Hope, Socccer, and Haiti

A nice story at CNN.com.

Sport for the Common Good

Fantasy Football

I've got a post over at Ethics for Everyone that may be of interest to readers of this blog:


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201109/whats-wrong-fantasy-football

Philosophy and the Sports Fan

Respect for Opponents and the Postgame Handshake

I've been thinking some lately about the practice of shaking an opponent's hand after a game, and wondering whether--as Randolph Feezell and Craig Clifford put it in Sport and Character--"...at the end of the game, should we always, without exception, attempt to shake the hands of our opponents (p. 36)?"

My intuition is to say that there can be morally justified exceptions to this practice. For example, as a player I would think it would be justified to refrain from this practice if an opponent has clearly intentionally injured one of my teammates. Or if an opponent consistently displays deep disrespect for the game, officials, and her opponents, is there something disingenuous about shaking her hand after the game?

Or take a case that is less clear, but one that I've been thinking about lately for personal reasons. As a coach in youth sports, am I obligated to shake the hand of my opposing coach if he or she spends the entire game berating their own players, criticizing the referee, and engaging in other patters of disrespectful behavior?

The bottom line question is this:  Is the respect that is communicated via the postgame handshake dependent in some sense on how an opponent conducts themselves, such that there are times when it is appropriate to refrain from this tradition? Thoughts, anyone?

Great play doesn't equal great character

I grew up in Kansas City, and thought this recent column would be of interest to readers here:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/23/2604840/great-play-doesnt-mean-great-character.html

I have no idea what kind of person Ben Roethlisberger is now, but setting that aside, I think Mellinger is right about how fans often respond to these types of situations.

Justice and College Athletics

A recent column addresses this issue: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/greene.pay.college.athletes/index.html?hpt=C2

What's wrong with a potential NFL lockout?

According to the organization American Rights at Work, plenty.  I received the following in an email today from this organization:

"The NFL is preparing a 'lock out' next season unless football players agree to its demands.

If there's no football season, it would impact 150,000 jobs – and cause more than $140 million in lost revenue – in each and every city with an NFL team.

Local economies will be devastated. All because of the NFL's greed.

It's easy to see how crushing a lockout would be... Picture a 60,000-seat football stadium... EMPTY. Now picture all the bars, restaurants, hotels, t-shirt shops, hot dog carts surrounding the stadium... CLOSED. And all of the stadium's janitors, vendors, and support staff... OUT OF WORK.

But the NFL and team owners don't care, because they'll still make billions. They've already signed TV contracts that will pay out even if the season is canceled.

The NFL owners' greed is unbelievable. In ditching an agreement that was working just fine, the owners actually want players to make absurd, unjustified concessions around wages and benefits – like taking away ALL healthcare benefits from players and their families.

It's only fair that NFL owners pick up the tab for these health costs when players risk their lives for the game. An average football player's career lasts only three and a half seasons – but the injuries they face on the job aren't short-lived at all. Tackles, hits, and blocks result in intense physical trauma, impacting players' health, well-being, and medical expenses far into retirement."

One area of disagreement I have with this is that the greed of the players is not addressed. Surely it isn't only the greed of the owners in play here?  However, it does seem to me that one of the wrong-making properties of a lockout is the negative economic impact in each city with an NFL team. And it does seem that healthcare benefits are obligatory, given that most players don't have long careers, with some not adequately prepared for life after football (for more on this, see Racing the Sunset, by Scott Tinley).  Even though one might argue that the players make more than enough money to cover health care expenses, I still think that healthcare benefits should be offered by the owners, perhaps as a matter of principle.

Moreover, I believe that the wealthy, which includes the owners and players, have an obligation to those whose livelihood depends on the season happening.  Whatever responsibilities there are for promoting the common good, it arguably includes avoiding a lockout, in part because of the negative impact of this on the lives of other human beings.

Peter Singer on the World Cup

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

Is it okay to cheat in football?

The Success of Lance Armstrong

The success of Lance Armstrong on the bike in the Tour de France is unprecedented.  His record of seven victories seems more amazing now, given not only the physical and mental skill that such a record reveals, but the luck that it also required (the lack of crashes, mechanical failures, and injuries). While there is no lack of controversy surrounding Lance (e.g. "Pharmstrong"), he might be right that he is the most tested athlete on the planet, and yet he has never tested positive for banned performance-enhancing substances.

But is Lance Armstrong a success? In the forthcoming book I co-edited with Jesús Ilundáin Agurruza, Cycling - Philosophy for Everyone: A Philosophical Tour de Force, Greg Bassham and Chris Krall address this question. As they point out, on many classical and medieval theories of success, the answer to this question is "no".  Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, the Stoics, and Epicurus would of course disagree on many things, but Lance falls short of each of their notions of success.

But on a contemporary view discussed by Bassham and Krall, Lance is clearly a success. Philosopher Thomas Morris offers a theory of success which he calls the 3-D Approach to Life:
-Discover your positive talents.
-Develop the most meaningful and beneficial of those talents.
-Deploy your talents into the world for the good of others and yourself.

There is much more in this chapter about this and other theories of success, but in brief it is clear that on the 3-D Approach, Lance is a success. First, he has discovered his positive talents. In Texas, where football reigns, Lance discovered his abilities in the endurance sports of running, swimming, and cycling. He had to work to excel at these sports, and work he did. Over time, it became clear that Lance had amazing abilities and great potential on the bike, and with the help of Chris Carmichael and others, and after a battle with cancer, he became perhaps the greatest rider in the history of the Tour de France. Not only did he develop his talent, he has deployed it for good in his battle against cancer through the Livestrong Foundation.

Lance Armstrong is not a perfect human being, but in many of the ways that matter, he is a success.  Lance is an extraordinarily successful human being, but not because he has made incredible amounts of money, dated Sheryl Crow, and achieved celebrity status. Rather, he is a success because he has discovered and developed his talents, and then deployed them in a way that serves the common good.

"Sportsmanship"?

Anyone have thoughts on the DQ of this pole vaulter, detailed here?

Steroids and Forgiveness

Steroids are again in the news, with the formal admission by Mark McGwire that he used steroids during his career, including the season in which he broke the HR record. Much has already been said about this, but I think an interesting philosophical point here has to do with the nature of and justifications for forgiveness.

Some, like Jack Clark, are too angry and upset to consider forgiving McGwire, at least at present.

Others, like Joe Posnanski and Albert Pujols, are more open to it. Former Cardinal Andy Van Slyke is not happy with the nature of McGwire`s confession.

Should "we" forgive McGwire for his transgressions? In a world of earthquakes and grinding poverty, this can seem of little consequence. But forgiveness is a key component of flourishing human relationships, and so I am wondering if anything can be learned from McGwire`s situation?