Chad Carlson on Fantasy Football

Over at The Sports Ethicist, I've posted a guest blog post by Chad Carlson. Chad discusses the nature of fantasy football, its relation to real football, and what value fantasy potentially has.  Here is an excerpt:

I have been reminded of all of this most recently throughout the first two weeks of the Fantasy Football, er, NFL, season. I am watching the games very closely and I remember which teams win, but my mood changes based not on which teams win but based on whether my fantasy players have done well or not. As such, I am reminded of how Fantasy Football has the ability to alter how we watch and understand the NFL.

However, I have also been reminded of how Fantasy Football can be a very fun and playful way of coming to understand and enjoy professional football. This August, my family decided to start a Fantasy Football league. Most of our league’s members were new to Fantasy Football, and a few in-laws were relatively new American football.

Read the full post here.

What Crying Brazilians Tells Us About Fandom

[Cross-posted from SportsEthicist.com]

In the wake of the devastating shellacking of Brazil at the feet of German side, we saw hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures of crying and tearful Brazilians. Many sports fan empathized with these pictures. Part of being a fan is suffering through bad losses. Every true sports fan has been on the losing side at one time or another. We know how those Brazilian fans felt.

Others raised the ridiculousness of crying over a game, especially a game one didn’t even participate in. It is one thing if you played in a game, gave your proverbial all, and then were overcome with emotion (such as Columbia’s James Rodriguez). But for fans in the stands or out on street to cry strikes many as silly. Something must be really out of whack.

There are really two questions here. One: is crying an appropriate emotional response to a sporting event? Two: is it appropriate to have one’s identity so connected to a sporting event/team?

The second question arises because of what I think the correct answer is to the first question. Sports fan invest a lot of themselves into their teams. This is not just a financial thing (tickets, merchandise, etc.), but a connection to one’s identity. For a die-hard sports fans, the game isn’t something we watch as entertainment the way one might watch and be fans of Games of Thrones(*). One’s sense of self: who they are, where they are from, what they value; is wrapped up in their sports fandom. Fandom is a mode of self-expression. To say one is a Boston Red Sox fan tells the world a little something about who one is.

It is apt that sports fans speak of having their hearts broken by their teams: there is something analogous between close personal relationships and sports fandom. The relationship takes time to build and develop. Whatever you think about ‘love at first sight’, the relationship – its meaning and role in one’s life—takes time. And one doesn’t just become a Red Sox fan. You have to grow into it; you have to earn the ability to say you are a true fan.  (Side note: this is why I don’t call myself a Liverpool fan. I follow them. I root for them. But I haven’t earned the title of fan yet. To stretch the analogy here: we are dating and having fun; seeing where it might go.)

Much more could and needs to be said about the connections between identity and fandom. However, if we can see that many die-hard sports fans, like many Brazilian futbol fans, have a deep identity connection to their team, it makes sense that such a devastation loss (especially in a World Cup on your home soil where you were one of the favorites to win) would lead to tears.

This is where the second question comes in to play. Is it rational or moral to have one’s identity so profoundly connected to a sports team?

My short answer is yes. While, as with anything, one can go too far here, by and large, I think deep fandom is a healthy and fun way of being one’s self. The longer answer still needs to be worked out and developed but let me suggest a few points.

The fun part is mostly self-explanatory. It provides moments of joy and excitement. Still, there are times that it doesn’t feel very fun (that’s what all the crying is about after all). But, overall, in the bigger picture of a being a fan, it is fun and thrilling.

Sports Fandom is also by and large healthy. Fandom is an expression of choice and commitment. It is part of a process of self-definition. We define ourselves by the choices and commitments we make and this includes which sports and teams we choose to follow.

Fandom ties one into a community, providing feelings of connectedness to a region, city, or tradition. It is a way of being with others and sharing values with others.

Being a fan of a sport team or club is better than something more insidious like seeking the sense of community from a gang or looking for greatness in pushes for national conquests. Better that nationalism gets expressed in a sporting event than in geo-politics. The former might unfortunately lead to some fist fights in the stands, but the latter leads to wars.

Go ahead and cry Brazil. Let it all out.

<em>(*)Update clarification: I don't mean to imply or suggest that non-sport fandoms can't or don't invest part of their identity in their fandom. (As a Browncoat I wouldn't want to make that mistake.) I only mean to say that sports fandom is not just about entertainment. I am not trying to say anything about other kinds of fandoms.
</em>

Ethics and the Beautiful Game at The Boot Room

I am a passionate soccer fan. I love to play, ref, coach, and watch the sport. I also am passionate about my job - being a philosopher. One of the great blessings of my life is to be able to combine these two things. And I think that at least some of us who are academics and benefit from the public trust invested in us should try to bridge the gap between our scholarship and public life.

To that end, I will begin regularly contributing to a new but quickly growing site devoted to soccer, The Boot Room, at http://tbrfootball.com/. My focus will be on ethical issues that arise in the game. My first piece explains why I, as an Arsenal fan, don't want the club to sign Luis Suarez: http://tbrfootball.com/no-to-suarez-at-arsenal/

Enjoy, and if you are so inclined comment at CLSoccer. I'd love to get an ethics discussion going over there!

Do sports build character or damage it?

Just ran across this essay by Mark Edmundson in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.  An excerpt:

All too often, the players who go all out on the field but can't readily turn it off elsewhere are the best players. They're the most headlong, the most fearless, the most dedicated. And when they encounter a modulated, more controlled antagonist in a game, often they, the more brutal players, win.

