Is deliberately losing in sports immoral?

[Syzygys]

After 4 badminton teams were ejected from the Games because they lost on purpose, the question arises:

Is it a valid tactic to get a better position next/taking it easy, or is it just plain immoral???

I will argue for the valid tactic. To get to the Olympic gold, it is a whole, long war with lots of (as many as 8) little fights on the way. So to win the more important games, sometimes you have to lose not so important ones. The reasons could be:

1. Saving energy when the outcome of the game doesn't really effect your future position.
2. To get into a better position/weaker opponent by losing.

Sure it is not nice, but again, you want to win the gold, and later on nobody will care how you got to the finals... Individuals/teams of 2 are judged harsher than whole teams. In a team the coach can easily play the weaker players and spare the important ones from exhaustion or injury, without being judged.

What say you??

 

[polynesia99]

I see no problem in losing on purpose. It is a strategy, and it seems like the judges or whatever that made the decision to eject those teams are unfair in doing that. How can you even know that they lost on purpose? Unless they literally just stood in one place, but surely they're smart enough to move around or something.

So no, it is not immoral. It is a sport. A game. Losing isn't immoral, so neither is losing "on purpose."

 

[Tiassa]

On the Expectation of Fair and Honest Competition

If I'm throwing a backyard game because I just don't care, or don't want to spill my drink, whatever.

But there is something about specifically promoted, specifically organized sporting events that is different. The product promoted to sell tickets and draw advert revenues inherently includes the proposition of fair and honest competition. Even when it's children's leagues, the community standard expects, both implicitly and, on occasion, explicitly, fair and honest competition.

The proposition of throwing "inconsequential" games in order to pursue certain "consequences"—e.g., posturing in pool-level competition when a victory is not strictly necessary—is fundamentally contradictory.

About the only time I see it accepted is in all-star games featuring ensemble teams. In the NFL, it's acknowledged that, no, these guys aren't going to injure themselves for the Pro Bowl. In the MLB, the All-Star celebration is a show-off, and the actual outcome of the game itself is secondary. These sorts of occasions are somewhat ritualistic in their indifference.

Not the Olympics.

Those who watch seasonal sports already know that any gimmick advantage is reduced by the frequency with which the gimmick is used. Indeed, it is a microcosmic example of more strategic changes in the sports. Over the years, offensive and defensive lines in professional football have changed sizes, as speed and strength advantages tested one another. As one theory gained the upper hand, the rest of the league followed, muting the effect but also demonstrating a Darwinistic aspect. The increasing demands on these players have turned the "dumb linemen" into tactical players with incredible athletic capability. The offensive left tackle is usually the second-highest paid player on the team; it's his job to cover a right-handed quarterback's back, and most quarterbacks are right-handed. OLTs are, as a general class, statistically freakish human beings of incredible size, agility, endurance, and tactical prowess. It's ... ridiculous.

But even gimmicks like the wildcat, much similar to the fleaflicker some decades ago, have long-term muting/selecting effects. The more teams try the wildcat, the more the defensive schemes account for it. Over time, the wildcat persists, in large part because the tactical depth of the set is ever increasing and refining.

With something like Olympic badminton, consider first the period in which throwing games becomes a popular strategic tool. The practice will proliferate, and the muting effect will occur because other teams will notch down their own play in response to an obvious tank. Here, we will see a refinement of tanking plays and throwing games—essentially an evolution of how and when to loaf through a match.

How long will the spectators put up with it? Hockey fans get angry if their team doesn't play a hard enough physical game; the violence is a huge attraction. But what the hell does badminton offer? And one is tanking a match for strategic considerations? Badminton suits a fairly narrow spectrum compared to other sports; if tank strategy and tactical loafing become standard expectations of the tournament structure, the sport will lose some of what little Olympic appeal it has.

 

[Syzygys]

How can you even know that they lost on purpose?

Well, they were hitting serves into the net. It was so obvious that the umpire had to warn them. They should have used more finesse.

I agree, losing as a tactic is OK, losing to make money on betting is bad....

 

[Syzygys]

Dude really, can't you keep it under 5 sentences? I can't read a whole novel...

But there is something about specifically promoted, specifically organized sporting events that is different. The product promoted to sell tickets and draw advert revenues inherently includes the proposition of fair and honest competition.

Not always. If you are talking about one final match like a boxing game, sure. But when it is early in the competition and the team is already in the play offs (so to speak), who would blame them not to play really hard?

2 years ago an NFL team was criticized when with a 15 won games statistics at the 16th (meaningless) game the coach used the 2nd team, so the important players wouldn't get hurt and they could get an extra week off before the play off startes. I say it was good tactic, but people were upset that they didn't have a lossless season...

 

[KilljoyKlown]

After 4 badminton teams were ejected from the Games because they lost on purpose, the question arises:

Is it a valid tactic to get a better position next/taking it easy, or is it just plain immoral???

