Inside Sport

What is racism? 

I believe Racism is a word which many think should not be a part of everyday life, but truthfully and very unfortunately we continue to see types of discrimination against someone because they strongly believe that their race, culture, or life style is more majestic than theirs, whether this be chanting, jeering or straight up racist remarks.  Racism has been around for as long as mankind itself and stems more so from the seventeen and eighteen century.  In this time frame historians wrote about groups of people using traits of racism under slavery terms and in building allies against various people from an array of countries. The display of showing racism in this time frame was not frowned upon as it is in today’s day and age.  Racism is an ugly and hurtful word which defines two distinct groups: one that defines people by their differences, i.e. skin colour, culture, background, religion and appearance.

Ill-advisedly, Racism is often used loosely on common grounds such as the work place, public place and privately.  There are various categories of racism, some of these being “reverse racism,” “horizontal racism,” “internalised racism” and “subtle racism.” 

In the 1970s and 1980s, black footballers in England and Scotland were all too frequently subjected to racist abuse. It was not uncommon to see bananas thrown at players. The governing body (FIFA) announced a new anti-racism law, this entails such behaviour to be punishable and unacceptable. The laws of racism have become more stringent over the years. Outside British football, Euro 2012 was affected by instances of racist chanting at training sessions and matches. More than 135 incidents have been reported since 2015, and three years on, still not all incidents get reported or logged.  It should be noted that statistical data differs from country to country as each country has its own recognised national and or international sport which holds a varied level of racism.  

The red card has most definitely edged the games with a positive outlook, however, I believe there is still some work to be done in this defined and very sensitive area. Here are a few ways I believe racism can be fought against more effectively:

1) Sporting organisations – kick it out is football’s equality and inclusion organisation. They help tackle racism with fans and players. Support from organisations can influence players and fans on a large scale

2) fan control – Sporting clubs should take serve actions and give lifetime bans to those who chose to chant racist remarks. Governing bodies should also increase fines to clubs which will make the clubs more proactive about fan control.

In their study of ‘race’ and racism in football, back et al. (2001) found that although black football players have challenged the myth of racism in the game their longevity as coaches, managers and administrators takes on a different guise. Recent high profile examples of colour-blindness in British sport reiterate the disparity between professional black footballers and those who go on to become managers (none at the highest level).

Haney-Lopez (2000) emphasized the role the legal system plays in constructing the notion of ‘race’ and racial identities and why a critical ‘race’ consciousness is necessary to uncover the assumptions and presumptions implicit and explicit in the way structures in society work. Sport, just like the law, can be observed as a key tool in the subjugation of black people and the magnification of the place of ‘race’ as a major mediating factor within society.

N0622039

Reference list: 

Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (2001) The Changing Face of Football (Oxford: Berg).

Haney-Lopez, I. (2000) The social construction of ‘race’, in R. Delgado and J. Stefancic (Eds) Critical Race Theory: the cutting edge, pp. 163–175 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press)

https://www.businessdestinations.com/move/travel-management/from-london-to-sochi-whose-olympic-games-paid-off/

Mega sporting events (MSE) have a place in everyone’s lives in some way or another, with them now being a major part of public policy, the events and their legacy are open to relative analysis. Aside from the mass amount of entertainment in MSE, I want to shine light on what happens behind the scenes in regards to social dimension and whether MSE meet the social needs of present and future generations.

Mega sporting events are often justified with reference to their role in addressing urban inequity and promoting a collective of identities, whilst also criticised for their questionable ethics. Suggesting an increase of attention on social sustainability is urgently required! The effects of MSE need to be understood from previous events in order for us to review theoretical perspectives. Facilitating the understanding of WHY certain effects occur, rather than simply if they occur.

MSE are perceived as having the potential to contribute to a number of beneficial opportunities as well as risk to the countries that host them and their communities. However, benefits for host countries are do not come as easily as they are promised. Consequences countries face flow form the mass scale and complexity of the event being held, and the logistics of delivering a national MSE. Socio-political and economic environment of the host are both important to consider for the prospective hosts and event owners in allocating hosting rights to a country. The importance of these is unsurprising considering that many concerns have been raised over the relatively recent relocation of events to developing countries which, frequently lack the economic, political and social stability of the traditional industrialized host. The Olympics in Rio, 2016 had the controversy over holding a multi-billion-dollar event in an underdeveloped country in the midst of political turmoil, the ethical problems surrounding this where on-going throughout the games.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/real-cost-brazilian-olympic-games-160125060759255.html

Though we can’t kid ourselves that the 2016 Brazilian Olympics is the first mega sporting event to be under public protest for the violation of citizens’ rights. There were some massive violations that have occurred in other recent mega events; 1.5 million people displaced, ten construction workers deaths, and 17,000 workers issuing complaints about workplace corruption during the preparation for the Beijing Olympics. Discovered sweat shop labour which affected South Africa, Pakistan, India, China, and Southeast Asia creating merchandise for the Olympics in South Africa and Beijing. And I’m sure many more unpublished ethical violations which have demonstrated social dimension, have been occurring right beneath the enjoyment of watching MSE.

Countries not in their eligible state should not be made to sacrifice what they have in order to meet societies expectations of the surface of MSE. We have to work together as one rather than individual nations to stop poverty, war and fix human rights and to push this mass responsibility onto them is not helping. We then however have to take into consideration whether it be fair to then cut out developing nations from MSE hosting, are they less affluent? And arguably less prepared to deliver large scale sports events than developed nations? Does this information equipped governing bodies with the knowledge to make them ethically obliged to withhold hosting rights from developing countries? Logically within developing contexts, the cost of hosting and risk of failure is likely to be far higher than for events held in the developed world.

To create just a greater awareness of human rights violations because of mega sporting events will create more public scrutiny and help to deter organisers of the events and the allocated host cities from using unethical methods to complete projects. To fix this global problem we need to globally find a solution for it.

Reference List:

Socialjusticestories.leadr.msu.edu. (2017). Creating Ethical Practices in Mega Sporting Events – Social Justice Stories. [online] Available at: http://socialjusticestories.leadr.msu.edu/2016/04/13/creating-ethical-practices-in-mega-sporting-events/ [Accessed 1 Nov. 2017].

MacDonald, C. (2016). The 2016 Rio Olympics were a great sporting event, and an ethical mess. [online] Canadian Business - Your Source For Business News. Available at: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/rio-2016-ethics-roundup/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2017].

Research Gate. (2017). Sports mega-events, the non-West and the ethics of event hosting. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319963103_Sports_mega-events_the_non-West_and_the_ethics_of_event_hosting [Accessed 1 Nov. 2017].

Homophobia in sport is one of the major problems in today’s sporting society, with homosexual athletes regularly feeling uncomfortable in their own sport. I have witnessed homophobic chants, attacks and remarks within sport since I first started playing, and have found out through playing some sports, that being masculine is almost a necessity.

How would you feel if you were a homosexual athlete competing in a sport that does not accept homosexuals? Hurt? Ashamed? These feelings are some of those that professional homosexual athletes fight against every time they compete. Gay players have typically remained secretive during their active playing careers (Cashmore and Cleland, 2014). Homophobia in the media is a hot topic right now, with upcoming events such as the world cup being hosted in ‘anti-gay’ Russia, and high-profile sports stars speaking openly about their sexuality for the first time in years. Picture yourself in a homosexual athlete’s shoes, and think of all the times you have witnessed homophobic behaviour or remarks whilst playing sports yourself, and just consider how hard it may be on a homosexual athlete hearing and seeing these remarks for most of their careers, struggling to open up and compete as an openly homosexual athlete. There is no reason why sexual orientation should be held to have any bearing on athletic ability or fitness to participate.

