
The Case Against High-School Sports - rmah
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/
======
JPKab
I was a high school athlete. I wrestled on a top-tier team, played football,
and ran cross-country after a knee-injury temporarily disallowed me from
football.

The financial impact of high school sports aren't the issue. The real issue is
their impact on high school culture. School sports, especially the big,
spectator friendly, fast-twitch muscle oriented sports of football,
basketball, and baseball, send a big message to the student body:

Athletic achievement is something that should be celebrated by all students,
to the degree that it should be celebrated by the peers of the students on the
field/court. As if a kid on the bleachers life has been improved because a
fellow student succeeded in putting a ball through a metal ring.

Academic achievement is never glorified in this way. It is viewed as something
that the student and their parents (and perhaps the more conscientious
teachers/faculty) celebrate. Not until junior/senior year, when it becomes
clear that certain students are going to universities with big, well-known,
prestigious names, is there even a remote group admiration of academically
achieving students.

Sports were a great thing for me. They helped me focus, taught me humility,
and also how to internalize criticism into improvement. My participation in
sports did jack shit to help the students who were forced to attend pep
rallies, or sucked into the cultural celebration of not dropping the football
despite taking a devastating hit as I passed the 1st down marker.

Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions.
They have no place there.

~~~
001sky
_Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions.
They have no place there._

The counter example is that sports are linked (hitstorically) with (very)
successful Academic Institutions. The notion that "they have no place there"
is historically way off the mark.

[Edit: Examples]

 _[1] In 1815, Eton College documented its football [soccer] rules, the first
football code to be written down anywhere in the world._

 _[2] In 1845, the first football [Rugby?] laws were written by Rugby School
pupils_

 _[3] Some historians have argued that the primary influence on Australian
rules football was rugby football and other games originating in English
public schools_

 _Springfield College [MA, USA] is ... famous as the site where the sport of
basketball was invented: instructor and graduate student James Naismith
invented the game in 1891_

{etc}

 _The real issue is their impact on high school culture._

Again, this is at best culturally specific and self-referential. At best this
is a political position: more time and attention should be allocated to {X}
group not {Y} group. It also hinges on the false notion that (political)
"merit" is correlated with "academic" merit. This is also a an obvious
falsehood, and frankly the purpose of sport in schools is to teach the
opposite. To use a stratup analogy: ideas are a dime a dozen. Its execution
that counts. So, character is something that matters.

And rightly or wrongly "character" and "teamwork" are subjects not
developed/selected for in the classroom.

~~~
mcguire
" _The counter example is that sports are linked (hitstorically) with (very)
successful Academic Institutions._ "

Some of them. Others, less so.[1]

* Princeton University

* Harvard University

* Yale University

* Columbia University

* Stanford University

* University of Chicago

* Duke University

* Massachusetts Institute of Technology

* University of Pennsylvania

* California Institute of Technology

" _And rightly or wrongly 'character' and 'teamwork' are subjects not
developed/selected for in the classroom [but are on the sports field?]._"

Sometimes. Others, less so.[2]

[1] [http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-
colleges/...](http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-
colleges/rankings/national-universities)

[2] [http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/off-field-arrests-for-
viol...](http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/off-field-arrests-for-violence-
plague-pro-football?stay=1)

~~~
001sky
No offense to America, but the modern University predates the US founding in
1776 by some 500 years.

Secondly, are you suggesting that there the set (clever, assholes) is a null
set?

~~~
mcguire
I'm sorry. I was unaware that any universities (or any other educational
institutions, for that matter) outside the United States were engaged in the
kind of semi-professional sporting/entertainment industry that is common
inside the United States.

[Edit: Examples]

* Between 2009 and 2012, the Allen, TX, Independent School District (which has one high-school) built a $60,000,000, 18,000 seat football stadium. "'It shows that the people of Allen support their kids,' said Allen head football coach Tom Westerberg."

