Parity in Sports - Good for the Game?

So for those of you who haven't been following the Copa America (for shame!), a brief recap:

This past weekend, Brazil and Argentina got bounced in the quarterfinals by Paraguay and Uruguay, respectively.  Moreover, Peru beat Colombia and Venezuela defeated Chile.  In all the quarterfinal matches, the underdog beat the favorite.  To put it in context, it'd be like if someone predicted that VCU and Butler would join UConn and Kentucky in the Final Four of 2011.

As Jonathan Wilson points out, this could mean that either the traditional powers in South American futbol, Argentina and Brazil, are playing worse of late or that the field is catching up to the giants.  I would say that it's a case of the latter; globalization has a way of exporting not merely sports, but sports technique and know-how, the extent to which, it is improbable that giants remain giants for long.  We've seen this in many other sports that have been 'traditionally' dominated by a handful of countries, including hockey, baseball, and basketball.  Stated simply, all else being equal (which, truth be told, often ain't), modern communications and technologies make it such that successful programs and traits are more easily learnt and copied (or at least, the chances are greater that someone will successfully copy the successful).  Then again, it might just be a cyclical thing, and Brazil and Argentina may rule South American futbol, yet again.

Regardless, I know this much for sure: less people around the world will be watching the semifinals of Copa America than had Brazil and Argentina survived.  For example, whatever fleeting interest there may have been in Copa America in places like Canada and the USA will most likely lessen without the marquee names in the tournament.  As the son of Uruguayan parents, I couldn't care less.  I'll be watching Uruguay v. Peru come hell or high water.  I'll probably loose sleep thinking about the game, actually.

Still, it raises for me the following question: is parity good for a sport?  And if so, good for whom and under what criteria?

One clear example where parity is king and everyone is grateful for it is in the NFL.  In football, most teams have a chance to be in the playoffs within a five to seven year span (roughly - I certainly don't have the numbers).  The general consensus is that this is 'good' for the game because

1. It gives fans in most cities the feeling that their teams have a shot at the playoffs and a run at the Super Bowl; and
2. The NFL is so strong as a league and product that people will watch on TV (and companies will pay for airtime and sponsorship) regardless of whether the teams in the playoffs and Super Bowl are from small or smaller markets.  Thus, money will still be made if Pittsburgh plays Green Bay for the championship, as it happened in 2011.

What's interesting is that even in the NFL, there are marquee teams with histories of winning (e.g. Steelers, Cowboys, and Packers, to name only three); thus, it's not entirely true that all teams have realistic chances at winning, because despite favorable perennial conditions that would seem to suggest otherwise (e.g. revenue sharing, absurdly lucrative national television deals, etc), some teams just have crappy management (e.g. Detroit Lions).

But I digress: it seems that when the 'good' of parity is exulted, it's done so on two parallel and differentiated lines of argument:

1. Ability of the existence of parity to maintain hope for fans in most markets; and
2. Ability for parity to not interfere (and perhaps assist, though not necessarily) in the ability of a league or sport to make money.
• (There's actually a sub-point here, but feel free to skip to the next paragraph: often, sport X is strong enough in popularity that regardless of who participates, there will be interest in a given match.  This baseline interest in sport X, usually from fans of the sport and not necessarily of the teams in competition, is such that the monetary value of the sport doesn't diminish regardless of who plays.  This is the case with the NFL, for example.  This is usually what's meant by (or what I mean by) "parity not interfering in the ability of a sport to make money".  Technically, the ability a sport or league to make money need not be tied to the ability to draw in a neutral observer, but in reality, I'm not sure how these two points come apart.  End o' digression.) 

It's this dual criteria that has led some sports pundits to argue that whether parity is good depends upon the sport and, in particular, depends on the ability of a league or sport to make money regardless of who is playing in a given match.  Bill Simmons, for example, recently argued that the NBA needs the big markets with big players to play in the big games in order to generate the revenue that is integral to the existence and popularity of basketball as a whole.  In this way, the second argument articulated above, namely of parity not interfering with a league or sport's ability to make money, supersedes the first (positive) argument in favor of parity, namely drumming up the hopes of most fans in most markets prior to the beginning of a season or tournament.