One of the main problems we see with homosexuality is the whole idea of sports being a masculine thing to do, but we need to open our eyes and see the bigger picture. Mennesson and Clement (2003) talk about male football players trying to prove to their teammates their heterosexuality and masculinity, adding the need for men to control their affectivity in relationships among men. Men in particular don’t want to be seen as feminine in what is known as a masculine sport. Homohysteria is an important concept to take into account when discussing masculinity and homophobia within sport. Anderson (2011, pp. 29) describes Homohysteria as a “homosexually-panicked culture in which suspicion permeates”. ‘Masculine’ male players face a fear of being thought to be homosexual, which is why they feel the need to prove themselves as masculine, and is why it makes it hard for homosexual players to feel comfortable in coming out publicly, as they feel they may be ridiculed for not being ‘masculine’ enough.

How do we look to tackle homophobia in sport we ask ourselves? There are a few ways that could help reduce the amount of homophobic behaviour we see in today’s sporting community. Here are 3 of the key ways to try and reduce it:

1) More punishment – Sporting clubs, teams and governing bodies need to enforce a heavier punishment on homophobic behaviour, whether that be players, fans or coaching staff. We have seen it happening within the sports we love, but have never seen a punishment worthy of such an unnoticed offence.

2) Sporting charities and action plans – There are many groups that look to try and kick homophobia out of sports, such as ‘kick it out’, which we should be looking trying to support in any way possible. These sporting organisations have already made huge movements in reducing homophobic behaviour, and with more support, can only make greater steps to kicking it out altogether.

3) Teaching and informing – We need to make sure that coaches, players, officials and fans of today’s sporting community are well informed of the consequences brought to an athlete’s life if they must endure homophobic remarks throughout their career. We should look to teach people what to do if they see homophobic behaviour, and show people that standing up for the cause can help in so many ways.

I fear we may never fully remove homophobia from sports, but we are making movements every day to try and make homosexual’s sporting careers just as easy and successful as any other athlete.

N0630768

Reference List:

Cashmore, E, & Cleland, J (2014), Football's Dark Side: Corruption, Homophobia, Violence and Racism in the Beautiful Game, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [31 October 2017]. pp. 29-46.

Mennesson, C. and Clément, J.P., 2003. Homosociability and homosexuality: The case of soccer played by women. International Review for the sociology of sport, 38(3), pp.311-330.

Since the 6th of April 1896, the Olympic Games has only grown in stature and popularity, raking in viewings of nearly half the world’s population in current times, state the IOC. There may be arguments for and against drug testing, sex clarification and cheating, but the Olympic games is loved and watched by billions. However, since the introduction of the Paralympic games in 1960, it seems time has had significance on the fact that it is more difficult for disabled people to live normal lives, in general. Of course, for the athletes, it is a fantastic opportunity for disabled people to take part in sporting events they love and have the chance to represent their country proudly on this major sporting stage, but is it hindering their chances of just wanting to live life as normal? 

Penny Pepper, of the Guardian (2016), believes turning disabled athletes into ‘superhumans’ is no help to disabled people. In this generation, people are becoming more accepting of people’s differences with regards to sexuality, race and disabilities. However, since the promotion and up rise on the Paralympics, massive broadcasting companies have advertised the Paralympics, but not to benefit the promotion of the event, but to simply use it as a massive publicity campaign (Penny Pepper, 2016). Many disabled people are aware that disability is a social construct and that ultimately, it all comes back to an excess of capitalism, and years of government negligence to the matter. Disabled people clearly suffer from many a barrier when it comes to their participation in sport, with it easily being sorted through financial input, social care and a fully compliant civil rights law. But, putting the sporting participation aside, does the promotion and media advertisements on the Paralympics benefit the everyday people, living with a disability? Moreover, it is as if people with disabilities are either classified as superhuman, when taking part in the Paralympics, or simply scroungers from the government, but there is no in between (Philippa Willitts, Frances Ryan, 2012). It is as if the disabled are used to attend to peoples craving for tragedy through the media and the Paralympics cannot help but feed this. With many written pieces on the Paralympics, including the few referenced in this blog, all state the term ‘Superhuman’ as a negative word to title these athletes. The bottom line is, is that people with disabilities are struggling in their day to day life anyway, without the burden of being ‘different’ in people’s opinions. It seems, although accepting of disabilities, people are still finding ways to use it as a publicity campaign, tragedy story and toying on people’s emotions through the media. We are all one human race, all different in our own way. The Paralympics of course is a great way to represent your country, but it most certainly should not be used in a way that results in pity, inspiration or anything else for that matter, just because a person is disabled.

N0658573 References:

Pepper, P. (2016). Turning Paralympians into ‘superhumans’ is no help to disabled people | Penny Pepper. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/06/paralympians-superhumans-disabled-people [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017].

Female athletes ask themselves this question throughout the process of sex- testing, distributed by the International Olympic Committee. “The IOC has informally encouraged sex-testing since the 1936 Olympics, and formally since the 1968 Games. At first there was the visual exam, where female athletes had their genitals inspected by “qualified” experts to ensure they were all indeed female”. (Forsyth, 2016). Only female athletes have to partake in a sex test, as being a being female and good at sport is abnormal in society.

As quoted by Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, “I do not approve of the participation of women in the public competition. In the Olympic Games, their primary role should be to crown the victors”. (Naimark, 2014). Opinions like this are the reason why sex testing occurred in the first place. Big sport organisations attempted to exclude women whose performances were above expectations by establishing gender verifications, which suspected them of fraud. (Müller, 2016). Successful female athletes were suspected of not being a woman, for the simple reason of performing above their gender expectations at sport.

For women to participate in the Olympic Games they must fall within the IOC’s prescribed range. “People who are chromosomally XX and living as legal women should compete as female Olympic athletics, no matter what their bodies look like and no matter their testosterone levels”. (Schaffer, 2012). So, if a woman’s test results come back XY, (the normal makeup for a man) they are unable to compete in the Olympic Games as a female athlete. However, those men who are tested XX (the normal makeup for a woman) can still participate as a male athlete. Why is this the case?

“The IOC forged on, saying all this testosterone gives these females an unfair advantage over other females whose testosterone levels aren’t as high”. (Forsyth, 2016). Thus, we have established that testosterone is associated with performance enhancement and it is particularly male, which ties nicely with the society views on women on average performs less well than men. Yet, it is fair for men with low natural levels of testosterone to compete against men with high levels? Nevertheless, why is this only an issue for female athletes? In addition, those who do not fall within the IOC prescribed range face extreme consequences e.g. disqualification.

Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño was a growing successful athlete in women’s track and field events, with visions of competing in the Olympic Games. In 1985, her visions were no longer achievable as a discovery had be made that she had a Y chromosome, which resulted in her being disqualified from competing with women. (Sánchez, Martínez-Patiño and Vilain, 2013). “I was born and raised in northern Spain. I had the life of a normal girl, expect that I had an affinity for running and jumping”. (Martínez-Patiño, 2005). 2 months after failing the sex-test, doctors came to the conclusion that she had a complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), which prevented her body from responding correctly to testosterone and caused her to develop as a woman. (Bardin, 2012). This diagnose is the reason why her test results came back XY. After 3 years of being exposed to intense medical and media scrutiny, Maria diagnoses was stated as ‘incapable of benefiting from the presence of the Y chromosome’, therefore in 1988,  she was given her license back to run again as a woman. Just because a woman has a masculine physique and/or are good at their chosen sport, does this mean they are not female enough to be a woman in sporting society?

N0577356

References:

Forsyth, J. (2016). Olympic Sex-Testing Is Violence Against Women. [Online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/janice-forsyth/olympic-sex-testing_b_11310150.html [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].

Martínez-Patiño, M. (2005). Personal Account: A woman tried and tested. The Lancet, 366, p.S38.