Lawrence Taylor was one of the best players ever to appear in the National Football League. With his speed and ferocity, and his ability to run down the opposing quarterback, he made football into a different, more violent game. But he was often as much in a fury off the field as on. By his own account, Taylor led the life of a beast—drunk, brawling, high on coke, speeding in his car: He was a peril to anyone who came near him.

His coach, Bill Parcells, allowed him to cultivate this off-field character, knowing that it contributed to his prowess when he played. If the best players are the ones who are the least controlled, the ones in whom passion for pre-eminence trumps reason, then it is not entirely clear that one can say what American coaches and boosters love to say, that sports builds character. If having a good character means having a coherent, flexible internal structure, where the best part rules over the most dangerous, then sports may not always be conducive to true virtue.

Read the entire essay here. 

Ladies Football League?

Although I'm a Brit, I do enjoy watching American Football and have wondered about the possibility of having the opportunity to play it myself one day; but not if this is the outcome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukV86PAXKGA

No, the L doesn't stand for 'Ladies' but rather 'Lingerie'. Can someone tell me if this is really serious or someone's (I am presuming a man here) idea of a joke? Indeed, when one of the rules is that all players must wear low cut bra and short briefs, one wonders whether there is any point in having the helmets and shoulder pads if the rest of the body is open for contact.

The controversy raised from the clothing regulations for beach volleyball is one thing but this really takes the biscuit.

For me the issue is about the part that clothing plays in sport. Surely it should be for the benefit of the player not for the benefit of the spectators. If someone asked me to play rugby in similar attire I certainly wouldn't think that they are interested in my athletic skill and ability. And on the basis that these women are selected for their physique not their ability to play football, it makes a mockery of the game itself. And reflects a sad state of affairs if this is the only way that women's sport becomes viable as entertainment.

Should we watch football?

Article in yesterday's NY Times asking that question:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/weekinreview/24sokolove.html

An excerpt:

There are some who believe that taking physical risks in pursuit of a communal goal — and even watching people take risks — has its benefits. “We learn from dangerous activities,” said W. David Solomon, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and director of its Center for Ethics and Culture. “In life, there are clearly focused goals, with real threats. The best games mirror that. We don’t need to feel bad about not turning away from a game in which serious injuries occur. There are worse things about me than that I enjoy a game that has violence in it. I don’t celebrate injuries or hope for them to happen. That would be a different issue. That’s moral perversion.”

Sean D. Kelly, the chairman of Harvard’s philosophy department, has a book coming out in January, co-authored with the philosopher Hubert Dreyfus of the University of California, Berkeley, that argues for the value of sports in a secular society. “You can experience a kind of spontaneous joy in watching someone perform an extraordinary athletic feat,” he said when we talked last week. “It’s life-affirming. It can expand our sense of what individuals are capable of.”

He believes that it is fine to watch football as long as the gravest injuries are a “side effect” of the game, rather than essential to whatever is good about the game and worth watching.

But what if that’s not the case? What if the brain injuries are so endemic — so resistant to changes in the rules and improvements in equipment — that the more we learn the more menacing the sport will seem? Where will football, and its fans, go from there?

Peter Singer on the World Cup

A nice read, especially the story on Liverpool striker Robbie Fowler:

Is it okay to cheat in football?

FIFA and goal line technology

Following an obvious (to all but the referee and line judges) but disallowed goal by Frank Lampard in England's 4-1 loss to Germany in the Football World Cup, FIFA's president Sepp Blatter has now accepted that there may be a place for goal line technology. The argument given by FIFA in the past is that such technology would unduly disrupt the flow of game and possibly prevent the opposition scoring from a counter-attack. However, as was often seen in other sports that are now using technology to determine outcomes, when replays of events show within seconds whether the officials have made the correct decision, it is the refusal of governing bodies to embrace its use that undermine the authority of officials and not the other way around. However, whether FIFA are serious about reconsidering their position that they so definitively took in March, or whether they are merely trying to sooth the sore feelings of those on the receiving end of an incorrect decision is up for question, as they have also said that instant replays of controversial events should not be shown on the big screen. It follows a goal by Tevez for Argentina against Mexico which stood despite Tevez being considerably off-side before he played the ball. It led to confrontations between opposing players after it was immediately shown on the big screen in the stadium. If technology was used to assist the making of decisions then this ruling would not be necessary.

Interestingly enough, I am always surprised by the way in which my students tend to side with FIFA's position on this. The reason they give for not implementing goal-line technology? That controversial goals and decisions provide something for them to argue about in the pub after a game. If they really want subject to argue about, then I can think of much better ones...

Philosopher's Football Match

A re-enactment of the Monty Python's football match between the Germans and the Greeks is taking place on Sunday May 9th in North London. It is the idea of the Philosophy Shop which brings philosophy to primary school children; its purpose is to highlight the importance of developing philosophical and critical thinking.

Many notable philosophers, comedians, ex-sports players and journalists will be taking part, including AC Grayling (German manager), Graham Taylor (Greek manager), Julian Baggini, Tony Hawks, and Nigel Warburton (referee). From the philosophy of sport, Jim Parry and Stephen Mumford will be playing, as well as myself.

It should be a great day out and for those of you unable to come, some commentary will be available on BBC Radio5live sports extra.

For tickets, more information, and the original Monty Python sketch visit: http://www.philosophersfootball.com/home