In honor of the World Cup kick off: What does it take to be a sport?

Around the office for the last several months, we have been debating what it takes for a game, competition or even to be classified as a sport. The debate has, admittedly, been a waste of time, but it has been interesting. The main item in question has been whether or not baseball is truly a sport. Over the course of the discourse, we have proposed and accepted/rejected myriad of "yardsticks", or benchmarks by which each competition ought to be judged.

We have determined first and foremost that the E--which stands for entertainment--in ESPN means that simply being shown on ESPN does not mean the event is a sport. For example, cheerleading, spelling bees and poker can in no wise be classified as sports, though they each appear on ESPN. Additionally, competition alone cannot be enough to satisfy the demands of what it takes to be a sport. Similarly, athleticism, hard-work and sweat combine to be insufficient qualifiers for sportshood.

What we have come up with are the following requirements (the first three being developed by Seth Allen):

1. The event must be athletic. Athleticism and precision skill must be displayed by participants of the sport.
2. The event must have as its object, an item to be played or acted upon. For example, a ball or a puck.
3. An individual player or team must be able to defend against the actions of his/her or its opponent.
4. By successfully defending, the team or individual ought to rightly be able to immediately take over on offense.

With the allusion to Seth Allen prior to the criteria for determining if a competition or event is a sport, the reader can easily see which side of the original question the writer stands. I argued that baseball, America's pastime and a great traditional American game, is not a sport. Aside from finding the whole point boring, I have always taken issue with the fact that all one does while playing baseball is wait. One waits for his turn to bat. Once there, he waits for the right pitch. He swings. The defense waits to see if he hits or misses. They all wait for the ball to come to them. The original batter (if he gets to the base) waits for an opportunity to advance to the next base, or go back to the dugout to wait for his next at bat, or his turn to go stand in the field and wait for some one to possibly hit a ball in his direction. And so goes the game.On and on for a minimum of nine turns for each team.

It is surely fun to play with friends. It can be entertaining to watch. But based on the above listed criteria for being a sport, it--at best--only gets 3 of the 4. A game where actual turns are taken resembles the game of Sorry more than it does a sport. In my estimation, in order for it to be a true sport, a successful defensive stop ought to necessarily switch the two competing parties from offense to defense immediately. If an outfielder, for example, were to make a magnificent diving catch, in his hat... over the fence, the umpires should get together and, based on the sheer magnificence of the play, be able to call him in to bat immediately. This should be regardless of how many outs the previous offensive team had against them at the time of the catch.

Think about this in other sports. Basketball: a defensive player steals the ball and has possession... wham! He's now on offense. Football: an interception, fumble, blocked kick, successful on-side kick, etc... click! Just like that, defense becomes offense.

Later in the discussion, in an attempt to rid soccer of its sportshood status, the idea of a tie was brought up. One of our other co-workers mentioned that any game that ends in a tie cannot be a sport. Although such sports are uncommon, I posited the following argument:

Soccer is special among the sports of the world. Going into the game (unless it is a single-game round of a tournament) both teams know that they only have 90 minutes to get the job done. They have to put it all out on the line in those 90 minutes without timeouts or breaks to re-strategize with the coach. Soccer players have to adapt on the pitch, on their own, as a team. They either succeed or fail. There is no one at the end of regulation saying: "Oh gee, you sure worked hard out there today... but you didn't quite make it. Go on out for another 15 minutes to try and accomplish what you couldn't up until this point." There aren't any do-overs. Soccer teams go out and perform their task and they live with the result... win, lose or draw. They do it or they don't. There is nothing else.

To me, that is a real sport. No second chances. You play hard. You run for 90 minutes straight, with varying levels of intensity. In addition to that, you have an object you are playing, with a goal in mind. You fight hard to defend against the opposition--and you can switch from offense to defense and back to offense in a split second.

Go USA! Good luck in South Africa, men!



P.S. Because of its historical value, I and my fellow "Baseball isn't a sport" enthusiasts compromised to give it 75% of a sport status, or a B-level sport status. We feel we're being generous... after all, several other popular American pastimes include crocheting, bridge and chess!