Müller, M. (2016). Constructing Gender Incommensurability in Competitive Sport: Sex/Gender Testing and the New Regulations on Female Hyperandrogenism. Human Studies, 39(3), pp.405-431.

Naimark, M. (2014). Sex Verification in Women’s Sports Is Humiliating and Unnecessary. [Online] Available at: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/31/sex_verification_in_sports_why_is_competing_as_a_woman_all_about_testosterone.html [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].

Sánchez, F., Martínez-Patiño, M. and Vilain, E. (2013). The New Policy on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes is Not About “Sex Testing”. Journal of Sex Research, 50(2), pp.112-115.

(Picture taken from the Daily mail online who have campaigned about head trauma’s in football since 2013. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/. )

When thinking about dementia we don’t tend to link it with sport or ever consider that sport would be one of the factors that could cause dementia. It has been noticed that 60% of people who now develop dementia have had a history of head injuries (www.blog.alzheimers.org.uk). In football most of the players head the ball or collide with other players allowing the impact from head to object to occur causing them to have a head-trauma. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is caused by blows to the head when wearing protective gear in American football, it is known to have similar symptoms as Alzheimer’s (Anderson, Kian. 2012, p156).  CTE occurs when the brain becomes traumatically injured due to routinely taking part in a contact sport, it starts to form when a person is participating in sport at a young age (Anderson, Kian. 2012, pP156). So at what point do we start to think that sport may not be good for our health and that in contact sports it is damaging our cells in the brain causing players to have head-traumas which could lead to other diseases.

Footballers are at risks of getting dementia, after years of heading the ball and colliding with other players they are allowing clumps of proteins in the brain to develop putting amounts of pressure on the frontal lobe of the brain (The guardian, 2017, P1). The Guardian (2017,P1-3) goes on to suggest that there are potential links between CTE and Alzheimer’s disease due to the repetitive concussive head injuries from playing football (www.theguardian.com/sport). In 2002 football player Jeff Astley died from dementia which was the results of heading the ball over the years in football which he suffered with for nearly 20 years. Brian injury in sport is fuelled by an increase of CTE in former athletes. Long term neuropsychological health of former footballers is a consequence of heading the ball, likely to be identified as an impairment to the brains function (Rutherford Et El, 2017, p3).  The Independent (2017) goes on further to suggest that the players who are going to suffer with dementia are those who are retired and played football from 1960 who would then be diagnosed with dementia at a younger age than the average person. They found that the players were tearing the membrane in the brain which seem to be consistent with the repetitive blows to the head which suggested that they all suffered with CTE as well. The Independent (2017) also suggested that players who participated in football for over 20years would head the ball over 1000 times in their career (www.independent.co.uk/sport/football).

I believe that if we were to look deeper into the links between dementia and football players then we should find answers and reasons why this may be happening to the players and how we may be able to stop it from effecting them. This doesn’t mean that we should start banning people from heading the ball in practice or in the game as that would be taking away part of the sport. There are ways to decrease heading in the sport such as limiting how much they head it in training and what age they should start to use that skill. Also I believe that players should be made aware of the consequences the contact sport may have on their health in later life when playing at an elite or professional level. If we were to stop footballers from heading the ball then we are taking away a part of the game, whereas if we make them aware of the consequences it may have on their health and reduce the amount of times they do head the ball in training then we are helping to reduce this risk of dementia.

N0634219

Reference List:

Alzheimer's society . (2017). Football and dementia: examining the evidence . Available: https://blog.alzheimers.org.uk/research/football-and-dementia . Last accessed 24/10/2017.

Anderson, E. Edward, K. (2012). Men and Masculinities. Examining Media Contestation of Masculinity and Head Trauma in the National Football League. 15 (2), p153-173.

Davis, N. (2017). Footballers could be at risk of dementia from blows to the head, study suggests. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/15/footballers-could-be-at-risk-of-dementia-from-blows-to-the-head-study-suggests. Last accessed 31/10/2017.

Rutherford, A, Stewart, W, Bruno, D. (2017). Sports medicine. Heading for trouble: is dementia a game changer for football? 2 (1), p1-6.

Herbert, I The independent 2017, accessed 14/11/2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/dementia-in-football-heading-fa-pfa-footballers-head-injury-a7580496.html

Image: Creative Commons Zero (CC0)

We are all aware that doping in sport is illegal, frowned upon and overall unfair, but what would you do to be the best? There is an ongoing war on doping within sport at elite level. Drugs have become more accessible to athletes, they are continuing to take them regardless of the consequences put in place by the WADA (World anti-doping agency) and the damage they cause to our bodies.

Athletes are provided with rigorous anti-doping education and are aware of the risks and consequences associated with doping in sport (Morente-Sa´nchez and Zabala 2013). These consequences are put in place by the WADA and involve the banning of athletes for a length of time determined by severity of the situation. Athletes are also aware of the implications doping has on the body.  They are encouraged to push limits despite how destructive and deviant (Hughes and Coakley 1991). This shows athletes are willing to take harmful substances that will help push their bodies to the edge, increasing their chance of health detriments.

Despite these risks, many athletes would do anything to be the best. Hughes and Coakley (1991. p, 307) identifies this by stating that “when athletes use the sport ethic, which emphasizes sacrifice for the game, seeking distinction, taking risks, and challenging limits as an exclusive guide for behaviour and sport participation become especially vulnerable to corruption”. This acknowledges that athletes are willing to take high risks to succeed even though doping is corrupting sport. A study conducted by Goldman, provided 198 Olympians the question; would you take prohibited substances if it meant you would win every competition for the next 5 years but would then die from the side effects? He found that 50% of participants said they would consume substances if this was the outcome (Bamber and Yaeger 1997). This shows that dedicated athletes are willing to do anything, even risk their lives, to become the best.

Athletes are “subjected to a unique social and psychological environment with extreme pressure to perform” (Ehrnborg and Rosén 2009. p, 285), causing doping substances to be a temptation as they are used to enhance athlete’s performance so they ultimately able to push their body’s to perform to the best of their ability. Athletes are willing to do this due to the benefits of developing in their chosen sport. One benefit of developing up the ranks includes a high amount of money. This drives athletes to want to ‘win at all costs’ (Ehrnborg and Rosén 2009).

This relates closely to the doping scandal of Muhammad Ali. Muhammad is 21 year old British boxer who previously accomplished a silver medal in the 2016 European Championship. His goal was to be selected for the Tokyo Olympics 2020 before he was tested positive for steroids (Kelner 2017). It is evident that this athlete was undergoing enormous pressure due to the demand of achieving his goals (Reardon and Creado 2014), and idea of gaining endless benefits of becoming a high performing athlete. This then lead to his choice to consume substances banned by the WADA and ultimately his suspension.  

Most athletes take “banned substances mainly to improve their performance, even though most athletes acknowledge that doping is dishonest, unhealthy and risky” (Morente-Sa’nchez and Zabala 2013. p, 409). They must weigh the risks and consequences against the benefits of becoming an elite athlete and make the decision to either abide by WADA rules or succumb to temptation. So before we are quick to judge athletes that put their bodies through extreme physical, emotional and social stress, just think, what would you do to be the best?

N0612650

References:

Bamber, A. and Yaeger, D., 1997. Over the edge, Sports Ill. 86, pp. 62-70

Creative Commons Zero (CC0), 2016. Pile of White Pink and Brown Oblong and Round Medication Tablet. Pexels. Available at: https://www.pexels.com/photo/colors-colours-health-medicine-143654/ [Accessed, 23rd October 2017]

Ehrnborg, C. and Rosén, T., 2009. The psychology behind doping in sport. Growth Hormone & IGF Research, 19(4), pp, 285-287.

