
Why Do Some Sports Vanish and Some Sports Survive? - prostoalex
http://nautil.us/issue/39/sport/why-sports-die
======
wppick
What I find interesting is that the person who would design the game dynamics
for a new sport and the game dynamics for a new video game, like call of duty,
essentially have the same job description.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_design)

What's even more interesting is how deep game design actually goes in human
culture/history. Anything competitive between humans could potentially be
modeled as a game. You could even think about war as a game (there are rules,
teams). I could imagine ancient humans saw hunting as a game. Play is also
super important for the proper development of children.

As for why some sports/games survive while others fail, I'd argue that it's
the same reason anything designed lasts the test of time, gets replaced, or
becomes obsolete

~~~
technotony
If you are interested in taking this idea further, all life is game, I'd
recommend the philosophy book 'finite and infinite games'. Can be applied to
all kinds of aspects of human life, eg a startup is a game played by founders
who win with a successful exit.

With this philosophy text, Carse demonstrates a way of looking at actions in
life as being a part of at least two types of what he describes as "games",
finite and infinite. Both games are played within rules, as agreed upon by the
participants; however, the meaning of the rules is different for the two types
of games. The book stresses a non-serious (or "playful") view of life on the
part of "players", referring to their choices as "moves", and societal
constructs and mores as "rules" and "boundaries".

In short, a finite game is played with the purpose of winning (thus ending the
game), while an infinite game is played with the purpose of continuing the
play.

~~~
astazangasta
I don't think all life is a game in this way; with a game we hold ourselves to
the rules _for their own sake_ \- the pleasure we get from play is that of
acting within the sandbox we've defined. It is a sketch of life, a model, a
way to explore an idea. In the context of a game we might be adversaries, but
I am intimately aware of the boundary, and that we are at play - our
adversarial relationship is not "real". We often say, "It's just a game", and
the _just_ is crucial to the difference.

This is different from social mores, which are boundaries we respect because
transgression has consequences we care about. There are real ends; it's NOT
just a game. There is no space or context beyond what happens in life, as
there is in a game (taking place within the shell of the true life).

The purpose of play, and playing games, is to prepare us for the actual
contests with outcomes that we are invested in.

Of course we might USE play, and games, as tools in the course of achieving
real ends (like the Olympics as a goal for furthering peace), but this is
different from those ends (peace) being a game in themselves.

~~~
munificent
> This is different from social mores, which are boundaries we respect because
> transgression has consequences we care about. There are real ends; it's NOT
> just a game.

This just means the games can nest. In the innermost game, you treat social
mores as rules to follow and try to excel within them.

But there is a surrounding meta-game where you weigh the pros and cons of
transgressing the mores and consequences that leads to. In that game, the
mores are no longer _rules_ and transgressing is now a _move_.

Around that, yet another game where the moves are _putting effort into
changing social rules_. And so on.

~~~
GarvielLoken
Why would you do that? It sounds very schizophrenic to me to make one self
have such a distance to normal social and emotional life that one represent it
to one self as a game. To treat a social overstep as a rule break instead of
understanding emphatically that you have caused hurt i would consider
schizophrenic / autism.

I think it is much more healthy, in a mental health way, to not re-present
life and instead experience it directly.

~~~
munificent
For what it's worth, I'm not arguing that one _should_ look at their life
entirely this dispassionately. Just that their are multiple levels that we
operate in where we deal with rules and consequences.

I don't mean "game" in the sense of "doesn't matter what happens". I mean it
in the sense of "players interacting within a rule set".

Note that empathy and the feelings of others are hugely important parts of all
of the games we play in life. An anecdote: my youngest daughter is one of the
sweetest most naturally empathic people I know. She was playing Candyland with
her older sister and won twice in a row. This got her sister mad because she
wants nothing more to win. But my youngest daughter wasn't _trying_ to
win—Candyland is a pure chance game—and what she really wanted was for
everyone to have fun. So she told her sister to play again and that she
promised to let her win this time. She was trying to play the metagame of
maximizing everyone's fun.

------
mod
I don't think the article answers the question it presents.

The only answer it seems to provide is "When cultures disappear, their sports
disappear with them."

I think the answer to the question in the title would also answer a lot of
similar questions:

"Why do some car makers vanish and some survive?"

"Why do some board games vanish and some survive?"

"Why do some X vanish and some survive?"

~~~
caminante
_> I don't think the article answers the question it presents._

You sure? I didn't need to read further than this quote to answer "Why do
sports die?":

    
    
      "In areas adjacent to their temples, young men engaged in 
      a ball game, known as ōllamaliztli, that concluded with 
      the bloody sacrifice of one of the players upon the temple’s 
      altar. Whether the sacrificed player was a winner or a loser 
      we shall never know."
    

I wouldn't try out for _that_ sport ;-).

------
ythl
Money. If the organization that governs your sport doesn't lobby the right
people, your sport will stop getting coverage. Without coverage you generate
no money. Read: wrestling and the olympics.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> If the organization that governs your sport doesn't lobby the right people,
your sport will stop getting coverage. Without coverage you generate no money.

Likewise if both of these things happen (getting money and coverage) there is
still a huge chance nobody watches and you still lose

Read:

\- US Soccer (NASL and the MLS)

\- The NHL

\- The X-Games

~~~
Spooky23
Soccer and hockey have strong, motivated fan bases. They lack a great business
model for TV.

Football is fucked long term. Liability is going to shut down the recruitment
funnel, and the implosion of TV revenues will wipe out the big money.

~~~
petepete
Soccer lacks a great business model for TV? Someone'd better tell Sky Sports!

~~~
Spooky23
I should have clarified for American TV. They haven't figured about a way to
pause a soccer game long enough to run 25 minutes of commercials per hour.

Baseball is particularly good example of how they do this. Go to a major
league game and things randomly stop... A lot. Go to a minor league game, and
they are in continuous motion. The games are usually much shorter.

American football is a tv show that involves a ball. As TV goes, so does
football.

------
cobbzilla
While we're wondering why some sports fare better than others, anyone want to
lay odds on the long-term survival chances of the wild and wacky game of
Buzkashi? It's the sport where your team, on horseback, tries to get the goat
carcass into your opponent's goal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzkashi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzkashi)

~~~
andygates
Geographic spread seems to help with sports, so is this still a regional
specialty, or are there buzkashi sides in the Afghan diaspora? Most
importantly, have the blue blazers homologated a Standard Buzkashi Goat? /s

------
namaemuta
A bit of off-topic but I've always wondered if e-sports could be perdurable as
well since the interest of the developers goes towards making more money than
making it better (improving its rules, adjusting times, etc.).

