In Sigmund Loland’s Normative Theories of Sport: A Critical Review, Loland attempts to characterize and categorize various theories on the ethics of sport and the nature of sport. The first major division in the diversity of theories that Loland posits is between externalism and internalism. Externalism, Loland writes, is the belief that sports are a means to an end goal, whether it be political, commercial, or even just physical, in the case of sport for fitness. Internalism, on the other hand, is the belief that sport has an internal, intrinsic value. Within internalist theories, Loland identifies both performance theories and performer theories. While performance theories define sport as a quest for the most superior performance, performer theories define sport as a quest for the most superior performer. This most superior performer should succeed based as much as possible on his work ethic, not his opportunities, and should be a role model for all. Performance theorists on the other hand seek broken world records and achievement, not necessarily a perfect performer. To sum it up, instrumentalists view sport as a tool in an entirely separate task, while performance theorists view it as a quest to improve human achievement, and performer theorists view it as a quest to improve the performer.
Instrumentalism is an externalist idea that sport holds no value on its own. It isn’t played for the records or to test humanity’s limits, but rather to achieve the goal of benefiting those concerned, whether that be a person, a corporation, or a country. One demonstration of externalist theory is the Olympic matches between the US and the USSR, which often brought pride and unity to their citizens in the case of a win. Even more examples lie in the private sector: sports has fans, and fans will pay to see sports, making the sports broadcasting industry a hugely profitable one. The records and the level of play do matter, but only in the sense that they can increase the amount of money people spend to watch it. With the explosion of technology from radio to HDTV, those who own the technology capable of broadcasting as well as the negotiating skills or personnel capable of achieving exclusivity will make millions, regardless of whether a record is broken. Importantly, however, this multibillion-dollar industry is never satisfied. Because of the never-ending supply of ambition (or greed, if you choose to view it that way) in the operators of these massive broadcasting businesses, it is also in the best interest of them for sport to be as entertaining as possible. When new innovations arrive, whether they are embraced may be directly tied to whether it is entertaining (and therefore profitable) to embrace them according to the instrumentalist, externalist view of the sports world, at least if the external goal is money.
Next, we should explore one of Loland’s other categories: performance theories. These are theories that reject the notion of sport as only an instrument, and instead endorse the idea that sports derives its meaning from the quest for ever better performance. Performance theorists believe in the intrinsic value of sport, but importantly, believe in no guiding principles associated with this value. The ends not only justify the means, but they encourage and promote all possible means. The possibilities are limitless, so the only ethic that must be held in sport, to a performance theorist, is freedom. On the question of ever-expanding innovation, the performance theorist welcomes it without reservation, given that the innovation isn’t wildly dangerous.
Performer theorists, who also believe in the intrinsic value of sport, believe it must lie in the sanctity of the performer. Sports, they argue, are not merely about achievement in a discipline, but rather about testing the limits of the athlete. In this way, things like nutrition and new weight training methods are encouraged, as they improve the athlete’s physical being. However, no innovation can be implemented that is so revolutionary that it questions whether it is actually the athlete who is the one causing the elite performance and not the innovation. Unfortunately, this arbitrary line between performers and thing that influence the performance can seem hazy and at the whim of a few powerful individuals. Yet, the preservation of this line and the specifications of it are imperative to a performer theorist. One of the reasons this line must be so preserved is to minimize what performer theorists call the opportunity gap, the gap between those who had more opportunities (because of family wealth, luck, or other factors) and those who had fewer. If the opportunity gap is widened as a result of innovation, as in the case of a very expensive innovation, performer theorists view it as a problem that hurts sports. But even when an innovation narrows the opportunity gap, if it obscures the impact of the athlete on his/her performance, like EPO does, then the innovation is shunned at all levels of organized sport. In conclusion, performer theorists exclusively focus on whether the innovation is unfair and whether it lessens the impact of the performer on the overall performance.
These three distinct definitions and value systems of sport each have their own way of dealing with innovation, but to demonstrate these, this paper will focus on one: the LZR Racer swimsuit. Wearers of this swimsuit broke numerous records in 2008 thanks to its ability to reduce drag and improve buoyancy. Instrumentalism makes no judgement on whether an innovation is necessarily good or necessarily bad, only whether it advances an external goal. If the goal is profits (which it isn’t always), any innovation that makes the game more exciting and makes more money would be a good one. In the case of the LZR Racer, it vastly improved performance, probably bringing many more people eager to see records get broken, generating large amounts of money for companies involved. If the goal is fitness, not profits, the LZR Racer is an irrelevant innovation to most, only relevant to Speedo, the company that manufactures the swimsuit, who can make money off its increased sales. If the goal is political, the LZR Racer, and all sports innovations for that matter, only matter if just one side has it and can guarantee victory over their opponents with it. If the external goal is further achieved by an innovation, then the innovation is embraced.
Alternatively, a performance theorist doesn’t take into account any secret agenda because the agenda of sports is already clear; the goal of sports is to improve performance. Therefore, the opinion of a performance theorist on the LZR Racer is that it should be allowed and encouraged, as should all innovation. In a sporting world where only the result matters, of course a new kind of swimsuit would be accepted. If it improves performance, it is tolerated.
On the other hand, a performer theorist would evaluate innovation depending on whether it blurs the impact of an athlete on his/her achievement. When performer theorists evaluate sport, they focus on the performer’s improvement, and the LZR Racer does not improve the performer’s technique or work ethic, but instead just inflates an athlete’s achievement. Nonetheless, the LZR Racer is not expensive (only about $300) and therefore doesn’t widen the opportunity gap, at least among current athletes. However, an argument could be made that the LZR Racer does widen the opportunity gap between current athletes and past athletes, making it seem like current athletes are better, instead of just luckier to be born recently and to be alive for such innovations. Performer theorists might feel a number of ways about the LZR Racer given the different opportunity gaps.
Essentially, the three theories according to Loland are the beliefs that sports are simply a tool, that sports are about pushing the limits of achievement, and that sports are about the most superior athlete. Instrumentalism seeks to argue the meaninglessness of sports in and of itself, and with it the meaningless of sports innovation outside of external results. Innovation in sport, like sport itself, is valuable only in the achievement of goals entirely separate from sport. Performance theories treat achievement of improved performance as the goal. Sport is a quest to be faster, better, and stronger and whatever tools can be used to improve performance are valuable and worthwhile, all innovation included. Finally, performer theories view sport as a human journey to improve one’s self. Innovation must therefore be viewed as positive if it helps humans improve, but negative if it improves the outcome without improving the human, especially if it improves some humans’ outcomes and not others, as messy and potentially contradictory as that can be. The three theories see sport as meaning three different things, and innovation as positive if it helps the sport mean what the theorists already think it does.
Works Cited
Loland, S. (2004). Normative Theories of Sport: A Critical Review. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XXXI, 111-121.