Hughes, R. and Coakley, C,. 1991. Positive Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the Sport Ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(4), pp, 307-325

Kelner, M., 2017. Team GB’s Muhammad Ali tests positive and set for lengthy boxing ban. The Guardian, 26th October, p, 1-2.

Morente-Sa’nchez, J, and Zabala, M,. 2013. Doping in Sport: A Review of Elite Athletes’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Knowledge. Sports Med, 43(6), pp. 395-411.

Disability has come a long way from the prevailing past time views of the medical model of disability, where the individual was seen as ill and their condition was a problem with the individual, as opposed to the social and external influences. The previous stigma surrounding disabled individuals often produced negative views and shaped the way people interacted with individuals with disabilities and impacted the way people with disabilities viewed their own roles in society, including their involvement in sport.

In more recent years, there has been an honest push to promote the social model of disability which argues that people with disabilities are less restricted by their own impairments and in fact are more constrained through the barriers put on them by society. This change in thinking has led to disabled individuals having the right to access and participate in all levels of society, including sport. Yet, the persistence of discourse of the medical model and dominant media representations which perpetuate the ‘Personal Tragedy model’ that regards those with non- normative abilities as unfortunate victims; thus, depicting disabled people as “vulnerable” and “strange, often counters the positive movements towards reducing overall stereotypes and discrimination.

With sport having the powers to promote diversity, break-down barriers and bring people together, the implementation of the Paralympic Games, gave disabled individuals the opportunity to compete in globally recognized arena and stage. As the Paralympics transition from pastime to global spectacle (Howe, 2008).  The new innovative Channel four coverage the profile of the Paralympics has increased. It has created a hugely positive event which could be a once in a life time opportunity to change people’s attitudes and perceptions of disability, increase sport participation, challenge stereotypes, demonstrate a wide range of disability’s and an opportunity to both raise recognition and awareness on an international globalized scale. Prior to the 2012 Paralympic Games, both disability and disability sports had a near-invisible status exacerbated by the relatively low levels of participation in sport by disabled people.

Whilst there was considerable goodwill towards the Paralympics, the potential impact of the games and its legacy as a powerful agent for positive social change remains a topic that necessitates critical excavation Anthony Bush, Michael Silk, Jill Porter & P. David Howe (2013). A plethora of academics and individuals are arguing towards it’s negative connotations as opposed to the positive implications of this contemporary sporting event. Scholars have argued (Despouy 1991; Shildrick 2012; Swain & French 2000; Fitzgerald 2012; Hughes 2012, amongst many more) that the greatest barriers facing disabled people today are those of prejudice, discrimination and social isolation. In turn, media coverage of the Paralympic Games is considered to be a key indicator of the dominant public rep representations of and attitudes towards disability and, more specifically, disability sport (Schantz & Gilbert 2001).  As a result of this influx in media coverage towards disability in sport, it’s influence in shaping and forming attitudes has increased.

Scope, a leading disability charity, presented new research which holistically represented perceptions of disabled individuals towards the Paralympics. Disabled people involved in this study put their trust and belief in the games acting as an opportunity to be a vehicle of change. However, in a survey of 100 disabled individuals Scope discovered that despite the success of the games themselves, disabled individuals still feel that equal treatment and support has yet to be achieved on both the behalf of general society and governments. Furthermore, the research revealed that over a quarter (28%) believed that the ‘legacy’ that surrounds the Paralympic Games often deteriorates and is forgotten once the two weeks are over. In addition to this, over a third (38%) argue that both attitudes and perspectives were unchanged and in some cases worsened as a result of the 2012 Paralympic Games (Scope, 2016). If we were to base our assumptions on this piece of research alone, it could be argued that significant sporting events such as the Paralympics pose as a detriment to the disabled community, as opposed to the positive promotion that is put forward through media sources.

I argue that the fantastic new, innovative channel four coverage of the Paralympics has created an unrealistic portrayal for disabled individuals. Many the Paralympic athletes were unrealistically portrayed as ‘superheroes’. They suddenly became these people who could overcome and achieve anything. Yet in reality, the struggles of the majority are often swept away in order to facilitate and accommodate the message that large and powerful media resources attempt to put across on the attitudes towards disabled people in general.

Reference List:

Throughout the month of October, it is impossible to miss the amount of pink ribbons colouring anything from KFC buckets to Avon lipsticks. Most people without argument would say that donating to charity is always moral, however not everyone. In some cases, charity is carried out less well than it should be, particularly when it comes to sport.

Firstly, let’s look at which cancers are the most common causes of deaths according to the World Health Organization (2017), accounting for 8.8 million losses in 2015 these are the top five: Lung (1.69 million), Liver (788 000), Colorectal (774 000), Stomach (754 000) and Breast (571 000). Considered, breast cancer is a huge killer, but why is it publicised so much more than the four bigger killers? Answer, simply because it can be ‘pink washed’ (Breast Cancer Action, 2017) and huge corporate companies can make their products look attractive whilst making themselves look considerate in the meantime. Sport is a major catalyst used by Breast Cancer Awareness to promote their cause, highlighted most recently by American sports brand Under Armour (2017) whose online shop have released pink football boots, displaying them on some of their highest profile players including Arsenal midfielder Granit Xhaka. Interestingly, Niebuhr (1932), claimed that a powerful individual’s donation to charity was an expression of his pity, and a way to express his power. He also suggests the rich or more powerful are more inclined to be generous rather than to grant social justice, which kindly links into this matter.

Similarly, the NFL Shop UK (2017) sell lots of merchandise on their website raising awareness for Breast Cancer Awareness, such as jerseys with various team’s names displayed in pink text. Interestingly, Business Insider editor Cork Gaines (2013) wrote that just 8.01 percent of money from the NFL Breast Cancer Awareness merchandise goes to research efforts, Gaines also reported that stunningly a whopping 50 percent goes to the retailer. According to the NFL any money they take in goes to what they describe as, unbelievably, to ‘support women’ (NFL Communications, 2016) as part of their awareness scheme. This is hard to believe when breast cancer affects males as well as females, another flaw of the pink washing system. Academics have shown that sponsoring events planned for philanthropic causes is one of the most influential corporate charitable events (Chakraborti & Roy, 2013). As well as this, researchers have also discovered that sponsoring charitable sporting events gives companies a substantial foundation in competitive benefit by increasing customer loyalty (Bortoleto & de Moura Costa, 2012). Moving forward, after an array of criticism the NFL has moved on from devoting the month to solely breast cancer, and now teams are told to choose their own charities to donate to during a three-week period in October, naming it ‘A Crucial Catch’ (NFL, 2017). Let’s hope this scheme does a little bit more to support the selected charities.

Of course, it is always moral to donate whatever you can to charity. However, the argument is there and more often than most donators would know, charity is carried out a lot less well than it should be, especially by corporate companies. Businesses do not have a responsibility to society as a whole, but they do have a duty to those who are directly or indirectly affected by their actions (D’Astous & Bitz, 1995; Meenaghan, 2001). Charity should be left to those with genuine intentions to help others for a good cause, not for someone’s or something’s self-benefit. So next time you donate your hard-earned cash, think about where it might, or might not be going.

N0628558

References:

Bortoleto, F. de Moura Costa, D. (2012). The importance of cooperatives’ corporate social responsibility to the loyalty of members. Journal of Rural Cooperation, 40, 198-216.

Breast Cancer Action (2017). Knot Our Pink Ribbon – Campaign at a Glance. [Online] Available at: https://bcaction.org/knot-our-pink-ribbon/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

Chakraborti, R. Roy, S. (2013). Meaning transfer between events and sponsor brands: Integrating the role of emotions – A new conceptual framework. Journal of Brand Strategy, 2, 87-105.

D’Astous, A. Bitz, P. (1995). Consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes. European Journal of Marketing, 29, 6-22.

