Is deliberately losing in sports immoral?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Olympic Oath From Wikipedia
I didn't know about this before James R's post. That does put a different light on this subject.
I didn't know about this before James R's post. That does put a different light on this subject.
Care to explain the difference between ethics and morality???
Because this thread is not about cheating at betting. I must know, because I am the OP....
It would only be collaboration if 2 teams talked to each other. Saving yourself for a later game is not collaboration...
There is nothing in the Olympic Oath, that forbids strategizing to win...
I don't know if it is ethical, moral or what. But I don't like to play against anyone who would let me win. I would feel insulted. Whether it be sports, playing cards, or monopoly. For me winning a competition is knowing I gave my best and that I was the better player. It means I WON. I should not have to wonder if I was given charity and doubt my capabilities in the end. So, IMO, not striving to win is very insulting at the very least to the other team. I also hate the idea of winning by forfeit.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
In common parlance outside the philosophy department of a university, there is no difference. Look the words up in any reference source and unless you have a degree in philosophy it will be very hard to see the difference.
Since this is the philosophy department of SciForums, people are welcome to make the distinction, but they had better explain it in language that the rest of us can understand. Simply tossing the words out as though we all know the difference is not acceptable.
What I find unacceptable is that a moderator would reprimand a user for pointing out that there is in fact a difference between two words that do not mean the same thing. Why should "common parlance" make a difference? "Theory" has a very different meaning in common parlance than it does in a scientific context, yet no one demands that the difference be spelled out in "language that the rest of us can understand" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). Why should I be accountable for your understanding of the language?
But since I'm a reasonable person, here is the best explanation of the difference I could find:
"While morals constitute a basic human marker of right behavior and conduct, ethics are more like a set of guidelines that define acceptable behavior and practices for a certain group of individuals or society."
In other words, violating a code of conduct within the context of a sport can be viewed as unethical behavior, but not immoral.
The way I have always distinguished between morality and ethics is very similar to Balerion's. I have never been a philosophy major or anything like that. Just your average observer of human nature. In my experience morality has always been tied to the belief of an absolute universal truth as dictated by a divine entity and ethics has always been used to describe code of behavior as agreed upon by a social group. Ethics and Morality are undoubtedly similar, but it seems people label things as morality when they want to imply that there is no room for debate or interpretation, because God said so, is the accepted reasoning behind what is moral and what is not. For that reason I do not believe in the existence of morality any more than the existence of God. I don't think it takes a phd in philosophy or linguistics to see that difference. I think it just takes the correct perspective and the open mindedness (willfulness) to see the difference.
I'm pretty sure the reason for such bans at the Olympics is down to the "Betting". After all the contributions to building the facility isn't just through sponsorship of soft-drinks and other forms of merchandise, it's also down to taxation on bet's that are made.
While "Losing a game" might be a strategy to get a position, the game that was lost had betting odd's made on it, in fact prior to the game people would be able to bet on that specific game and it's posed outcome. To throw the game undermines the chances of the applied bets which in turn causes those betting firms to raise complaints if it's not picked up on. (After all they would be the ones losing money since obviously the Chinese team had been seen as the stronger)
It's obviously something that would have to be fully identified for future Olympics, should betting be allowed (and losing purposely be a disqualification) or should betting be banned and losing purposely in heats a tactic?
While "Losing a game" might be a strategy to get a position, the game that was lost had betting odd's made on it, in fact prior to the game people would be able to bet on that specific game and it's posed outcome. To throw the game undermines the chances of the applied bets which in turn causes those betting firms to raise complaints if it's not picked up on. (After all they would be the ones losing money since obviously the Chinese team had been seen as the stronger)
It's obviously something that would have to be fully identified for future Olympics, should betting be allowed (and losing purposely be a disqualification) or should betting be banned and losing purposely in heats a tactic?
I have never heard any official affiliation between gambling and the Olympics. I am certain people do it, hell people bet on how much rain we get in a season, but I have always been under the impression that the Olympics, in any official capacity, tries to distance themselves from gambling. I would think the dilemma falls more in how the general public sees the integrity of the games. Not many people want to watch WWE wrestling because it is perceived as scripted and fake. Jerry Springer has the same reputation. People don't like spending money on something that is supposed to be real but is fake. We don't like to be made fools of. If they allow people to throw games then the public will no longer see the Olympics as a bastion of integrity and honest competition. They will stop spending money on it too and the Olympics will lose it's purpose. To make the hosting city wealthy while promoting fair play and good sportsmanship between countries who may otherwise never have peaceful interactions with their neighbors.
I am pretty sure it isn't. Don't even dare to mention betting and Olympics in the same sentence.
But seriously, why would the Olympic comittee care about betting when they are not involved???
I don't think it has anything to do with betting. I think it is because they have to maintain the integrity of the Olympics. If you are not going to even try to win, why not just forfeit rather than waste the time of the other team. It's insulting. Spectators don't come to see teams throw a game. They want to see a real competition. The Olympics brings money to the economy of the hosting city. That's why cities fight so hard to get the privilege to host. If the integrity of the games is lost, spectators will lose faith in and respect for the games. They wont come to watch, which means they wont spend any money and the Olympics will begin to fade in popularity and eventually be gone. The Olympics stand for something and they need to maintain it. Throwing a game is unsportsmanlike and that is not something the Olympics can afford to be associated with. I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There was an op-ed on this topic in this morning's Washington Post. The writer noted that in any sport and any organized series of games leading up to a championship, it's both common and acceptable for an athlete or a team to slack off and lose an early game, if the loss will not materially affect their probability of making it to the final championship games. The reason is simply to save energy, reduce the chance of injury, etc., so as to be in top form when it's really important.