[http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Allen-Unveils-New-Eagle-
Sta...](http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Allen-Unveils-New-Eagle-
Stadium-164932936.html)

* The football program at The University of Texas at Austin made $103,813,684 in 2011-12.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-
econ...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-
college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/)

~~~
001sky
So why extrapolate from a US experience? It has nothing to do with sport,
apparently, and everything to do with money and attention (aka, Jealousy).
Look around the world, there are other ways to do things.

------
twoodfin
Every dollar spent on art classes or chess club is also a dollar not spent on
math, but few are suggesting those endeavors aren't worthwhile. Sports are a
big target, but they're a big target because they're wildly popular and a huge
part of the culture in many U.S. locales. Do you think youth football, soccer
or baseball would go away if schools stopped funding them? Public schools are,
for better and worse, one of the most democratic institutions in our society,
and the activities they offer students reflect that.

When done right, there's a benefit to running youth athletics through schools:
Practice time and other scheduling can be balanced against academic
requirements, coaches (who are often also teachers) can monitor how
performance is being affected on and off the field, etc.

Like anything else, there are tradeoffs and in a nation with tens of thousands
of locally-run school districts some places will go way too far in one
direction, but it's Utopian to imagine that, say, kids in rural Texas will
stop playing football.

(And this is all without mentioning the many positive influences of well-run
athletic competition on students: Health, teamwork, the rewards of focused
effort...)

~~~
brudgers
Public schools in the US are egalitarian and as public institutions ultimately
subject to the will of voters via elected representatives. However, they tend
not to be democratic in a sense which would support your thesis in regard to
sport.

The standard model for eligibility for scholastically sponsored sports at the
high school level is wholly dependent upon were the child lives. Thus High
School athletes typically are not free to choose a team which best meets their
individual needs.

If the coach basketball coach has a bias against atheists [and in plenty of
public schools team prayer is regular and expected] or there is depth at their
position or the program simply operates on a seniors-get-first-priority basis,
the player is not free to move on.*

In other words, public school sports are largely organized around exclusive
geographic franchise rights and there are extensive rules to prevent playing
for whom one chooses and severe penalties for doing so by circumventing those
rules.

Furthermore, many high school athletic associations restrict how, where, and
with whom a player may play in the off season - e.g. by limiting the number of
players from the high school team who may play on a club basketball team
together during the off season [and that's without considering restrictions on
their ability to monetize their athletic fame or talent].

* NCAA rules also severely restrict player movement at the college level - while coaches may switch teams every season.

~~~
twoodfin
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, so let me briefly restate my thesis:

Schools spend a lot of money on athletic programs because school boards
approve budgets that allocate those funds. The school boards do this because
the voters who elect school board members like athletic programs. Further,
those same voters and parents often contribute funds for athletics above and
beyond those being contributed by the taxpayer.

Voters want school athletics, voters get school athletics. The degree of
"freedom" that students enjoy within the school athletic system wasn't what I
meant by "democratic".

------
tokenadult
The author notes about herself, "When I was growing up in New Jersey, not far
from where Jenny now lives, I played soccer from age 7 to 17. I was relieved
to find a place where girls were not expected to sit quietly or look pretty,
and I still love the game. Like most other Americans, I can rattle off the
many benefits of high-school sports: exercise, lessons in sportsmanship and
perseverance, school spirit, and just plain fun. All of those things matter,
and Jenny finds it refreshing to attend a school that is about so much more
than academics. But as I’ve traveled around the world visiting places that do
things differently—and get better results—I’ve started to wonder about the
trade-offs we make."

And then she reviews the history of high school sports in the United States,
and points to some key examples of places where high school sports are a big
part of the local culture (Texas) and what happened when one high school there
shut down its competitive sports program: "That first semester, 80 percent of
the students passed their classes, compared with 50 percent the previous fall.
About 160 people attended parent-teacher night, compared with six the year
before. Principal Ruiz was so excited that he went out and took pictures of
the parking lot, jammed with cars. Through some combination of new leadership,
the threat of closure, and a renewed emphasis on academics, Premont’s culture
changed. 'There’s been a definite decline in misbehavior,' says Desiree
Valdez, who teaches speech, theater, and creative writing at Premont. 'I’m
struggling to recall a fight. Before, it was one every couple of weeks.'"

Simply put, the author is giving a balanced account that does not accuse
sports of being all bad, but simply suggests from real-world examples that
SCHOOL sports are overemphasized in the United States. Having lived in two
different countries, and having decided to have all four of my children
involved in competitive, organized team sports through local "travel" soccer
programs, I have to agree. The trade-offs the author recommends make sense for
a balanced United States education policy.