Gaines, C. (2013). Businessinsider.com - A Shockingly Small Amount of Money From Pink NFL Merchandise Sales Goes to Breast Cancer Research. [Online] Available at:  http://www.businessinsider.com/small-amount-of-money-from-pink-nfl-merchandise-goes-to-breast-cancer-research-2013-10?IR=T  [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

NFL – A Crucial Catch. (2017). A Crucial Catch, Intercept Cancer – About Crucial Catch [Online] Available at: http://www.nfl.com/crucialcatch [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

NFL Communications. (2016). NFL Supports National Breast Cancer Awareness Month - With A Crucial Catch Campaign. [Online] Available at: https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/NFL-Supports-National-Breast-Cancer-Awareness-Month-With-A-Crucial-Catch-Campaign.aspx [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

NFL Shop UK. (2017). NFL Shop UK – Breast Cancer. [Online] Available at:  https://nflshopuk.com/?s=breast+cancer&post_type=product [Accessed on 9 Nov. 2017].

Niebuhr, R. (1932). Moral Man and Immoral Society – A Study in Ethics and Politics. Library of Theological Ethics.

Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 95-122.

Under Armour Shop UK. (2017). Under Armour Shop UK - Men's UA ClutchFit® Force 3.0 Firm Ground— Limited Edition Football Boots. [Online] Available at: https://www.underarmour.co.uk/en-gb/mens-ua-clutchfit-force-3.0-firm-ground%E2%80%94-limited-edition-football-boots/1297548.html?dwvar_1297548_color=661 [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

A focus on the ethical approaches of companies that sponsor or invest in sport.

Tell me what Coca Cola and MacDonald’s have in common. They all invested finance into sports (The Coca Cola Company, 2012; CNBC, 2017; Horne and Manzenreiter, 2006). Why would they do such a noble act? Those companies claim to share the same value as the sport being sponsored (Coca Cola Company, 2012). At face value these companies seem to be helping sports to ensure its growth in society, but those companies pose contradictions solely because of the product they create for consumption.  Firstly, teleological ethical approach is the concept that if the consequence of an action is good then the action was moral (Ward, 1971). An alternative approach is the deontological ethical approach which focuses on the motivation for an action so if the motivation is a justifiable one then it is moral, regardless of the outcome (Alexander and Moore, 2007). The term ‘invest’ is a term for the actions these giant companies are doing, that is because a reflection of big brands actions indicates that there is an expectation to achieve profit.

Penedo and Dahn (2005) suggests that engagement in sport promotes better physical health. Big brands investing in sports grows the public awareness of that sport also, it gives big brands a new audience which are the spectators. Abratt, Clayton and Pitt (1987) suggest that investing in sport does improve a corporation public perception. However, Bowman et al. (2004) has suggested that fast food can be detrimental to physical health, that includes MacDonald’s. With that being considered, it is plausible to say MacDonald’s may have invested in the Olympics (Horne and Manzenreiter, 2006) to improve current public perception rather than focus on the growth of sport. MacDonald’s (Boyd, et al. 2007) still do unethical actions, for instance giving employees low wages, which can harm the public attitude towards the brand and this further indicated the incentive of investing to improve public perception.

Coca cola, who have claimed to share the same values as the Olympics, is another example with questionable intentions considering what Coca Cola’s impact on the body (Seifert et al. 2011). Seifert et al. (2011) suggests that Coca Cola is counterproductive for physical health in large for consumers. An ulterior motive for Coca Cola could be to generate revenue from the mega event which is a reasonable and moral motive. However, when inspecting how Coca Cola operate (Werther and Chandler, 2005) it begs the question of whether a company which engages in unethical activities should continue to grow, would it not cause more damage than good?

Promoting public perception for an unethical company via sponsorship is considered brainwashing, which is deceiving and that alone is immoral. Also, if we allow corporations to deceive it gives them confidence to do an immoral act in the future. Corporates may disregard their social corporate responsibly (CSR) (McWilliams, 2000), which can lead to devastation (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill, 2006). With that taken into consideration, comparator sponsorship motivation appears far more questionable and cynical. What is the point of stating problems without stating solutions? One way to overcome this issue is to create a regulator for those investing in sport to ensure CSR is followed (Aupperle, Carrol, and Hatfield, 1985).

We know within the blog there has been discussion on different ethical approaches which is teleological and deontological, discussion on which approach companies use, how the companies contradict their investment, why that is harmful to our society and how they can overcome these issues. I believe these companies have a more self-centred approach. Duggar (1989) suggests corporation follow a teleological ethical approach. Where does this leave us? I believe it opens a discussion about corporate responsibility, highlights the issues with contemporary society with mega events and how we could overcome the issues.

N0634071  

Reference List:

Abratt, R., Clayton, B.C. and Pitt, L.F., (1987), Corporate objectives in sports sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 6(4), pp.299-312. Vancouver

Alexander, L. and Moore, M., (2007), Deontological ethics. Vancouver  

Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B. and Hatfield, J.D., 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 28(2), pp.446-463.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P., 2006. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of business research, 59(1), pp.46-53.

Bowman, S.A., Gortmaker, S.L., Ebbeling, C.B., Pereira, M.A. and Ludwig, D.S., (2004), Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics, 113(1), pp.112-118. Vancouver

Boyd, D.E., Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. and Werhane, P., (2007), Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: a procedural justice perspective. Long Range Planning, 40(3), pp.341-356. Vancouver

CNBC (2017), McDonald's ends Olympics sponsorship deal early. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/mcdonalds-ends-olympics-sponsorship-deal-early.html [Accessed on 5 May 2017].

Horne, J. and Manzenreiter, W., (2006), An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events. The Sociological Review, 54: 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00650.x

McWilliams, A., 2000. Corporate social responsibility. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.

Penedo, F.J. and Dahn, J.R., (2005), Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Current opinion in psychiatry, 18(2), pp.189-193. Vancouver.

The Coca Cola Company, (2012), Coca-Cola Sponsorships: London 2012 Olympic Games. Available at: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coca-cola-sponsorships-london-2012-olympic-games [Accessed on 5 May 2017].

Seifert, S.M., Schaechter, J.L., Hershorin, E.R. and Lipshultz, S.E., (2011), Health effects of energy drinks on children, adolescents, and young adults.

Ward, K., (1971), Kant's teleological ethics. The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), 21(85), pp.337-351. Vancouver.

Enhancing drugs within sports and especially within athletics has always been and is still an increasing problem which is yet to be resolved. Sports enhancing drugs are used on a daily basis by athletes within sport in order to increase their performance levels and become the best they possibly can be due to there being a great amount of pressure being placed on there shoulders.

So, what drugs are actually being used by athletes then?

There are two main performance enhancing drugs which are being used most often within sports these being stimulants and anabolic steroids. The effects in which these two drugs have, are that they artificially improve the performance of athletes therefore many feel as if this is unfair.  Firstly stimulants ‘boost heart rate and other body functions’ in order to improve performance, however steroids ‘stimulate the growth of muscles’. (Bbc.co.uk, 2017) Although these two drugs are the main ones being used by athletes to improve performance there are three other enhancing drugs which make up the 5 doping classes of banned drugs these being: Diurects, Narcotic analgesics, Beta blockers and Peptides and Hormones. (Bbc.co.uk, 2017) These 5 doping classes are mainly banned due to them being deemed as giving them an unfair advantage over those who aren’t taking enhancing drugs, however they are also banned due to there being many severe side effects for example: addictiveness, dehydration, heart failure, arthritis and stroke risks etc.

So what is being done to prevent sports enhancing drugs from being used?

