大象传媒

'Professionalism' definitely has taken elements of joy and enjoyment out of sport, more, obviously, for the participants than for the spectators, who will tolerate a certain lack of joy if the standards continue to be raised. But one person's Ramprakash is another's Hoy, Woods or Bolt: these are still human beings we're dealing with; we haven't turned into automata as quickly as that. The apparent, and hopefully temporary, declines of Kevin Pieterson, of Wayne Rooney, of Roger Federer: are these not down to what is going on in these guys' heads ?

Sport is for the masses, its lucrative, its BIG BIG BIG business, Sport more than ever is now a business first, enjoyment for spectator and participant secondary. The problem now is that business controls sport, its all about money, sport does not want to control business, its happy for businesss to control it.

Look at football, everyone knows that the group stages are a bore and simply there to generate income, to fill TV spaces on a cold Autumn/winters night, its become boring, eventually the golden goose will be destroyed. The complaints are that players play too many games (one of the many excuses for South Africa 2010) but still they play all these group games, games that dont add value to the competition apart from financial.

Sport has got into bed with big business but the problem is that sport is the sleeping partner. Yes, money is required to develop sports, business is required, sponsorship is required but all to a degree.

Sport has sold its soul the world over to business, it will never find it again

I wouldn't say professionalism is ruining sport as such. I would say money is. Obviously the two go hand in hand somewhat, but the more money you throw at something, the higher the standard, generally. I think the vast amounts of money kicking around in sport today is detrimental to enjoyment.

The main thing I think has happened is that the risk is being gradually taken out of sport. And without risk, there is less chance of drama, less chance of a great story, less chance of a pioneer, less free-thinking, less flair.

I think as soon as we see someone take a sport to the next level, like a Federer, a Woods, it follows that everyone else tries to emulate them, when in fact the beauty of many sports is watching a contrast of styles. For example, in tennis, there are virtually no true serve-volley players any more. In football, young players are so over-coached that they have all the flair and fearlessness and agression shaken out of them.

It's like there is a set of rules everyone must adhere to, and I don't think it's because the rewards are so great necessarily, it's more that many of the players/teams are so well rewarded simply for competing at the elite level, and the fear of dropping down overwhelms all. This is why we see so many teams in the Premiership simply happy to tread water, at the expense of potentially winning cups. Young players aren't given a chance because clubs aren't willing to take a chance anywhere.

This is the environment that professionalism breeds, because you can guarantee that if you're not minimizing the risk from every part of your game, someone else is.

I would add however, that professionalism alone is not to blame for this. I would also say that the 24/7 global media coverage that sport gets these days is also damaging. There are no surprises, no element of the unknown when you are playing certain opponents. You can unpick every part of their strategy from the comfort of a computer desk if you so wish.

I'm not sure there is much to be done about it, with science and technology improving at the rate it is. However, it certainly makes for stale viewing in my opinion. The days of contrasting styles are coming to an end, because with the minimisation of risk and the improvement of science, there is less thought, less flair, and slowly, everyone is becoming that little bit more similar.

Interesting how most of the sports stars complaining about the pressure are those who were unable to handle it in the first place.

Pressure comes with any job. The better you are at it, the more pressure there will be to succeed. One of the best things about sport is watching how the top players deal with pressure better than others. It's what defines the true sporting greats and the true great, iconic moments in sport.

Think of the likes of Flintoff & Brett Lee at Edgebaston 2005, Dennis Taylor vs Steve Davis in 1985, Beckham's free kick against Greece, Lewis Hamilton winning the world championship on the final corner of the season, THAT putt from Tiger Woods... all great moments where the pressure of the situation adds a thousand times to the excitement, the despair, the fun. It's why we love to watch sport in the first place.

Many years ago sport professionals were not that distant from the audience as they are now. Most sports people initially played it for fun but when huge sums of money are involved it them becomes serious.
Another way to think about it is if say Premier League footballer loses a game 5-0 he may seem sad. Then he goes out to the car park drives his Bentley home to his mansion where his fame grabbing, money grabbing bimbo wife is waiting for him, he might think "things could be a lot worse".

Unfortunately there exists a capitalist system that has incorporated most sports. The Olympic games capitulated to "money" during the last few decades. In rugby, professionalism has had a negative effect but the administrators have managed to temper it with strict penal measures that are as well financial. Although "selfish" play has occured, the integrity of these players has been called into question by their peers and it is this inflicted morality that sustains sporting values. In football there exists a futile penalty or deterrent system, it does penalise but is of no value nor deterrent. Increase the ban for yellow card accumulation is the very least that must be done to stop the malicious tackling and blatant pro foul, in accumulating 5 yellow cards a football player can commit approximately 10 deliberate intentional fouls, cheating fouls, breaking leg fouls, handball on the line, wantant disregard for sporting values and fairness. He'll get a ban for one game be replaced by another 10 million pound player for that game but in the process of the 10 fouls he will have thwarted many goals and saved his team approximately 15 points ? The prizes and rewards of the pro foul are huge, relegation can cost 拢60 to 拢150 million, the integrity and sporting values pale into insignificance and are overlooked when journalists, administrators and peers police and enforce with such weak influence.

