, or nonseparatist, account of sport, one in which ethical and aesthetic values are not exclusive. Making explicit and specifying interpretivism’s combined moral-aesthetic approach to sport not only helps to better distinguish the whole range of values that make up sport as well as their interconnection but also encourages sportspeople to pursue more coherent sport and, thus, more enriching lives.

Competitive sport, evaluation systems, and just results: The case of Rugby Union's bonus-point system

Among their numerous functions, the rules forming and informing sports specify the evaluation system through which value is assigned to goal achievements. Evaluation systems translate goal achievements into uniform, computable, and, therefore, comparable tallies. This is extremely important in competitive sports, in which the addition of these translations is what determines the results of particular contests. Sport-evaluation systems also stipulate the value of the results of particular contests. Such systems help governing bodies manage season-long competitions or tournaments, including round-robin phases in which contestants are ranked. Evaluation systems tend to enjoy a high degree of stability. Nonetheless, because sports are not rigid and closed structures that do not evolve, gamewrights occasionally introduce changes to evaluation systems. One such change was implemented during the Rugby Union World Cup, organized in Australia in October and November of 2003. Early that year, the International Rugby Board confirmed that a bonus-point system awarding teams a bonus point for scoring four or more tries and/or losing by less than 7 points would be implemented during the Rugby Union World Cup. The bonus-point system only applied to the initial stage of the tournament, in which the five teams from each of the four pools played each other in a round-robin. The first and second teams from each pool qualified for the single-elimination final stage that decided the championship. In addition to bonus points, teams were awarded 4 points for a win and 2 for a tie. With the addition of the bonus-point system, teams could accrue a maximum of 5 points for a win, 3 for a tie, and 2 for a loss. It was possible for two teams to tie and yet be awarded a different number of points. This was the case because different types of goal achievements do not carry the same value in Rugby Union. The evaluation system is as follows: A try is worth 5 points; a penalty try, 5 points; a conversion goal, 2 points; a penalty goal, 3 points; and a dropped goal, 3 points. The bonus-point system was rationalized as a way to encourage and reward positive and offensive play, as well as try scoring. It was also constructed as an incentive, or even benefit, for teams that fail to win or tie close matches. Other arguments, perhaps more pragmatically grounded, proposed that the bonus-point system

The Latin American ‘Olympic explosion’ of the 1920s: Causes and consequences

In spite of Baron Pierre de Coubertins efforts, the Olympic Movement did not rapidly win over a substantial number of Latin American hearts. During the first 30 years of modern Olympic life, Latin American athletes and officials played a negligible role in the Olympic Movement. However, that pattern changed in the early 1920s. Suddenly, Latin Americans entered Olympic arenas en masse. The dramatic change during the 1920s from the negligible role that Latin Americans had played so far in the Olympic Movement can be described as an ‘Olympic explosion’. This article explores the causes underlying the burst of Latin American activity in Olympic matters during this period and its multifaceted consequences. By studying such causes and consequences, this article reveals that the Latin American incorporation into the Olympic Movement was shaped by a complicated network of intertwined responses to international pressures and domestic conflicts over control and demand for access to modern sport.

Results or Participation?: Reconsidering Olympism¿s Approach to Competition

In spite of the privileged position that Olympism arguably occupies within the Olympic Movement, its understanding and implementation have been a challenging task. This is due to a lack of specificity, conceptual lacunas, and inconsistencies in the interpretation and elucidation of Olympism. One inconsistency pertains to the meaning and emphasis of results in Olympic contests. In this regard, the Olympic creed and the Olympic motto seem to send contradictory messages. This paper investigates the role that results should have in Olympic contests and, more broadly, in an enlightened sporting life. It argues that the most developed approach to the sporting and Olympic life is one in which the process of contesting and its ensuing results come together to form a meaningful unity.

De-emphasizing Competition in Organized Youth Sport: Misdirected Reforms and Misled Children

Throughout the twentieth century, organized youth sport became an increasingly prevalent childhood experience across Western societies—especially in affluent ones. Millions of children participate in organized sport each year. Partici pation is accepted and encouraged as an integral part of children’s lives because of its alleged benefits. Arguably, the goal of organized youth sport is to foster children’s overall welfare. Competition has played a prominent and sometimes controversial role in programs espousing this objective. It is precisely through the organization and administration of competitive sports that youth sport programs seek to advance their goal. However, the growing emphasis on winning, as well as the myriad of excesses and abuses that it has created among parents, coaches, spectators, and young athletes, has generated a massive wave of criticism against competition (6;7;11;26;33;37). Many professional organizations, advocacy groups, and experts in the field believe that organized youth sport programs are in crisis and have recommended reforms designed to establish a healthy environment that emphasizes children’s needs and interests first, so they can make the most of their sport experiences. To ensure this, those who advocate the refocusing of organized youth sport maintain that these programs should “emphasize that there should be action, [and] involvement among all participants” and that adults “need to encourage fun” (6: p. 147; 33). The gist of their proposals is to reprioritize the values inspiring participation in organized youth sport, which necessitates moving away from organizational models that mimic adult-oriented priorities. While confessedly de-emphasizing competition, the recommendations to emphasize action and fun have led organizers and administrators to discourage the formation of regular competitive teams and the keeping of scores or standings, to limit traveling outside the community, and to ensure minimal playing time for all young athletes. This set of recommendations and measures constitutes a growing trend in organized youth sport programs—a trend through which programs purport to underscore children’s interests and welfare over competitive performance and outcomes. In this essay, we argue that this trend in organized youth sport is unwarranted and misleading to children. We believe that when children are initiated into such

Tribulations and achievements: the early history of Olympism in Argentina.