Although I'm not a sports fan, several years ago I was told of another reason this might be sanctioned. It was the night of the final games in the high school football season. Team Red from City ABC and Team Willow from City XYZ were both undefeated and tied for the chance to go to the state finals. By chance, another team from City ABC, Team Blue, was up against Team Red for their last game.
Team Red was playing badly that night. They were only two points ahead in the final seconds and Team Blue had a chance to win. However, if they won, they were still so far behind in the rankings that it would make no difference. But if Team Red lost, they'd lose their opportunity to go to the state finals. Team Willow would probably go instead, and City ABC would lose the prestige, the tourism, and the notoriety that it would get if one of its teams won the state championship.
The coach of Team Blue told his quarterblack to muff the play. That way Team Red could go to the championship game, have a chance at the trophy, and possibly bring fame and money to their city.
I never found out if Team Red was victorious in the state championship game.
Although I'm not a sports fan, several years ago I was told of another reason this might be sanctioned. It was the night of the final games in the high school football season. Team Red from City ABC and Team Willow from City XYZ were both undefeated and tied for the chance to go to the state finals. By chance, another team from City ABC, Team Blue, was up against Team Red for their last game.
Team Red was playing badly that night. They were only two points ahead in the final seconds and Team Blue had a chance to win. However, if they won, they were still so far behind in the rankings that it would make no difference. But if Team Red lost, they'd lose their opportunity to go to the state finals. Team Willow would probably go instead, and City ABC would lose the prestige, the tourism, and the notoriety that it would get if one of its teams won the state championship.
The coach of Team Blue told his quarterblack to muff the play. That way Team Red could go to the championship game, have a chance at the trophy, and possibly bring fame and money to their city.
I never found out if Team Red was victorious in the state championship game.
Exactly. And I'll take Fraggle's silence on the matter as affirmation of our correctness on this issue.
This and That
I guess it has been a few days; sorry about that. Thing is, I already know the answer—mine is a football family. But it is better to at least go through the formality of asking than simply claim ultimate knowledge.
And the answer is as I suspected.
No. You do not throw that game.
And let me be clear: That is, absolutely not.
And there are multiple reasons for this.
Integrity, integrity, and reality. You send a team out to lose a game, and you're risking your Super Bowl, as well.
Any superior team can be beaten on any day by any inferior team that happens to be playing a better head game.
You do not tank that game.
Then it's not a perfect season. In the NFL, there have been three perfect regular seasons, and only one in the modern sixteen-game schedule. There has been only one perfect season, and that was in a fourteen-game season.
See the first part of the above section.
It's not that I don't get your logic, but it does not properly apply within the football universe. No coach I've ever known would tank that game. And simply because I could, I did go ahead and ask, and the answer is still as I expected.
I would also suggest your outlook on the Packers is incorrect.
Syzygys said:
I guess it has been a few days; sorry about that. Thing is, I already know the answer—mine is a football family. But it is better to at least go through the formality of asking than simply claim ultimate knowledge.
And the answer is as I suspected.
No. You do not throw that game.
And let me be clear: That is, absolutely not.
And there are multiple reasons for this.
(1) It's a shot at the perfect season.
(2) You owe the community that supports your team.
(3) You do not screw with a team on a winning streak.
(2) You owe the community that supports your team.
(3) You do not screw with a team on a winning streak.
Integrity, integrity, and reality. You send a team out to lose a game, and you're risking your Super Bowl, as well.
Any superior team can be beaten on any day by any inferior team that happens to be playing a better head game.
You do not tank that game.
Then it's not a perfect season. In the NFL, there have been three perfect regular seasons, and only one in the modern sixteen-game schedule. There has been only one perfect season, and that was in a fourteen-game season.
• • •
Balerion said:
See the first part of the above section.
It's not that I don't get your logic, but it does not properly apply within the football universe. No coach I've ever known would tank that game. And simply because I could, I did go ahead and ask, and the answer is still as I expected.
I would also suggest your outlook on the Packers is incorrect.
There's a difference between tanking a game and resting starters for a playoff run, and there's a difference between what some coaches think is the right thing to do and what the actual right thing to do is. Coaches would also send in freshly-concussed players, and steal signals from the other sideline if they had their druthers. You think there's a coach in the NFL who would turn down a tape of their upcoming opponent's practice if they knew they could get away with it? We're not talking about what some coach would do, we're talking about what's the right thing to do. And jeopardizing a Super Bowl to chase what is in the end an absolutely meaningless record is not the right thing to do.
And I don't know what coaches you were talking to, but I don't know you from Adam, so unless you have names, spare me your "unnamed sources."
Nobody said throwing the game. The 2nd team can fight as much as they want...
1. You don't get a ring for a perfect season. Again, what is it good for if you lose the next game?
2. You owe them a better chance at the Super Bowl more. They will understand.
3. Ask the players if they want an extra week off. They do...
Last year by week 13th the Steelers made it to the play off, and since Baltimore had better chances/easier games, the Steelers had very low odds of advancing themselves into a better position. Oh yeah, and we had a hurt Big Ben. Had I been the coach, I would have given him 2-3 weeks of relax time, brought in Charlie Batch. He would have got confidence, and against the Broncos (team fucking Tebow) we would have won. Instead Ben played in all games, further damaging his foot, but NOT advancing the team, and properly losing to Tim fucking Tebow.
It was just bad strategy on the coach's behalf, bad volunteering on big Ben's behalf, I should say egotism. We still would have lost to the Patriots, but at least not to team fucking Tebow...
So the point is, if you don't advance the team, let the key players relax and even a 2nd team can win against weaker opponents. And what is the point in taking chances if the pay off is minoscule??