Top international premiership football players deliberately get booked so the derisory one game ban they concede is "Wigan at Home".

I think professionalism is a good thing - there are some people for whom sport is genuinely their life. That there is an opportunity for them to pursue it full time is excellent. Generally the introduction of professionalism leads to a greater presence in that sport, more research and thusly a greater overall quality. There have of course been exceptions but these have been more down to the sporting governing bodies themselves.

I think with anything though - you give what you need to give to get where you want. Students who want to get a good degree have to put the hours in, people obsessed with career progression are the same. Sport is no different from any other pursuit you turn your efforts toward.

I wouldn't say professionalism demeans sport in any way - admittedly in football it has introduced a totally skewed perception of everything - however generally I think most supporters can more than happily content themselves that they may never play for their team but they can at least pretend they do with a local team.

Professionalism creeps in too soon. It is fine to aspire to but too many kids are hauled into the the world of sponsors and contracts too soon. The enjoyment of playing sport is then lost to them. Football is the prime example of youth development and if a country bans their own clubs from contracting children another country will poach them.

There are still a few bastions of semi-pro sport where the stars are closer to their roots will never completely earn a living but do so based upon coaching grass roots as well. These are the ones to appreciate and enjoy.

Mark Ramprakash's complaints about playing for England were nothing to do with professionalism. Many of his early Tests came during the Illingworth era, not least the horrendous 94/95 Ashes series, perhaps the lowest point I can remember England hitting during my cricket watching lifetime. From Atherton's decision to declare before Hick had his ton at Sydney to Illingworth spouting forth, it was a horribly unprofessional time and an absolute world apart from the current Strauss-Flower regime.

The problem with this article is that 'professionalism' is a vague term and so the debate can move onto all manner of other areas. The rise of money and sport as business has certainly taken away much of the enjoyment of sport. I used to be a huge football fan but now rarely watch it as an over-abundance of games means there is nothing special about that game. This has been seen in cricket this year with the ridiculous domestic T20 and international ODI fixtures.

One argument that never fails to annoy me is the idea that the players are there to serve the audience. This usually comes up when there's a light delay or rain delay in the cricket and people harp on about the ticket prices. Yes, ticket prices are too expensive but the focus of the players is not the general public, it is their own and their team's performance on the pitch. They owe the viewing spectator nothing. The adminstrators, they are the people who really owe the viewing public something. They're the ones who set the prices, juggle the figures, tell the players that they'll get X amount of cash in return for playing 7 ridiculous ODI matches in the summer despite a lack of public interest. They're the ones charged with selling a product.

For cricket, I hope the ECB take note of the public attitude to the England team. Attendances were down. People could not or refused to pay the absurd prices for an international game. I attended the CB40 Final and a half full Lords with various empty areas was a sad sight to see. It's therefore important to note two of the biggest successes of this domestic and international season were not about selling a product but about the very best elements of cricket. The first was the decision to allow spectators onto the Lords turf at lunch. The second was the way that the County Championship became important again. No glitz, no music at every six hit over a 45 yard boundary, no dancers, just good cricket played with a lot of tension in the air all over the country.

For me, the answer is that we need to return to the very best elements of sports and to not treat them like a product. If the IPL represents the high point of 'cricket as a commodity', then it also represents how selling that product is at the expense of the actual game. The last IPL season was very boring to watch and contained a lot of very poor cricket. Everyone, from administrators to well paid players, has to accept that the gravy train has come to an end.

I cant see the argument of professionalism leading to more fouls in football.There was always fouls in football. Earning more money does not make you more likely to foul. Modern football is faster, leading to perhaps worse looking tackling, but in the past players were given the benefit of the doubt more by referees. Now a mis timed tackle is booked , where as before it would be a free kick, but you needed 2 or 3 to get booked.

Money has made club football less appealing mind as fewer teams seem so be able to win trophies, be it domestic or European. Many years ago the league from sop to bottom was much closer. You would think a result was possible against anyone in your league every week. That gas changed for the worse.