One should note that those who place greater weight in the second argument don't necessarily hold money and revenue-generation as the ultimate end or goal of sports (although there are certainly some people who view sports merely as a business), but rather as a means of the survival of a given sport.  That is, parity can have the effect of reducing a sport's means of revenue generation, which in turn affects the sport's ability to grow and sustain itself, i.e. sustain the quality of play.

And there, perhaps, is the more 'pure' or 'intrinsic' counter-argument to the 'good' of parity: watering down the quality of a given sport. 

If there is a threshold of quality, X, such that there are enough players to distribute among a set number of teams, all the better.  You end up with a quality product and a diffusion of interests among the different fans of the different teams.  Conceivably, the stronger the product, the greater the likelihood that any given match will be enticing to neutral observers, and the greater likelihood the sport or league makes money.  Everyone wins.  Or more specifically, (most) everyone's conception of good prevails (more on this in a moment).

However, it's not entirely clear that the higher the quality of the sport, the greater the likelihood to make money.  Even in football, were the NFL to cut 12 teams and reduce the league to 20 teams, the quality of the product would likely increase but it's not entirely clear that the popularity would increase and thereby generate more money.

Let's set aside the 'good' of making money via sports.  I think that the more interesting question about parity, and whether you think it's a prima facie good thing to have or not, is dependent upon an antecedent question: namely, what is the point of sports?

This is a big question that many have written about.  All I'll say is that the question of the good of parity is tied to the question of what is the point of sports.  There seems to be, at least, two reasons why people follow sports, i.e. as fans: to identify as part of a group (or team) or for the love of the activity itself.  For most fans, it is a combination of both reasons, i.e. a sense of belonging and the love the activity itself.  But sometimes these two reasons are in tension - what's good for the sport may mean that there are fewer teams and fewer teams with whom to identify on a deep, personal level.  (Often, people will root for teams from their local cities, though certainly not always.  The pull of belonging, and belonging to a team that represents you and your city, is strong and not to be ignored.)

Sometimes, parity in a sport or league means that the quality of play is diminished to accommodate a greater number of teams.  Whether that's okay, and in fact desirable, may depend on whether you follow sports for the love of the sport or the love of the team, and what happens when these two reasons cannot coexist.

To finish, I'll return to the Copa America.  I want Uruguay to win.  Uruguay tends to play a physical style of futbol premised on defense and counter-attacking.  I happen to like this style of play regardless of the sport.  I like watching good and stingy defense in hockey, basketball and football, as well.  But there's no deying that Lionel Messi is amazing and that as a neutral observer, I wish he was still in the tournament along with his Argentinean teammates.  Just not at the cost of seeing Uruguay go out of the Copa America.  So what does parity mean in the context of sporting competition between countries?  I guess it depends on how much stock you put in nationalism and patriotism.  But maybe that gets off the topic of parity altogether.

Vamos Uruguay!  (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Depriving Fans of Fantasizing: The NBA and NFL Lockouts

Last season, after Chris Bosh took his talents to South Beach, the Raptors sold the fans the following:

• The Raptors would play an up-tempo game premised on fast break points.
• Finally, Andrea Bargnani would step out of the shadow of Bosh and lead the team to glorious victory.
• There will be learning curves for the various players, but the Raptors would challenge for a playoff spot.

Oh, dear friends, I drank the kool-aid.  Specifically, I believed all this crap in the lead up to the season.  During the summer and well into training camp, I believed the Raptors would be fine without Bosh.  That Bosh is overrated.  Our beloved home team would be fine.

Well, maybe Bosh is/was overrated, but the man's still an all-star.  And after the first game or two, it became painfully obvious that the Raptors wouldn't play an up-tempo game and get fast break points (because you need to defend to play that style... and, well... yeah).  Bargnani put up 20 points per game but was his usual self on defense and the boards, which wouldn't have been all that bad had Reggie Evans not gotten hurt (again) so early in the season and could have made up for Bargs' shortcomings (or so I'm still telling myself).

I'd like to think I'm a somewhat rational person.  And really, I didn't buy what the Raptors were selling pre-season on the basis of rationality.  I bought it because I wanted it to be true.  I bought it on emotion.  I wanted it to be true that the Raptors wouldn't suck.  This is what's known in Toronto as "the Leafs Syndrome" or "being a Leafs fan".