In order to try and reduce/prevent enhancing drugs from being used within the game the main form is through athletes having to take regular/random drug doping tests. These tests were first brought into sports in 1966 through doping tests being introduced to Football and Cycling. However, within athletics doping tests were not introduced till the games in 1968 and this was arranged by the first ever governing body within athletics being the ‘(IAAF) International Association of Athletics Federations. (BBC Sport, 2017) Within these doping tests athletes are required to provide urine samples and blood testing is also used. Through urine samples being provided this allows any drugs within athlete’s systems to be detected through the urine being ionised this process is otherwise known as mass spectrometry. On the other hand, blood testing is used within doping tests in order to try trace any form of drugs through synthetic oxygen carriers being detected.

Are all sports performance enhancers illegal?

Although there are many sport enhancing drugs which have been deemed as illegal there are also many other ways of legally improving an athlete’s performance which don’t produce many negative impacts which asks the question why are they not banned in the same way the 5 doping classes are. Firstly, athletes may take on a daily basis legal pills such as amino acids, protein powder, chromium picolinate CoQ10 in order to improve the level of performance the same way in which banned substances could improve an athlete’s game as well. The reason in which these pills may have the same influence that banned drugs may have is due to them being able to increase performance levels in ways such as: producing more energy, gaining more strength within shorter time periods, they may help give a higher level of motivation, they help athletes to build muscle, also they help athletes gain a better recovery and finally these legal drugs may help prolong time for muscular fatigue. (CalorieBee, 2017)                                                             

(Google.co.uk, 2017)

Reference list:

Bbc.co.uk. (2017). BBC Bitesize - GCSE Physical Education - Drugs in sport - Revision 1. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zwfg87h/revision/1 [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

Bbc.co.uk. (2017). BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Performance-enhancing drugs. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/drugs_use/drugsrev5.shtml [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

BBC Sport. (2017). Doping in sport: What is it and how is it being tackled?. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/33997246 [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

CalorieBee. (2017). Six Great (Legal) Performance Enhancers for Sports or Fitness. [online] Available at: https://caloriebee.com/vitamins-supplements/Six-Great-Legal-Performance-Enhancers--for-Sports-or-Just-Fitness [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

The debate around the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) in sports is an ongoing discussion. PED’s are substances which athletes take to gain an advantage over their competitors, they have been shown to increase individuals; strength, endurance, recovery rates, increase in focus and speed (Ahmadi, Ljungqvist and Svedsater, 2016). The arguments against the uses of PEDs remain consistent, and similar ideas continuously arise, however, it is important to assess why athletes feel the need to cheat in the first place, and do we as a society encourage or force athletes to dope?

Doping in sport is not a recent development, it’s usage has been present for many years (Flintoff, Chimes and Murray, 2010). The simple yet obvious reasoning behind elite athletes taking PEDs is to increase their chances of winning, in spite of that it would be naïve of us not to investigate it further. Morente-Sanchez and Zabala (2013) researched into athlete’s motivations behind taking PEDs, and deduced the most common incentives were financial gain and increasing their success.

The desire and need for athletes to win was dramatically strengthened when sport was professionalised, being an elite athlete is a career for many and they therefore rely on the sponsorships and reward money as a living (Overbye, Knudsen and Pfister, 2013). This increases the pressure athletes face, as individuals that dope feel the need to win is greater than the risks they face taking PEDs. But should athletes be made to feel they should risk their health and career to achieve this? Do we ask more of athletes than before, if so, does this act as an incentive to take PEDs?

Hughes and Coakley (1991) outlined the key concepts and beliefs of what makes an elite athlete with reference to sport ethic: making sacrifices, taking risks, being the best and exceeding limits. They linked these ideas with positive deviance and how some elite athletes may try to overconform to what is expected of them. But couldn’t it be said that the individuals taking PEDs are simply abiding by these new preconceptions regarding athletes? Would Hughes and Coakley agree with how risk taking in sport has evolved into doping instead? Are they following the sport ethic? Is the risk of taking PEDs worth the detrimental impact on an athlete’s career in modern day sport? Not only do athletes face potential health complications, but they also jeopardise their future career prospects. The uncertain performance enhancing results of which they compromise their health and careers for, surely does not warrant using PEDs.

Chan et al. further investigated the beliefs held by athletes to gain an understanding of attitudes towards doping. Chan et al. concluded that reputation, health effects, financial gain and rewards were the most apparent ideologies amongst participants. Two of the three reasons supported the use of PEDs. The general consensus amongst the athletes studied implied that the only downside to doping is being caught. Multiple athletes admitted that covertly taking PEDs was an easy-yet-viable method of evading incrimination.

Drugs in sport is a widespread issue and the increasing coverage by the media may exacerbate this. It’s difficult to understand how an ongoing issue still hasn’t been dealt with, especially due to its current transparency. Are we losing the battle against PEDs in sport, and drawing further attention to the lacking infrastructure of anti-doping agencies? Most anti-doping policies state similar reasoning behind banning PEDs. It’s unfair, dangerous to health and sets a bad example; yet the current policies are clearly insufficient and need revising, as many athletes still abuse PEDs (Houlihan, 2002).

References:

Ahmadi, N., Ljungqvist, A., and Svedsater, G., 2016. Doping and Public Health. First Edition. New York. Routledge.

Chan, D, K, C., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., Dimmock, J, A., Hardcastle, S, J., Donovan, R, J., Hagger, M, S., 2014. Athletes’ Beliefs About and Attitudes Towards Taking Banned Performance-Enhancing Substances: A Qualitative Study. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology.  3, (4), 241–257.

Flintoff, J, T., Chimes, G, P., and Murray, T, H., 2010. Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Houlihan, B., 2002. Dying to win: doping in sport and the development of anti-doping policy. Second Edition. Germany. Council of Europe Publishing.

Hughes, R., and Coakley, J., 1991. Positive Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the Sport Ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8,  307-325.

Morente-Sanchez, J., and Zabala, M., 2013. Doping in Sport: A Review of Elite Athletes’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Knowledge. Sports Medicine, 43 (6), 395-411.

Overbye, M., Knudsen, M, L., and Pfister, G., 2013. To dope or not to dope: Elite athletes’ perceptions of doping deterrent and incentives. Performance Enhancement and Health, 2 (3), 119-134.

Image

In a world where more often than not our phones have become our life companions, technology has also advanced in order to provide users with everything they might need on the palm of their hands. Among countless applications (apps) that seemingly suit for every situation, those ones that helps to keep tracking of personal health and fitness have recently become increasingly popular.

Though having simply downloaded any of these apps on our mobile phones will not make us fit, it is undoubtedly a step ahead to get up from the couch. Therefore, the best part comes when you start using them as they tend to provide some degree of fun and motivation, for instance through feedback on performance, self-monitoring of behaviour, specific goal setting as well as providing instructions, rewards and opportunities for social comparison (Middelweerd et al., 2016).

Being a rather new invention that has generated bulks of public interest (34% of Americans said they made plans to achieve fitness goals through these apps (Bertolucci, 2016)), for instance in youth, more and more teachers have combined their teaching skills with the use of such apps to engage students in abandoning a sedentary life which is embedded in the use of mobile phones or similar devices and conversely use them to be more active as many of those apps provide a fun, enjoyable side too. In fact, in order to tackle obesity and inactivity in youth which currently is a raising issue, why not to use the very first device that is causing them?

However, since these apps are now still at a time of discovery, being less than ten years into this new era it is right to recognise that they have huge potentials and as with every new discovery, time will give space to see what can possibly be done and considering the investments made on them it is expectable for this kind of apps to constructively become more and more part of our daily life.

In fact, according to present research it appears that there is enormous room for improvement to make them much more successful (Cowan et al., 2012) as well as to include an increased number of techniques able to encourage behavioural changes (Middelweerd et al., 2016) which one day, having all these features present in these apps, may lead to substitute expensive gym memberships, fitness classes or private personal trainers.