~~~
barranger
The problem is that multiple changes we made at the same time in that school:

1) Giving Teaches more time for training and planing 2) Making students wear
uniforms 3) Aligning the curriculum with more rigorous state standards 4) Drop
the sports program

Then spends the rest of the article giving all the credit for the improved
test scores to a lack of sports.

~~~
kaa2102
You made an excellent counterpoint. The improvements in performance were not
solely due to dropping sports programs. It may be difficult to tease out the
impact that each of the major changes had on performance.

I did participate extensively in high school sports. I think that the benefits
far outweigh the costs. In evaluating solutions like dropping sports programs,
I believe that other options for performance improvement should both jointly
and individually be considered, e.g., minimum GPA for sports participation,
uniforms, longer school hours, mandatory summer school, etc.

~~~
mcguire
Out of curiosity, how many of your teachers were hired primarily as coaches in
the sports programs?

"minimum GPA for sports participation"

You wouldn't believe the kerfluffle that caused in Texas[1]. As I recall, the
result was rather predictable grade inflation.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pass_No_Play](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pass_No_Play)

~~~
kaa2102
I hear you. My mother enforced a minimum GPA for sports participation. I took
mostly Honors and AP courses. I had a C midyear on my report card in a math
course and my parents told me there would be no more sports until I had only
As and Bs.

Yes, some teachers are hired primarily to be coaches. Some, not all of coaches
teach gym class. However, my best teacher ever was a guy called Coach K
because he and his father coached football for years. Coach K taught AP
physics and engineering courses in high school. He was an Army guy and
previously worked at McDonald-Douglass. He made learning fun and exciting.
Perhaps Coach K is the exception. Student athletes are there to learn first
and a teaching coaches' primary job is to teach.

~~~
mcguire
When I say "kerfluffle", I don't mean on an individual level. I mean people
who ought to know better predicting massive numbers of drop-outs, gang
activity, and the failure of school systems. (Also, not having any local
sporting events on Friday nights.)

For example, here is one quote from 2011, something like 25 years after the
no-pass-no-play law was passed[1]:

"Dr. Victoria Martin, a Child Psychiatrist in Richardson, TX,...continued by
saying: 'Instead of beating these children down even more, we should be
encouraging them to participate in activities where they have talents and
abilities. _We are punishing the “good” kids, the ones who care about their
school and want to participate in school activities instead of being involved
in gangs and other destructive groups_.'" [Emphasis mine.]

As far as teaching coaches go, I'll just mention one of my high-school history
teachers, whose primary qualifications as a history teacher seem to have been
that he was a very decent football coach.

[1] [http://www.adhdtexas.com/no-pass-no-play-law-has-very-
advers...](http://www.adhdtexas.com/no-pass-no-play-law-has-very-adverse-
effect-on-many-students/)

------
skizm
Athletics and after-school programs are probably some of the best thing
schools can spend their money on (apart from good teachers). I agree maybe
they get in the way of studies when students are forced to attend pep-rallies
or something similar but that is just bad school administration and needs to
be dealt with on an individual school level.

Apart from all the soft skills that are tough to test for like leadership,
organizational skills, and work ethic, sports have a tangible effect on
grades; that is they improve them. I would cite studies but there are
literally too many to cite. Just google "athlete gpa vs non athlete" or
something similar and there won't be one link suggesting that non-athletes get
better grades (on average).