I think professionalism has helped increase the entertainment value rather than killing sport. This is particularly true of rugby, which is the only sport I can think of where a reasonable modern day comparison of amateur v professional can be made. The standard of rugby, in my opinion, has increase tenfold since the game became professional. Although of course it comes with its downside (大象传媒 blog some months ago on the increase in injuries as an indirect result of an increase in the size and strength of players).

Professionalism also encourages competition between sports. Snooker for example is having to 鈥榰p its game鈥� against the increasingly popular darts. Cricket introduced Twenty20. These are positive moves to make sports available to a much wider audience.
I suppose, there is always an exception to prove the rule. College American football is seen by most as more exciting than the NFL.

If, on the downside, there are players that suffer a little, well that鈥檚 up to them. You will always get the Andre 鈥淚 hate tennis鈥� Agassis, and Ronnie O鈥橲ullivan would probably be miserable whatever he did for a living. Overall, though I would imagine professional sportsmen and women enjoy what they do for a living. The Williams sisters look happy enough winning Wimbledon.

This concept is likely to prove hugely popular among any followers in Ireland, in particular those in Ireland whose are followers of our games of Gaelic Football and Hurling. Both games remain entirely amateur, and while coaches, trainers, physios and massage therapists earn vast sums from the games, the players do not receive a penny. The prospect of professionalism is hotly debated and this episode of Inside Sport may encapsulate the entire debate that rages within the GAA.
Only 9 days ago did Ireland witness the All-Ireland final (a GAA man's equivalent to the FA Cup final). It was played out between 2 teams from opposite ends of the country and at opposite ends of their 'development'. It was a thrilling match that for 70 minutes could have gone either way, with the more experienced team prevailing with a single point victory that was only secured with 10 seconds remaining.
Roy Keane was in attendance, and described what he witnessed. While I am unsure of the exact words, I believe he felt it was a better experience than a World Cup Final.
I do not feel this was any type of Irish pride that Roy was professing. He simply witnessed 30+ players on the field of battle, at the end of a 10 month campaign, give everything they had for ultimate glory. The game was played out in front of almost 82,000 spectators and will have been watched by millions worldwide. Spectators had paid 拢60 each to be there, massive sponsorship deals were evident all over Croke Park, each worth millions to the GAA.

The players were not paid a penny, and most were back to work on the building site, in the bank, on the farm the next morning!

Sportpeople who truly play for the love of the game!

In the current economic climate in Ireland would all 30 have jobs to go to?

Is it professionaism, or is it the vast sums of money involved ? Probably both. Even amateur players can be "professional" in their approach, although they are not making their living from the sport.

As one poster mentioned, there is stress involved in every job, and that is what the problem is with professional sport. Once you begin playing it to earn a living, you take out the fun and increase the stress.

Note that I say "increase" the stress, rather than "introduce" the stress. This is because, any top sportsman is extremely competitive by nature, so even at an amateur level there would be a level of stress.

The difference is that, as an amateur, the stress is largely self-induced, and comes from the desire to simply be the best ad beat your opponent. As a professional, an entirely new range of stresses are brought into play, as you livelihood, and thus the present and future financial well-being of your family, now depend on the results of what is, essentially, a game.

Once it becomes a "job" the evjoyment takes a dive, naturally, as you are now doing it to earn a living rather than simply for the fun of it.

We are, however, past the point of no return - a long time ago. With modern technology, which is developing at an exponential rate, the number of people seeing even the minutest aspect of their favourite sportsmen / sportswomen / clubs, almost instantaneously, will grow. The population of the planet is growing along with it. So there will be an ever-growing group of information-hungry people, demanding more and more of an information overload. The media companies will be more than happy to provide this, and eve new ones will continually be formed. The increased demand will ensure that the media pays more for the right to coverage, introducing even more money into the sport.

Sportsmen will continually become extremely wealthy entertainers, who no longer get any entertainment themselves from the sport.

It will be their job, and nobody gets as much ejoyment from "having" or "being expected" to do something as they do from simply doing it for the thrill.

It is the price they pay for utilising their talent to become wealthy, to an extent that most can only dream of, and they have to live with it.

After all, nobody ever claimed that life was fair, did they?

Having thought about this further sinc emy waffly post above, I'll try to narrow it down:

Most participants have become more professional in their sports in terms of physical and mental approach but their professionalism has been dwarfed by the rise of commercialism within sport. Those commercial interests lead to overcrowded schedules and the creation of pointless tournaments, many of which are poorly attended due to overpricing.

Ta-da!

#14
Even for a 'smart' comment the economic position of people struggling for jobs is not a great comic moment anywhere.