And this is why the lockouts in the NFL and the NBA blow.  

The summertime (or off-season, more precisely) is when fans dream.  When even the crappiest teams have hope for a brighter future.  When Bills and Browns fans tell themselves that probability dictates that they can't lose forever.  When Leafs fans convince themselves that having 10 defense men and only one legitimate top six forward will lead to the Stanley Cup (well, I guess if Brian Burkes starts flipping some of these blueliners for forwards, it might work).  When Blue Jays fans tell themselves that Bautista is the key to the post-season.  It's when Raptors fans dream of some team looking at Bargnani and his 20 ppg and thinking, "yeah, we can get him to play defense".

But you can't do that when there's a work stoppage.  There are no trade rumors.  There are no trades or free agent signings.  There's no fantasy.

Man, Raptors fans (me included, by the way) are getting excited this summer about Jonas Valanciunas because he dominated an international under-20 basketball tournament.  And that's great, it really is, but projecting what he will be in three or four years time in the NBA is pretty low on the fantasizing totem pole.

So dear ridiculously rich athletes and even more ridiculously rich owners: get back to throwing footballs (highly likely) and back to shooting baskets (less likely).  We, your loyal fans, need to dream.

Particularly fans in Toronto.  It's all we got.

So why is should there be an asterisk next to baseball's steroid era?

So today, Roger Clemens begins his trial for perjury and obstruction of Congress.  Clearly he shouldn't have lied under oath (some might argue he shouldn't have testified at all).  Regardless, as per many descriptions of Clemens, the dude's full of ego and felt like the Teflon Don (and how did that all work out for Gotti?), and now it seems like he's going to get his comeuppance.  Here's the link to ESPN's story.

Apart from the stupidity of lying to Congress, many talking sports heads keep stating that those players who succeeded during the Steroid Era (circa 1995-2005) because of drug enhancements, including Clemens, should not be included into the Cooperstown or if they are inducted, they should have an asterisk next to their names and accomplishments.

Why?

You can't call them cheaters.  A cheater, borrowing from the many dictionary definitions of the word, is someone who breaks rules and attempts to deceive others that he or she broke the rules in question.  Merely breaking rules is not enough to call someone a cheater (e.g. when a persons gets a two minute minor in hockey for elbowing, he broke the rules but is not labelled a cheater).  Merely trying to deceive others regarding one's actions is not cheating.  It seems like there is a two-part test to cheating: rule breaking and attempted deception.

Until 2005, if I understand correctly, there were no rules banning the substances such as the variety of steroids.  It's why persons like Alex Rodriguez, among others on the Mitchell Report, have not been suspended.  Precisely because there were no rules in the first place to break.  Whatever you want to call those on the Mitchell Report, I don't think the word "cheater" applies.

You can, perhaps, make a moral argument against drug enhancements.  Although this is a *huge* issue that I won't get into here (and many have written on this subject), if there is no harm being caused by the drug, I don't understand how it is different from ingesting protein isolates or having newer, better equipment.  Regardless, assume all steroids and drugs are morally impermissible.  You still can't call Clemens and Co. cheaters.  They may have acted in a morally wrongful manner, or have been pressured, directly or indirectly, to take drugs.  Still, they're not cheaters.  If they didn't cheat, why shouldn't they be inducted into the Hall of Fame, or why should they have the dreaded asterisk?

Is it a matter of sportsmanship?  Well, some people (Jose Canseco, among others) claim that the majority of ball players were on something nefarious during that era.  If so, can it be unsportsmanlike?

So again, why the outrage toward the Steroid Era?  Why should they have an asterisk next to their feats?

TSN examines Self-Head Punchers... er... "violence" in sports...

Just wanted to draw attention to a series of articles and segments this week on TSN and TSN.ca looking at "violence" in sports, and in particular, concussions.

In particular, I found the following paragraph by David Naylor gets at the (or one of the) heart(s) of the matter:

"There is now hard evidence that suggests all of those blows that thrill us as we watch from our couches have come at a price for the athletes participating, and that price can be steep, indeed."

Here's the link to the TSN webpage.

- Diego