Athletics are also a path to a better college and give kids constructive
outlets for their time and energy. Yes they happen to be pretty expensive but
are totally worth it IMO because, guess what? I don't want to be like some
other countries that keep their kids' noses to the grindstone all day to prep
them for "a test of critical thinking in math". We should really be teaching
our kids how to do their taxes, change a tire and interpret medical test
results and not how to take tests.

~~~
nitrogen
Athletes get better grades in high school because they are encouraged by GPA
requirements to take easier classes, and because teachers are pressured to
inflate athletes' grades to keep them playing.

Local sports can be good; I played soccer in a non-school league. School-
sponsored teams only divide students and create perverse incentives.

~~~
skizm
That is total speculation and I would guess totally false since standardized
testing scores are higher for athletes also.

~~~
Retric
Athletes are by definition reasonably healthy and healthy people are as a rule
both more intelligent and do better at work / school than non healthy people.
Further, athletes are required to have a minimum GPA which has both a positive
and dramatic impact on testing scores. AKA compare everyone with everyone with
a 2.0+ GPA and you will see a positive correlation.

PS: You can correct for these factors, but it's far less common than you might
think to do so as correlations are published more often than null results.

~~~
skizm
> by definition reasonably healthy and healthy people are as a rule both more
> intelligent and do better at work / school than non healthy people

Playing sports will make you healthier.

Edit: also the whole holding student athletes to a higher standard (need to
get a 2.0) makes them get better grades and do better on tests is kinda my
point. School sports helps people do better in school and in life. Isn't that
what people who are against sports want?

~~~
nitrogen
_School sports helps people do better in school and in life. Isn 't that what
people who are against sports want?_

That only helps the athletes, while (at least in my high school) creating a
stratified society where everyone else was treated as inferior.

~~~
skizm
Ah. Gotcha. Valid point. I think that is a school by school thing. Not much
you can do about that unless the state starts mandating how individual schools
glorify different student accomplishments.

------
socrates1998
I coached high school football and I have always thought the high emphasis on
sports in American education is a bit strange.

Does that mean it is bad? No, I don't think so. Last year, the high school I
coached at had to raise about $30,000 for it's football program. The school or
district didn't pay for it, the program had to raise it itself.

Also, most of the players were low-income, high risk students. Football gave
them a reason to go to school and a way to go to college.

On average, just our team has helped 7-10 players each year go to college when
they probably wouldn't have done so without football.

Could their be a better system? Of course, but right now, high schools sports
are a net positive, I think.

------
rayiner
I find it amusing that in a country where so many people are obese, diabetic,
etc, people are characterizing sports as the problem.

If anything, there is too much "learning" in school and not enough sports! All
over the country, physical education programs are being cut to make way for
more instruction on native Americans, as if that's really what society needs.

~~~
lumberjack
Sports and physical activity are not the same. The way sports is done in high
school, alienates anyone who does not care to compete athletically and
dedicate a good chuck of their time towards that goal. Sports is also not the
healthiest option around. I have many friends who still suffer from injuries
that they relate back to their days of football practice and such.

What high schools should have is a continuum of the physical education classes
in middle school. In fact I think it would be much more productive a class in
high school because by then the students would be mature enough to understand
that the class is not just an hour of wasted time.