#13
Really enjoyed reading your post. I've watched GAA (the football not hurling) on and off for years and its a cracking game of energy and entertainment..the county flags outside people's houses on matchdays, busy market towns and the whole buzz around the games. Unfortunately, I follow Mayo the bridesmaids of the Irish game (no need to mention it!) but its a fantastic game that deserves a wider audience.

And I take your point about the players not being paid but you can't help feeling that there is a certain irony about lots of other people making a good living from it and yet the players don't (at least financially). Amateurs used to be just 'gentlemen players' and people should have a love for their game but you can't help feel that they should be financially rewarded for it.

Watching the programme last night also reminded me that children seem to focus on one sport too early, ignoring the difference and fun in others.

Ed Smith seems to be mixing up what he means by "professionalism". Sometimes he uses it in the context of a single-minded professional attitude (like Clive Woodward's England, or Tiger Wood's practicing) and sometimes he uses it as a pseudonym for money (like professional footballers not enjoying the game any more). This inconsistency ruined the programme for me. Whilst watching I kept remembering the possibly apochryphal (and possibly not Gary Player)Gary Player quote "The more I practice the luckier I get". Great sportsmen practice. Paying them (professionalising them) allows them to practice more. What Ed Smith could have pointed out in this programme is that there is a limit to the correlation of more money allows more practice. Paying Premiership footballers obscene amounts doesn't make them better, it just makes them more arrogant and more obsessed with getting the same as or more than the next player. No wonder they're not happy if the money is all they're intersted in.

It is difficult to enter into these debates without sounding like some blazer-clad dinosaur at the back of the club bar but here goes!

There can be no doubt that the standard of play in rugby has increased significantly since profesionalism arrived. Players are fitter, faster, bigger and, in many ways, more skilfull (although the preference now for "tank-like" crash ball backs versus the athletic genius of say Mike Gibson, Gerald Davies or David Duckham suggests that some areas of the game have gone backwards) than they were before. This however isn't really the question, which should be "is the sport more enjoyable now?".

Personally I don't feel more excited now at the prospect of a game and I don't think that I get any more enjoyment than before. Indeed, when it comes to Test Matches I don't feel anything like the same degree of anticipation or pleasure simply because they have become commonplace and formulaic, rather than rare treats.

The point has already been made that professional sports is about making money, pure and simple. So like theatre or cinema or anything else it is a pure "bums on seats" exercise. In order to be profitable you need more "bums" so you either build a bigger stadium, play lots of extra games, charge more per "bum" or all three! When these run out, you extend your franchise by exploiting the "bums on armchairs" market through the latest "pay per view" media channels. Consequently we see hopelessly congested fixture lists, huge squads of exhausted and crocked players and television nincompoops trying to create "dramatic tension" around mundane and pointless games.

Like unrestrained capitalism at work, professional sport will tend to increasingly concentrate talent and resources into smaller and smaller units. Like huge corporations absorbing competitors, football clubs have grown rich through concentration such that there are only four credible Premiership contenders. This concentration of wealth though has emasculated the lower order of the game, with smaller clubs starved of an audience as people buy into the synthetic traditions and rivalries of the major clubs, as they are converted from local fans into "bums on armchairs" for Chelsea or Manchester United. Rugby is only at the beginning of this journey but the signs are still there to be seen!

Finally, a "bum on a seat" is ultimately someone who is not doing anything themselves. They are not playing, they are not getting involved in local clubs, they're not out there in their community raising cash to buy some new kit...they're at home in an armchair with the curtains drawn. It would be interesting see if there is any correlation between the obesity trend in the young with growing amounts of televised professional sport...who knows?

As an afterthought, once you've made stadia bigger, played three times as many games, gone pay per view...what next? How to you keep existing fans interested and, crucially attract more? Well you mess with the rules and the format... that's what! Complicated rules are removed, games are shortened to help declining attention spans. Rules and conventions developed over years to ensure that sports have checks and balances, subtleties, light and shade, uses for different abilities or body shapes are swept aside to create "greater accessibility".

Sport is said to be a drug for players and fans. Take too many drugs and you need a bigger and bigger "hit" to get the same high. More and more professional sport will simply result in a jaded fan who can only be stimulated by bigger doses of false rivalry, synthetic outrage and fake drama. You only have to look at the story of professional wrestling on ITV in the 1970s to see what happens when money-spinning gimmickry overtakes the sport itself!

The reporter missed Colin M's brilliant set-up in the story of T Woods down in his home gym at 4 a.m. Anyone who's been sharing a bedroom with a woman who doesn't want you there can fully understand T's desire to spend as little time in that part of the house as possible. Up early and off to something else is one method of escape. This is the other side of the infidelity reports. Woods has been going to a shrink to rationalize his orientation to his spouse and marriage relative to the rest of his life. Has Elin done the same?