VIOLENCE IN SPORTS

"VIOLENCE IN SPORT is a physical assault or ot physically harmful actions by a player that takes place in a sports context and that is intended to cause physical pain or injury to another player (or fan, coach, game official, etc.), where such harmful actions bear no direct relationship to the rules and associated competitive goals of the sport". (Canadian Centre For Ethics In Sport)

A LOOK AT SOME OF THE THEORIES

There are a few proposed theories for the explanation of violence in sports. They include biological, psychological and social learning theories.

Biological theory suggests that aggression is a basic, inherent human condition. Therefore, having said this, sport is considered to be an acceptable method for athletes to let off steam or pent-up aggression.

Psychological theory, on the other hand, relies on the concept of "frustration" as the main cause for the occurrence of violence in sports. With the pressures of the game--such as fans who heckle players, questionable calls made by the officials, and player's egos--frustration can build up to the point where outbursts of violence can occur.

Social learning theory maintains that violent behaviour is learned through "modelling". Furthermore, rewards and punishments ultimately reinforce this behaviour. Therefore, when kids see their favourite sports heroes on TV, they are more than likely going to try and imitate them. So, those who happen to idolize an enforcer from a NHL hockey team may see violence as an acceptable means for making it to the NHL where, subsequently, millions ($) are to be made.

NOW TO THE REAL NEWS...

Most of us are aware by now that on Feb. 2, 2000 in the confines of GM Place in Vancouver, Marty McSorley took a cowardly swing, from behind, at Donald Brashear's head with his hockey stick. I think it is safe to say that the sports world was pretty much left in a state of shock and disgust over the whole situation. Most were in disbelief that an athlete, especially one from an elite league such as the NHL, would ever lose his cool in a violent outburst of this nature.

To their credit, the NHL disciplinary body did give McSorley the longest suspension in league history, and they believed that the matter should be left at that. Now, this brings up the question of whether or not athletes in professional sports ought to be self-governed. Should they be above the laws that everyone else must abide by? What do you think? Well, we'll have to wait for the jury on this one because, thankfully, the Crown saw things differently and, on March 7, decided to lay formal charges for assault with a weapon against McSorley. If McSorley wins this case, I guess we can say that athletes are above the law. I mean, we need not look any further than the O.J. Simpson trial for evidence that athletes can get away with murder!

I think that "consent" in sports is also a relevant issue to the discussion at hand, so it is worth delving into. It can be said that there are definitely varying degrees of consent, in terms of violent acts in the form of body contact, that an athlete may take on while participating in any sport. It is obvious to most, for example, that boxing has a greater risk factor that golf does. In one sport, you are going "toe-to-toe" with another human being with all intention of knocking his/her ass to the canvas. This is very different, say, from the consent one would expect in a golf game. I, for instance, would not expect to see Tiger Woods take a club out of his bag and whack one of his competitors across the back of the legs because he accidentally sneezed while he was teeing off! Simply put, this is not part of the game of golf, whereas beating your opponent's face in is part of the sport of boxing. This is obviously an area that the courts have to consider carefully, and only on a case-by-case basis can these issues be dealt with sufficiently. There has yet to be the development of a universal degree of consent in all of sports that one can agree upon, and I highly doubt there will ever be such a thing.

THE MEDIA'S IMPACT

There is little doubt that the media plays an enormous role in the promotion of today's sport. Their main purpose is to serve the entertainment needs of the spectators or sports fans. Therefore, money, championships, and records all motivate players to strive for excellence, night in and night out, at high performance levels. This leads to a greater chance of highly intense, competitive play for the spectator.

There is little argument that the media can profit from feature articles and documentaries about sport and sport figures. In fact, sport is a primary source for the media industry to focus on. The exploitation of professional athletes in feature stories still secures TV ratings and sells newspapers, magazines, and books, especially when it comes to the issue of sports violence. Generally, violent and rough play seems to be given more airtime than normal play. Rough play guarantees interest and facilitates enjoyment presumably because of the fierce competitiveness it exposes.

For example, you need not look any further than the nightly sports telecasts. Not only do they highlight the day's scores, but they also take time to recognize the scuffles that may have occurred in a particular hockey, baseball, or basketball game that very same night. In fact, if you watch Sports Page on Ch. 13 at 11:00 p.m., you'll see this firsthand. Whenever a fight occurs in a hockey game, the commentator will refer to the "Sports Page judge" (a cameraman, producer, or someone else behind the scenes of the show) for the official ruling on who won the fight.

An even better example, is that of the WWF (World Wrestling Federation). For anyone who has seen the WWF on TV, it is pretty obvious that violence is the name of the game here. Everyone realizes that what is seen during the broadcast is scripted and "fake", but this is beside the point because this business is extremely profitable. The show is marketed with the fan's interests in mind. They are the ones packing the stadiums and ordering the pay-per-views, so violence (either real or imitated) is ever present because it obviously sells in the WWF's case.

Also, for those skeptics out there who say wrestling is not real and nobody is really hurt during these televised events, then I say they are wrong. Take "Mick Foley" (pictured on the left, dishing out a pile driver on Terry Funk) for example. I know for a fact, and if anyone has ever seen his biography on A&E they'll agree with me here, that he has indeed taken his share of abuse. In fact, in his notorious "cage" match with the "Undertaker", he fell twice from the top of the cage, suffering a concussion, but continued to wrestle as the fans kept cheering him on. He further sustained numerous broken ribs, had his tooth knocked out of his mouth through his nose, and to top it all off was "choked-slammed" onto a few hundred thumbtacks all before his night was over. Afterwards he had no recollection of what he had just been put through. He stated that the reason he continued on was because thousands of fans were going nuts, wanting more, that he felt he had to continue on. If this tale doesn't prove the amount of enthusiasm on display over another person's pain, then nothing will. The media also finds this pain quite worthwhile, as evidenced by the revenues and ratings it received in the process.

No matter how you look at it, the media realizes that violence, to a certain degree, is tolerable and extremely profitable. So, it is going to be a long time before we see the extinction of violence in sports. The fact remains that violence is a well-established safety valve for players (i.e. fighting in hockey). If violence ceases to exist, it will not be the same game. There is no doubt that the media profits from violence, and therefore, in the interest of society, we learn to tolerate it and bring it under disciplinary control that will satisfy our needs.

© Jeremy Currie (2000)

For further insight (i.e. photos & articles), check out these links...