Nonetheless, it has been pointed out that these apps greatly help to motivate someone at a beginner level whereas after the initial innovative factor elapses it seems to be far more difficult to continue exercising at the same pace. Therefore, gamification is another step forward to reach such goals since it appears that a game-based fitness app is much more enjoyable than others that only focus on simply exercising and moreover that provides the fun experience that would make such app to be used for a longer time (Lister et al., 2014).

Therefore, dear reader who surely are interested in fitness and healthy lifestyle (since you are visiting this blog) and most probably owner of one or more devices that can supply you with countless of such apps, how much would you value them? Would you feel that they are an engaging tool to stay fit and managing weight loss or you feel the need for something more developed and advanced or perhaps something that would be more shaped around your physical characteristics and needs?

N0582805

Reference list:

Bertolucci, J., 2016. ‘Best New Health and Fitness Apps’. The Saturday Evening Post [online]. Available at: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2016/04/18/health-and-family/tech/best-new-health-fitness-apps.html [Accessed 9 November 2017]

Cowan, L., T., Van Wagenen, S., A., Brown, B., A., Hedin, R., J., Seino-Stephan, Y., Cougar Hall, P. and West, J., H., 2012. ‘Apps of Steel: Are Exercise Apps Providing Consumers with Realistic Expectations? A Content Analysis of Exercise Apps for Presence of Behavior Change Theory’. Health Education and Behavior [online]. 4: 2; 133-139. DOI: 10.1177/1090198112452126 [Accessed 9 November 2017].

Lister C., West J., H., Cannon B., Sax T., Brodegard D., 2014. ‘Just a Fad? Gamification in Health and Fitness Apps’. JMIR Serious Games [online]. 2: 2; e9. DOI: 10.2196/games.3413 [Accessed 9 November 2017].

Sport as we know it has been forever associated with the idea that you have to win no matter what. To win no matter what is usually attributed with an athlete or teams passion to strive to be the best in their sport.  It is something that has been installed within athletes from the beginning "captures the normative dimension of sport ethic" (Coakley & Hughes, 1991, pg.309). There are athletes that will step into over conformity of the norms which can quickly lead to the deviation of the principles of sport. However what about those athletes that are not doing it to cheat but to better themselves, to be just as good as all the other athletes, is that not positive deviance? ‘Sport is a field of human activities in which raising performance has become common' (Crăciun et al, 2011).

For many people, performance enhancement in sport is wrong but is it cheating or is it positive deviance? Your body can only be pushed so far and some can be pushed further than others, so why is it bad that some athletes take performance-enhancing drugs to be on par with other athletes? "Being an athlete involves making sacrifices for the game; being an athlete involves striving for distinction; being an athlete involves refusing to accept limits in the pursuit of possibilities" (Coakley & Hughes, 1991, pg.309). Some athletes undergo cosmetic surgery that is not essential to improve their performance, for example, a golfer or an archer may undergo laser eye surgery. If they can do that to improve their performance then what is so different about taking performance-enhancing drugs why is it deemed to be so wrong, is it not the same principle. Being ‘a level playing field' is something that is always spoken about with the conversation of sport. For athletes to be able to create a ‘level playing field' however, if one athlete is deviating then aren’t other athletes completely within their right to do what it takes to stay or be on par with athletes, whether it be performance enhancing drugs or cosmetic surgery to create the' level playing field' that is so commonly spoken about in sport. Athlete's bodies are commodities. Athletes make profit from their bodies, if they were not able to reach their full potential then would they really be able to make profit from what they do, I don't think they would.

As spectators in sport, we love to see the passion and commitment that the athletes have, so it is also important to point out that if they did not deviate to a certain extent would that passion and commitment be there?  The standard of the competitiveness in sport will drop if the passion for the sport ethic and element of positive deviance was taken away, therefore, it would not attract the same media attention and commercialisation that it does today. Consequently, sport would not be as big if it was taken away. Instead of seeing athletes over conformity to sport ethic as deviant behaviour, we should see it as them trying to improve themselves in order for them to reach the top of their game, after all, sport is a movement of expression.

I do believe that there is a difference and a clear distinction between doping to intentionally cheat and doping to match with other athletes abilities. Is it really possible for athletes to reach the peak of their performance without the deviating from what people consider the ‘norm'?

N0618059

References:

Hughes, R. and Coakley, J. (1991). Positive Deviance among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the Sport Ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(4), pp.307-325.

Crăciun et al.. (2011). Ethical Principles In Sport Performance Enhancement. Romanian Journal of Bioethics. 9(3)

Year on year we see the mega event gravy train rolling into another hopeful host city or nation, events such as the Summer Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup or the IAAF World Athletics Championships. With it comes hope of social, economic and infrastructural growth; however, the bittersweet reality for such cities is often social, economic and infrastructural decline. So the question is, who really pays the price for the spectacle of sport?

The long term effects for (often the poorest) residents of host cities and nations are most clearly demonstrated by the extortionate number of displacements and housing evictions forced upon them (Olds, 1998). The devastating effects are clear to see when you look at the Rio summer Olympic Games. Approximately 23% - 24% of the city’s residents live in slum housing, many of whom were forcibly evicted from their homes in the build up to the Olympics, to allow for new transport links and sporting venues. It was calculated by one civil society group that 22,059 families were displaced across the city during the six years before the mega-event – that’s roughly 77,206 people in total.

Organisers viewed informal housing in Rio – known as Favelas – as an eye sore for global visitors, therefore they set about an ‘invisibilisation strategies’ to display a more modern and wealthy city. In doing so inhabitants were forcibly moved to the remote outskirts of the city and the buildings in which they lived were demolished. This was not the first time that the poorer population of Rio had been effected by the hosting of a sporting mega-event as relocations of ‘less advantaged communities’ happened prior to hosting the 2007 Pan-American games (Rio 2016 Candidate City, 2009). There was an extensive list of 119 favelas which were to be removed by 2016 published by Rio’s municipal government in 2009 (Gaffney, 2010), which clearly demonstrates the destructiveness a mega-event can have when seeking gentrification of the host city.

In the run-up to the games unrealistic time frames were put in place by organisers and politicians alike, which strongly affected urban development. This almost inevitably led to a concentration of urban policy regarding spatial distribution and to an acceleration of the implementation of selected (prestigious) projects. Despite ‘legacy and sustainability’ being a common rhetoric within the bid books and in political speeches, the actual priority in this phase was chiefly orientated towards more short-term achievements. Priorities were set towards successful global staging and creating ‘neo-liberal dream worlds’ (Tatun and Murray 2007) and not to the objectives of developing a socially integrative city. Consequently, the main target groups of this ‘festivalisation’ policy were not the residents of Rio and especially not the urban poor but the billions of global TV viewers and the international visitors.

It should not be said that there was no need for urban development in Rio nor that all effects of hosting a mega event are negative, but it must be accepted that the way in which a large amount of these changes were carried out was far from being wholly democratic. Rio has strived to achieve the status of a successful, modern Olympic city to be indulged by international tourists and the upper strata for Brazilian society. Whilst on the surface this may seem to be revolutionary, if you scratch beneath the surface its clear to see the devastation caused by the spectacle of sport for those who are most vulnerable in society. For this reason, its hard to accept the ‘spirit of the games’.

N0587253

References:

Catalytic Communities | CatComm. (2017). Rio Favela Facts. [online] Available at: http://catcomm.org/favela-facts/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Christopher Gaffney (2010). Mega-events and socio-spatial dynamics in Rio de Janeiro, 1919-2016. Journal of Latin American Geography, [online] 9(1), pp.7-29. Available at: http://1mundoreal.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Chris-Gaffney-2010-Mega-Events-Rio-de-Janeiro.pdf [Accessed 11 Nov. 2017].