~~~
jtheory
Yes - I ran cross country and track in HS, and it was very much _not_ a
jogging club for people to get in better shape and have fun. We were training
for races against other schools. Our coach was pretty laid back, but still,
everyone knew everyone else's times, everyone had to compete in public in
skimpy uniforms,etc.

~~~
jtheory
[Self-replying because I can't seem to write more than a few lines in the
mobile interface...] I personally did get a lot out of HS sport; I was a shy
kid who could run fast, so I became a mini hero/authority in my small fish
pond - but I have to agree with the article's point that the majority of the
students were not benefiting.

------
ameister14
I coached sports in a very blue collar town, and I know several of the
students had no positive male role models, no structure provided for them at
home, and no incentive to perform academically. Then they joined our team, and
suddenly they had people willing to help them, a bond with other students they
hadnt possessed before, and a structure they needed.

They had to pass their classes now because they wanted to play, and we taught
them to be more respectful of their teachers and administrators. These kids
went from being trouble at the school to just normal kids. That is because of
sports and nothing else.

Could they have afforded to play on a team not affiliated with the school?
Probably not.

------
pge
I played sports all through college, and looking back I wonder why i played
for my college team and not a local club. Particularly looking at the culture
and impact of sports at the college level (most notably football and
basketball). It seems to me that decoupling sports from schools at both
college and high school level would realign incentives better.

------
protomyth
Sports, with the right attitude, are a good thing. They teach you about
winning and losing, instill a bit of discipline, and provide some fun.

I find a lot of arguments about sports to come down to not everyone enjoys or
participates in sports. I find that a dangerous way to think since that could
just as easily lead to the cancellation of other programs. For a lot of kids,
sports and the academic requirements to participate in sports are the only
thing keeping them interested in school.

------
debacle
I really feel like this is a regional thing. At the high school I went to, the
football team played second fiddle to the soccer team, but in general, unless
you bought your own equipment, you were still playing with helmets, uniforms,
and other equipment that was somewhat fecund. There were plenty of times that
players sat because of grades or disciplinary actions, and the football
players were no more prestigious than the Frisbee golf club.

Sports were treated as "just another club," and while their budget was
obviously larger than other clubs (some larger than others), I don't think
they were anything near the stories we hear about the southern states who
can't afford text books but have football stadiums that rival some colleges.

Schools need a healthy balance between education and personal development, and
I think that sports go a long way towards personal development, whether they
be team sports or individual sports.

------
mp01
Too many people here seem to be missing the point of the article. The title is
"The Case Against High-School Sports" not "The Case Against Sports". The
argument is whether an academic institution should be spending so much of its
(potentially tight) budget on athletics and whether it should be glorifying
athletic accomplishments so much more than it does academic accomplishments.

I've played sports, both in-school and out-of-school, almost my entire life
and I love sports as much as anyone else, and I think the article makes a
valid argument. Sports are great and kids can learn a lot from them, but I
don't think school-affiliated sports over many benefits over club-affiliated
sports, and even if they did, I question whether those benefits outweigh the
costs of schools putting so many resources into them.

edit: I was missing a word

------
vinceguidry
I didn't read the article. The entire idea is a non-starter. Killing high
school sports will kill the entire professional sports industry. Professional
athletes have been getting better and better and the reason is that kids are
starting younger and younger, programs get better and better. Professional
sports depends on this in the same way that market investing depends on
growth. Without it, the whole scheme falls apart.

Try to do this and you'll invoke the wrath of the most powerful entertainment
sector on the planet. They will shut you down faster than the Falcons get
owned at the playoffs.

------
jcampbell1
The obsession with math education in East Asian countries is not without its
cost. These countries all have a terrible gender gap in educational attainment
and economic earnings. Women get marginalized before they even graduate high
school. Given that female per capita earnings in the US are higher than all
countries except Norway and Luxembourg, I can't help but think our system is
doing something right. I am not sure this directly relates to sports, but
something about our system is creating the world's most successful women.

~~~
tokenadult
_These countries all have a terrible gender gap in educational attainment and
economic earnings._