I will argue for the valid tactic. To get to the Olympic gold, it is a whole, long war with lots of (as many as 8) little fights on the way. So to win the more important games, sometimes you have to lose not so important ones. The reasons could be:

1. Saving energy when the outcome of the game doesn't really effect your future position.
2. To get into a better position/weaker opponent by losing.

Sure it is not nice, but again, you want to win the gold, and later on nobody will care how you got to the finals... Individuals/teams of 2 are judged harsher than whole teams. In a team the coach can easily play the weaker players and spare the important ones from exhaustion or injury, without being judged.

What say you??

If the activity isn't specified as illegal in the rules, I don't see why it couldn't be used as a strategy. However, being blatant about what they were doing was not the brightest thing to do. Also, I would be interested on what reasons are they being expelled from the Olympic competition?

 

[Tiassa]

Something About Football

2 years ago an NFL team was criticized when with a 15 won games statistics at the 16th (meaningless) game the coach used the 2nd team, so the important players wouldn't get hurt and they could get an extra week off before the play off startes. I say it was good tactic, but people were upset that they didn't have a lossless season...

Well, right. But for the fans, the chance at a perfect season is very important. Look at the poor New England Patriots. It's a hard thing to do.

If you have a shot at the perfect season, you take it. And everyone else should have to come up with a Manning-Tyree to stop you.

It's football. You do not tank a shot at the perfect season. In ninety-two years, the NFL has seen one perfect season (Miami '72, 17-0-0 incl. Super Bowl), and three perfect regular seasons; the Patriots' 2007 season being the only modern-schedule perfect regular season.

In that same ninety-year period, MLB has seen eighteen pitchers throw perfect games.

The chance at a perfect season? No. You do not throw a shot at the perfect season in the NFL. Any head coach who does so should be fired on principle.

 

[Syzygys]

Ask any COACH, what would you rather have, a perfect season or a better shot at the Super Bowl? I would say 80% would chose the later. Having 2 extra weeks that late in the season is priceless.All players are hurting by then, they need as much rest as they can get.

If your quarterback gets hurt at game 10th, there is a chance that after missing 2-3 games he is still back for the last 3. If he gets hurt at game 16th, he will miss the playoffs and you will miss the playoffs too.

Now your 2nd team can put up a really good fight and might even win. Actually, it is a nice chance to give it to them, lots of players (back up players) don't even get a chance to prove themselves unless the first guy gets hurt...

So again, sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. It is called strategy...

P.S.: What is a perfect season good for, if you lose the very next playoff game??

 

[Syzygys]

If the activity isn't specified as illegal in the rules,

Well, it kind of was. The Olimpic spirit and such.

"A spokesman for China's Olympic Committee said it was against any behavior going against "sporting spirit and morality," and the committee could take further action against the players based on the results of the investigation. The other players charged with "not using one's best efforts to win" were from South Korea and Indonesia."

This was the first time they used groups in badminton. As I mentioned earlier, a team sport can get away easier with a deliberate loss, they can just lie that their key players are hurt and such.

But yes, some of history's best games were thrown games. You can make it interesting and still lose...

 

[quadraphonics]

With something like Olympic badminton, consider first the period in which throwing games becomes a popular strategic tool. The practice will proliferate, and the muting effect will occur because other teams will notch down their own play in response to an obvious tank. Here, we will see a refinement of tanking plays and throwing games—essentially an evolution of how and when to loaf through a match.

How long will the spectators put up with it? Hockey fans get angry if their team doesn't play a hard enough physical game; the violence is a huge attraction. But what the hell does badminton offer? And one is tanking a match for strategic considerations? Badminton suits a fairly narrow spectrum compared to other sports; if tank strategy and tactical loafing become standard expectations of the tournament structure, the sport will lose some of what little Olympic appeal it has.

Yeah, the lesson here is less about whether it's "moral" or not to throw a match, but rather that it is stupid to structure a sporting competition such that the competitors are incentivized to do anything other than give their best performance all the time. Obviously that ideal is a little to difficult to meet everywhere - you'll always have situations wherein athletes want to save some energy for later rounds, or the coach puts in the B-team in the later minutes of a blow-out - but there should never, ever be any situation in which competitors are incentivized to actually tank a match.

If there's something immoral here, it's the negligence on the part of badminton organizers that resulted in them putting athletes - who are supposed to be willing to do anything and everything within the rules to win - in a position where they were incentivized to throw matches. That creates a conflict of interest for the athletes, and short-changes the spectators. If I actually gave half a shit about competitive badminton, I'd be writing angry letters to the idiots who designed the playoff system in question.

 

[Buddha12]

Let us say that I wanted to place a bet on myself through someone I knew so that

I couldn't get found out about doing that. Say that I was going to throw the

match between myself and whoever I played because I wanted to earn money and

by throwing the game that I was supposed to win , I could pick up allot of money

if the odds were right. Say I was supposed to win and it was 20 to 1 that I would

lose. That would be a great deal of money if I were to bet on myself and throw the

game so the incentives to throw games is not something new and I believe is done

many times at many events.