Olds, K. (1998). Urban Mega-Events, Evictions and Housing Rights: The Canadian Case. Current Issues in Tourism, [online] 1(1), pp.2-46. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683509808667831 [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Rio 2016 Candidate City (2009). Rio de Janeiro Candidature File for Rio de Janeiro to Host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Volume 3. Online available at: http://rio2016.com/sites/default/files/parceiros/volume_3_eng.pdf,05/06/2012

Tutun, Y. and Murray, M. (2008). Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism - Edited by MIKE DAVIS & DANIEL BERTRAND MONK and Planet of Slums - By MIKE DAVIS. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, [online] 99(5), pp.643-646. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2747/0272-3638.30.3.336?journalCode=rurb20 [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Image

Neto, D. (2017). Providência. [online] Flickr. Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielneto/2972771330/in/photolist-7HejKo-92DKKN-rYGoGh-7V1PRy-5wGem7-4AMfB3-92DKuL-a2G7ob-77HkBB-8r8cuD-92ACbR-8PTZoz-3wXrcW-92DKEA-e29ef5-8kqE9y-ej9Jb8-LvF8G-84kUAe-6DUJmV-9BKoJr-cuEssA-92ADxD-8yR8kw-7VhRir-92DLfQ-92ABR6-i6LEp6-7XR2NK-92ACzP-7iU7kD-rWWrTZ-rjgrBY-rYGpYW-92ACSr-92DMrh-92ADQc-92DLbJ-8yR89A-8yR815-92ADMk-825c2M-3VVuXp-aEtMgN-8bHTm7-acYjN2-92DKdU-rYFfkN-92DMcJ-cBx3AS/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

Let them know your there early on with a strong tackle

Run it off you’ll be fine

go through them if you have to

work through the pain it’ll make you better

Why are acts of violence and self-endangerment not only accepted but advocated in the world of sport? Should athletes put their bodies on the line in the pursuit of successes and achievement? When does commitment to the game become recklessness?

Deviance is generally related to negative and unacceptable actions in society such as breaking the law. Behaviour’s that we in society share, go out the window when it comes to sport. Within the realm of sport unacceptable behaviours and action in society become praised and encouraged, because they are deemed socially acceptable in a sports environment (Coakley 2015). Deviance has a complex meaning and can be seen in multiple forms within any social setting (Blackshaw 2004).

What is an action or behaviour that could be labelled as the term deviant? Punching a man on the street or driving your car over the speed limit is seen as a deviance within society and is not a socially acceptable behaviour. On the other hand, within the setting of sports such as Formula 1 drivers push the limits of speed within their cars,  boxers engage in physical actions which would be classed as assault anywhere else. Violence within sport is widely accepted and participants a socialised in to ritualised violence (Mathews and Channon, 2016). There are many forms of violence within sport which are classed deviance. Should these actions and behaviours be accepted within sports? is it right that certain behaviour become socialised norms in sport and treated with positive and supported actions which are forbidden in any other setting? Allowing people to disregard and reject social values and norms, through their participation in sport can be seen as the social acceptance of deviance, this is due to that sport isn’t view a the “real world” and therefore these unacceptable behaviours and actions become accepted.  

On the other hand, positive deviance is very much a different form of deviance in sport and it is a significant issue. In sports people are introduced and socialised in to the sports ethic. Individuals acquire different characteristics through their participations such as, hunt for distinction, acceptance of risk and danger and sacrifice for the game (Hughes, 1991). In all sports the conformity to the sports ethic varies from individual to individual. Deviant over conformity is comprised of excessive over commitment to ideas, traits and actions (Coakley, 2015). Things such as playing through injury and over training are also called positive deviance as they are situations where people over conform and put themselves at risk of endangering their own health. In any other social setting a individual would be seen as idiotic or reckless by endangering themselves, but within sports they would be commended and applauded for their bravery and commitment to the sports. is deviance an issue in sport that should be taken more seriously or is it just part of the game that you have to conform too ?                          

N0517120

References:

Coakley, J., Pike, E. (2015) Sport in society: issues and controversies. 2rd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Hughes, R., Coakley, J. (1991) Positive Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Over conformity to the Sport Ethic, 8:0, pp. 307-325.

You gotta spend money to make money. That old adage has stood the test of time in many remits of history. It’s a business model that has been proven to work time and time again. It is also the basis for many of the footballing giants in terms of ways to make it in the promise land of the English Premier League (EPL). One way that the EPL has benefited from this business model is through ‘globalisation’ of the game. Globalisation of the EPL has quite rightly led to it becoming a ‘cash cow’, with media deals in the EPL worth “£5.136bn” as of 2015 (BBC). Indeed, the EPL is the “most attractive and exciting league in the world” (Ronald De Boer, Talksport, 2016). However, some people persist that this is a bad thing or that football should not be a business. something that is preposterous.  

First of all, these people need to understand the simple fact that the EPL was set up as a business to globalise. Indeed, the main objective of the EPL has been “about globalisation” (Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the EPL, 2009 in Millward, 2013; 400). One club that has come to this realisation that football is both a business as well as community asset is Everton (Kennedy and Kennedy, 2012). With plans for the relocation of their stadium, fans seem willing to “compromise” to receive the “required revenue” to compete at the level they demand (Kennedy and Kennedy, 2012; 332). Profitability equals success. 

Despite this Wight suggests, “The Beautiful Game has grown ugly” (Huffington Post, 2013), this seems aberrantly incorrect. The EPL is currently the strongest and most lucrative league in the world. This could not have been possible without funding through the EPL's media coverage. The “£170 million” (Daily mail, 2017) that comes with EPL status allows teams to be competitive. If you are still upset and disagree with this look at Leicester's Premier league triumph in 2015. There triumph has been fuelled by the expansion made possible by the funding available with promotions (funded by media and board investment). This is a great example of a team using their funds in order ‘spend money to make money’ as well as success.

Fans need to stop seeing the ideals of their clubs as a business being a bad thing for the average person. Spending money to make money not only makes for a good business model for the board members but also the public. the University of Cardiff reported how the promotion of welsh teams into the EPL has led to an economical increase of “£58 million”, with “400 jobs” created as a knock-on effect of the English premier league status of Swansea city (BBC, 2013). Even though this is the case teams shouldn’t feel pressured into making decisions that benefit the public anyway. Take the case of Mike Ashley (Newcastle United Football Club Chairman). Once he put the club up for sale he was met with a series of abusive demonstrations. The club itself has benefited from his financial running of the club domestically (contending in the EPL) which will have no doubt again benefited the public economically as much as it has him.

At the elite level football has been a commercial business venture from its establishment. To suggest that there is some new age demon making the game 'ugly' is demonstratively wrong. Football will continue to have millions pumped into it and I for one welcome the new sums and embrace the positive effects that that has on me as a fan and a member of the public. 

N0629848

References:

BBC (2013). Swans' Premier status worth £58m. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-20895147 [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017]. 

Millward, P. (2013). New football directors in the twenty-first century: profit and revenue in the English Premier League’s transnational age. Leisure Studies, 32(4), pp.399-414. 

Moore, J. (2016). ‘Barcelona and Real Madrid may be the best teams, but Premier League is still the best league in the world’, Ronald de Boer tells talkSPORT. [online] talkSPORT. Available at: https://talksport.com/football/barcelona-and-real-madrid-may-be-best-teams-premier-league-still-best-league-world-ronald [Accessed 27 Oct. 2017]. 

Kennedy, P. and Kennedy, D. (2012). Football supporters and the commercialisation of football: comparative responses across Europe. Soccer & Society, 13(3), pp.327-340. 

Slater, M. (2017). Deloitte: 'Premier League promotion is worth at least £170million'. [online] Mail Online. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4496990/Premier-League-promotion-worth-170million.html [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017].