I call b___s___ on that, having lived in one of those countries, and invite
you to produce statistics backing up your statement. The East Asian country I
know best, Taiwan, has had more female than male participation in higher
education for at least a generation, and generally has equal pay for equal
work and plenty of female access to professional occupations. The same is
surely true of Singapore, a country many of my friends live in. I cannot
attribute any remaining gender inequality in that country or other countries
to an emphasis on strong mathematics education--to the contrary, helping
elementary pupils get a good background in mathematics probably helps women
cope with the tough issue that they deal with, having to do more to reproduce
the next generation than men have to do.

~~~
jcampbell1
You are quite right. I was thinking about Japan/Korea, and some statistics I
had looked up years ago.

I can't find any information on Taiwan, but have a look a some of the gender
equality for Japan/Korea. The numbers are quite abysmal. On the other hand
Singapore is top of the world.

See:
[http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2012.pdf](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2012.pdf)

p.224 Japan ,p.232 Korea, p.358 US, p.318 Singapore.

It seems the problem is isolated to Japan and Korea, and likely has nothing to
do with sports, math education, nor East-Asia.

------
jasonlotito
Once again, all high-school sports are lumped together as if the problem,
rather than the spending typically found for Football. The story glosses over
this fact, despite the fact that the school that was the primary focus didn't
eliminate all sports. In the end, they cut out spending so much on sports.

Another factor is the way testing is done. For far too long I've been hearing
about the problems of standardized testing, and the problems it holds. These
rankings: how are they determined? Are they any better then standardized
testing?

Finally, we ignore the fact that math and science are not the end of the road.
I've seen more done by sports teams to help the community then by any chess
club (and yes, I _was_ on the chess club). Working with under-privileged or
special needs children, being involved with the community, and all together,
learning to be leaders and contributors in society. What values are we losing
by removing sports?

Yes, their might be other ways to obtain those values. But we are throwing out
the baby with the bathwater here. At the end of the day, what seemed to matter
was proper budgeting, increasing standards, and overall, the attitude of the
administration.

------
the_watcher
It's interesting that the author concludes that school sports are over-
emphasized over club and travel teams (just to be clear, I think there are a
lot of good points in the article). I played sports in high school, as did my
brother and sister. My experience (and my understanding of a lot of the West
Coast) was almost the opposite. Our high school soccer season was considered
almost like the offseason compared to the club season, which required way more
time and travel, and was also the path to college recruitment. My sister's
experience with volleyball was the same. In basketball and baseball, AAU and
travel teams take up much more time than school sports, most of which actually
have some limits on when practice can occur (we couldn't have anything on
Sundays related to school sports, but club had no such rules). Football is the
only exception to this, in my experience. Maybe the East Coast is different,
but when I was growing up and going through the recruiting process, school
sports didn't take up nearly as much of my attention.

------
migrantgeek
I've started seeing a massage therapist for my back and when they gave me a
tour of the office they showed me a shrine of the local high school football
team with autographed pictures, helmets, etc.

The kid giving me the tour was proud to announce "we take care of the high
school football team!".

I looked it up after and it turns out the school pays for these kids to get
massages so they play better football. I pay nearly 700 a month to the ISD in
taxes because I own a home. It hurts me to know that some of that pays for a
teenager to get a massage before each big game.

I realize I am in Texas but it's still maddening that this goes on.

------
mathattack
I am a big believer in investing in physical fitness for students, and think
that sports can be great for learning teamwork and hard work. I'm not such a
believer for focusing physical fitness money on a narrow subset of students in
competitive-entry teams. I think that schools use sports and team spirit to
mask other problems with their programs. It is a shame that schools spend
money on a small subset of their student's athletic careers when they perform
so miserably in academic subjects.

~~~
dingaling
> and think that sports can be great for learning teamwork and hard work

I agree that they develop hard work and commitment, but I've always been
sceptical about the teamwork aspects.

Teamwork should enable a group of people to achieve more than the individual.
Most sports are not like that: practically, it makes no difference if each
football team has one player or 11. The objective ( score against the
opposition ) would still be achieved. Perhaps to a lesser magnitude, but still
achieved.

Real teamwork development requires tasks that are physically impossible for a
single person.

------
gz5
I think most of us subscribe to the benefits of sports (and other extra-
curricular activities).

That said, how about the professional leagues sending money back into school
budgets (x% of ticket sales)? They also benefit from HS sports...

Certainly money is not the only answer to the overall education problems
raised in the article - but it could be part of the solution - and I think we
want to find sources that don't potentially rob Peter to pay Paul, or have
significant intended and unintended consequences and ripple effects.

------
bhewes
I played HS Baseball in Oklahoma. One year we lost to Jenks in the state
finals. Only thing I wish, is I was better. HS baseball was my outlet from the
physical prison that is modern suburbia. Now my outlet is weight lifting and
sparing, and I probably spend 20 hours a week on 'worthless' physical
activity. Just because the author wants to live in her head all the time does
not mean the rest of us do.

