A couple days ago, an odd video popped up on my Youtube feed:

Now, to be very clear, I'm not a foosball enthusiast. I don't remember the last time I played foosball (there is a table in our office, but I suspect the last time I played on it might have been at least a year ago). I'm not even much of a football fan anymore. I basically stopped watching football when i turned 20. 

But I clicked on it and watched anyway, and it was fascinating seeing individuals play a game in a way that's so far removed from how you'd typically see it. Yes, there's no frantic spinning of handles and frantic screams - it's calculated, tactical, and deeply, deeply 'professional'. 

Which got me thinking about sports more broadly. 

In recent times, there's been ongoing debate (controversy?) about what exactly constitutes 'sports'. The recent Olympics had the whole breakdancing issue (I think that's a sport), and there's also been ongoing debate about whether esports should be classified as a sport (It has been included in the SEA Games and Commonwealth Games, but I'm less clear about my position on this). 

What exactly is 'sport'? The OED presents multiple definitions of the word, but the one that likely most resonates with people is this: An activity involving physical exertion and skill, esp. (particularly in modern use) one regulated by set rules or customs in which an individual or team competes against another or others. Frequently in plural. 

It's worth noting the additional explanation also provided: In early use the sense of ‘sport’ as a diversion or amusement is paramount; by the 18th and 19th centuries the term was often used with reference to hunting, shooting, and fishing (see blood, field sports at the first element). The consolidation of organised sport (particularly football, rugby, cricket, and athletics) in the 19th cent. reinforced the notion of sport as physical competition. 

Two things stand out to me: First is the notion of physical exertion, and second is the concept of organisation. 

Viewed through this lens, we can understand why there are debates over what constitutes sport. It's easy to understand football, basketball, table tennis, running and etc as 'sport' - a collection of high-performing athletes competing against each other in an organised manner. 

However, when we cast our lens onto other games, it becomes less clear. I don't think the concept of organisation is ever in question. Even with the most 'un-sporty' "sport", there are deeply organised competitions. From League of Legends to Chess, from Darts to Drone Racing, it's impossible to deny the competitiveness of such events (and also the governing bodies behind them). Heck, Microsoft Excel World Championship and Pokemon World Championships are things that really exist. 

The main controversy appears to surround the notion of what constitutes an 'athlete', and whether physical exertion is absolutely fundamental to a sport. And I suppose what separates a 'game' from a 'sport'. 

One thing that's indisputable, regardless of your opinion on the physical/athletic nature of the activity, is the high level of skill involved. I've recently gotten into watching a lot of chess videos, and its so abundantly clear that these pros operate at a completely different level from us normies. Same is true of foosball, chase tag, or Magic the Gathering. 

And perhaps that's where I draw the line - it is the competitive pursuit of betterment that elevates a game to a sport. Not necessarily in everyone's eyes, but certainly in the participants. I think competition is what defines sports, and I'm not convinced it necessarily requires a physical/athletic element. 

If we return to the OED, the first use of the word 'sport' in 1425 actually means Diversion, entertainment, fun. Frequently with modifying adjective (as good, great, etc.). Now somewhat archaic.

With this broader (if admittedly archaic) definition, I think sport is perhaps better viewed in the manner of a game (the entertainment/fun part of the definition) brought to a level of competitiveness that surpasses a typical or average person. We typically tend to think of athletes as possessing a level of physical ability that far surpasses the average person. Faster, stronger, more powerful, these are effectively 'unnatural' beings. 

This is an instructive demonstration: 

But being 'unnaturally' good at something does not have to be only physical in the more traditional sense. Competition is also a mental game, and that's where the case for esports can certainly be made (beyond the hand-eye coordination required that's also true for racquet sports). 

The separation between an average person - even one with reasonable ability (athletic or otherwise) - and someone at the top levels of their chosen 'sport' is what's most fascinating to me. Regardless of my personal opinions about breakdancing (awesome. love it) or cricket (don't get it), I cannot and should not downplay the dedication to skill development that goes into any of these endeavours. I think anyone that's able to reach a level of 'unnatural' ability has the right to stand proudly on their top step. 

Famously (at least in basketball circles), Brian Scalabrine is quoted as saying "I'm closer to LeBron than you are to me" to college players challenging him. 

And that's also probably the reality - there's levels to everything. 

When most of us talk about playing 'sports', we are actually really just playing 'games'. The football/tennis/basketball we are playing are merely games compared to what the pros do, in the same way the foosball/chess that the pros do are quite far removed from the games we play. 

I have no catchall definition of 'sport', but I think we can and should all appreciate and value the tremendous commitment and skill that these individuals possess to elevate themselves to those top levels. Certainly a whole lot more than most of us. That's what makes them different, and what sets them apart.  

~ Desmond