 

[Balerion]

Well, right. But for the fans, the chance at a perfect season is very important. Look at the poor New England Patriots. It's a hard thing to do.

If you have a shot at the perfect season, you take it. And everyone else should have to come up with a Manning-Tyree to stop you.

It's football. You do not tank a shot at the perfect season. In ninety-two years, the NFL has seen one perfect season (Miami '72, 17-0-0 incl. Super Bowl), and three perfect regular seasons; the Patriots' 2007 season being the only modern-schedule perfect regular season.

In that same ninety-year period, MLB has seen eighteen pitchers throw perfect games.

The chance at a perfect season? No. You do not throw a shot at the perfect season in the NFL. Any head coach who does so should be fired on principle.

That's just absurd. Has anyone ever confused the '72 Dolphins for the greatest team of all-time? Not even close. It's a neat little record that is arguably less famous for the accomplishment itself than it is for the champagne-pop sound effect Boomer uses on ESPN when the final undefeated team falls each year.

The Packers made it clear last season they weren't going to chase perfection, and I think that mentality will prevail going forward. There are too many games and too much parity to risk your starters in situations where they don't need to be on the field.

Winning a Super Bowl is all that matters. Any coach that risks that goal for an ancillary one should be fired on principal.

 

[pjdude1219]

I see no problem in losing on purpose. It is a strategy, and it seems like the judges or whatever that made the decision to eject those teams are unfair in doing that. How can you even know that they lost on purpose? Unless they literally just stood in one place, but surely they're smart enough to move around or something.

So no, it is not immoral. It is a sport. A game. Losing isn't immoral, so neither is losing "on purpose."

um dude standing in place wasn't far of from what they did

 

[pjdude1219]

Has anyone ever confused the '72 Dolphins for the greatest team of all-time? Not even close.

well maybe the 72 dolphins

 

[Syzygys]

Let us say that I wanted to place a bet

We already excluded betting....

 

[Balerion]

well maybe the 72 dolphins

Yeah, exactly! They are their own biggest fans, as Mercury Morris regrettably demonstrated during the Pats' ill-fated run.

 

[Balerion]

After 4 badminton teams were ejected from the Games because they lost on purpose, the question arises:

Is it a valid tactic to get a better position next/taking it easy, or is it just plain immoral???

I will argue for the valid tactic. To get to the Olympic gold, it is a whole, long war with lots of (as many as 8) little fights on the way. So to win the more important games, sometimes you have to lose not so important ones. The reasons could be:

1. Saving energy when the outcome of the game doesn't really effect your future position.
2. To get into a better position/weaker opponent by losing.

Sure it is not nice, but again, you want to win the gold, and later on nobody will care how you got to the finals... Individuals/teams of 2 are judged harsher than whole teams. In a team the coach can easily play the weaker players and spare the important ones from exhaustion or injury, without being judged.

What say you??

It's unethical, certainly. While winning is the object of any game, the coordinators of such events try to breed and maintain a culture of sportsmanship and fair play. That's why you see things like revenue sharing, team salary caps, worst-to-first entry draft slotting, etc.. Throwing games to get a more favorable draw goes against that. It's the same principal as using PEDs.

But morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[Balerion]

After 4 badminton teams were ejected from the Games because they lost on purpose, the question arises:

Is it a valid tactic to get a better position next/taking it easy, or is it just plain immoral???

I will argue for the valid tactic. To get to the Olympic gold, it is a whole, long war with lots of (as many as 8) little fights on the way. So to win the more important games, sometimes you have to lose not so important ones. The reasons could be:

1. Saving energy when the outcome of the game doesn't really effect your future position.
2. To get into a better position/weaker opponent by losing.

Sure it is not nice, but again, you want to win the gold, and later on nobody will care how you got to the finals... Individuals/teams of 2 are judged harsher than whole teams. In a team the coach can easily play the weaker players and spare the important ones from exhaustion or injury, without being judged.

What say you??

It's unethical, certainly. While winning is the object of any game, the coordinators of such events try to breed and maintain a culture of sportsmanship and fair play. That's why you see things like revenue sharing, team salary caps, worst-to-first entry draft slotting, etc.. Throwing games to get a more favorable draw goes against that. It's the same principal as using PEDs.

But morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[Buddha12]

We already excluded betting....

How can you exclude something that really does happen in real life situations?

 

[The Marquis]

I see no problem in losing on purpose. It is a strategy, and it seems like the judges or whatever that made the decision to eject those teams are unfair in doing that. How can you even know that they lost on purpose? Unless they literally just stood in one place, but surely they're smart enough to move around or something.

So no, it is not immoral. It is a sport. A game. Losing isn't immoral, so neither is losing "on purpose."

You're absolutely right, and everything that is absolutely wrong.