------
tzs
> Even in eighth grade, American kids spend more than twice the time Korean
> kids spend playing sports, according to a 2010 study published in the
> Journal of Advanced Academics

Of course American kids spend more time on sports. They don't have super fast
internet and live in a country where Starcraft players can get corporate
sponsorship and make a living playing the game. Did the study take this into
account?

------
supercanuck
As a kid growing up in hockey crazed Canada, the hockey teams are seperate
from the education system but the culture is no less crazy. Is the education
achievments of Canada any different than the United States? As an example, all
you need to do is go to Surrey, BC to see a complex with three ice rinks
connected to the Skytrain.

------
geebee
I'm always a little sad to see a case made against sports, since I do think
that participation in sports can be an exceptionally positive force in a young
(or old!) person's life - when the culture of sports emphasizes honest
competition and respect for your opponent. It's about wanting to win but
realizing that winning isn't the goal at all. You know, when it's match point,
and there's a ball that was probably out, but you didn't see it clearly, and
you know the rules - if you can't make the call, the point and match goes to
your opponent. Go shake hands with your head held high. It doesn't matter if
you're a crappy tennis player or a great one. You played hard, and you played
fairly.

Unfortunately, what I just described isn't really sports in America. There's
no way to tell this next anecdote without admitting that I watched "The
Biggest Loser", so let's just get that out of the way now. Ok. so. There was
this section where an NFL player shows up to talk about how the NFL takes
fitness and obesity seriously, and so, they're announcing a "fifteen
_thousand_ dollar" (well, I don't remember the exact amount) donation to help
fight obesity.

So, a league that makes billions off people who rarely exercise and sit on
their sofa watching people play an expensive sport that probably badly harms
people when played as intended and is largely inaccessible in the form played
professionally (tag or flag football is a different thing, and is kind of fun
in my opinion), raking in millions (billions?) in ad dollars by subjecting the
non-exercising viewers to barrage of advertisements for empty calorie foods
supplemented with a chemical scientists use to induce obesity in lab rats, is
now going to donate 0.000001% of the budget to purchase some unused exercise
equipment to help fight obesity. Ok, I'm not sure it goes exactly like that,
but I'm pretty sure it doesn't go exactly unlike that.

And here's one more problem - I really like college football. I just hate what
it has become. There _may_ be a middle ground here.

[http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/22/should-
colle...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/22/should-colleges-get-
rid-of-competitive-sports/division-iii-sports-are-good-for-campus-health)

And supposedly (according to the NYTimes) watching pro tennis players does
improve the games of amateurs, so maybe there's some benefits to watching
instead of just playing. At least, that's what I'll tell myself for now...

------
Datsundere
They should've stopped spending money on sports instead of firing teachers
during the recession (recession being a relative term).

~~~
antoko
Recession is never a relative term, it has a specific meaning, 2 or more
consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by real GDP.

Hmm apparently I'm not nearly on as solid ground as I thought with regard to
this. I've been in the States for 11 years and apparently still have a UK/Euro
bias.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession#Definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession#Definition)

 _In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for
dating US recessions. The NBER defines an economic recession as: "a
significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting
more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment,
industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."[5] Almost universally,
academics, economists, policy makers, and businesses defer to the
determination by the NBER for the precise dating of a recession's onset and
end.

In the United Kingdom, recessions are generally defined as two consecutive
quarters of negative economic growth, as measured by the seasonal adjusted
quarter-on-quarter figures for real GDP.[6][7] The exact same recession
definition apply for all member states of the European Union._

------
alexeisadeski3
I find sports emphasis far less troubling than the author's focus on
standardized test scores.

------
gr3yh47
This is an absurd argument (Stop spending money on sports and rather spend it
on _real_ education)

rather, we should spend less money on things like policing the rest of the
world/inflating the defense sector's wallets and channel THAT money into
education/infrastructure/healthcare/many other things

~~~
fusiongyro
"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something
genuinely new to say about them."