By the end of the nineteenth century, modern sport had enchanted the people of Argentina. At that time the nation enjoyed a remarkable degree of economic prosperity and embarked on increasing political democratization. These circumstances, along with the fact that the nation was represented from the beginning, in 1894, on the International Olympic Committee seemed to favour Argentina as the spearhead of the diffusion of Olympism throughout South America. However, the country only enjoyed its first official Olympic participation in the Paris Games of 1924 - a few months after the establishment of the Argentine Olympic Committee. This essay explores the reception and diffusion of Olympism in Argentina. It reveals a process of gradual adoption including conflicting views on the relationship between the state and sport, several attempts at institutionalization, international misunderstandings and the role of politics and class.

Sweet Tension and its Phenomenological Description: Sport, Intersubjectivity and Horizon

In this paper, we argue that a rich phenomenological description of ‘sweet tension’ is an important step to understanding how and why sport is a meaningful human endeavour. We introduce the phenomenological concepts of intersubjectivity and horizon and elaborate how they inform the study and understanding of human experience. In the process, we establish that intersubjectivity is always embodied, developing and ethically committed. Likewise, we establish that our horizons are experienced from an embodied, developing and ethically committed perspective that serves as the possibility for new intersubjective engagement. What follows is a discussion of the explanatory role of intersubjectivity and horizon in elucidating experiences of sweet tension in and through sport. The phenomenological account of sweet tension provides insights into the significance of our sporting experiences. Indeed, taking phenomenology seriously represents a commitment to descriptively elucidate what makes such experiences of sport significant and why we long for them. Recognising that sweet tension is a form of intersubjective horizon opens up new avenues for addressing ethical issues in sport as well as in crafting well-balanced games.

What Is Wrong With Playing High

The debate over playing football, or “soccer” as the game is known to North Americans, at high altitudes reached new heights in 2007 and 2008. Late in May 2007, concerned about mounting criticism, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) decided to ban games under its jurisdiction at altitudes above 2,500 meters. The ruling, which affected cities in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, prompted a stern reaction in much of Latin America. The public outcry was so noticeable that in June, FIFA increased the limit to 3,000 meters. The roll back, however, was only provisional. FIFA awaited the results of an October meeting of leading experts on high altitude physiology before making a final decision. In December, FIFA ruled that no games “would be permitted at an altitude in excess of 2,750 metres” and “recommended that the same limit be enforced in all other international competitions” (19). This still affected stadia in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. However, FIFA agreed that games would be permitted if players were allowed to acclimatize. FIFA’s compromising ruling was once again staunchly opposed in South America. Football’s regional governing body, the Confederacion Sudamericana de Futbol (CONMEBOL), asked FIFA to reconsider imposing any altitude limit and ratified its support of the Bolivian national team “for disputing matches at great height, as is the case of the city of La Paz” (7). In March 2008, FIFA insisted on its 2,750 meters limit for international games (20). The following month, CONMEBOL countered FIFA’s ruling announcing that nine of its ten members were committed to competition at high altitude (8). While pressure mounted, early in May, FIFA temporarily suspended its ban. This allowed Bolivia and Ecuador to host qualifying home games for the 2010 Men’s World Cup in La Paz and Quito respectively. The concession was made, however, as Joseph Blatter, FIFA’s president stated, not to settle the issue but rather to “reopen the discussion” (5). Throughout the 2007 and 2008 heightened controversy over playing football at high altitudes, FIFA reiterated the rationale for the ban. It focused on “medical and sports-ethical reasons” (18). Defending the original 2,500 meters limit, Blatter declared that playing “above that altitude is not healthy or fair” (2). Later he added that “In the World Cup we must have equal conditions for everyone” (35). FIFA is also reputed to have justified the ban on grounds of a “possible distortion of competition” (2).

Argentina and the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics

The election of Raúl Alfonsín in October of 1983 represented the return of democracy to Argentina after more than seven years of a military dictatorship that left the country in a terribly distressed state. Since the dictatorship had joined the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics led by the USA, for Argentina, the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics meant both coming back to the Olympic fold and the first such festival under the new democratic government. This paper explores Argentinas trajectory towards, and construction of, its participation in the countrys first post-dictatorship Olympics. In doing so, this paper reveals why participation in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was not a priority for the incoming administration and why such participation was not conceived as a potential emissary capable of reaffirming on the global Olympic stage the hard fought, yet still emerging, democracy of Argentina. In addition, it reveals not only the determination of the Alfonsín administration to make his sport policy work but also its aspirations, complexity and ambiguities.