Is Sport Entertainment?

Sport is big business and a major revenue stream for companies in the Entertainment sector.  The revenue from broadcasting football, the highlights and computer games can’t be underestimated.

These companies and spectators alike thrive on the drama and entertainment sport brings.

Sports sometimes have their rules changed to make it more “entertaining” for the spectator. The introduction of head to head was one way of making archery more palatable for TV.

Is this a good thing? Well generally yes it is. Wider audience generally means a greater potential for grass roots participation and subsequent funding. Archery is lucky in that we get a boost in participation off the back of big blockbuster films/TV series. The Katnis effect if you will (NYtimes)

It is strange then, when you see in the news of a high tempo sport having concerns with a manager’s tactics for being un-entertaining and “too defensive” like criticism laid against Morinio with the 0-2 win against Liverpool.  

link

Yes it does sound unbelievable, a manager who won a critical game was criticised for being boring[1]. So was it “boring” or skillful for Marinio to choose tactics which were ideal for the situation? The answer is both and it is not just Football that decision made by teams lead to an in-entertaining encounter[2].  

In other sports, like F1, team exerts orders on their drivers, telling them to pull over to allow a teammate past[3].  They do this for a number of reasons, the most controversial of which is to enable a driver to get more points so they can challenge in the overall championship.   

A lot of praise was given to the Mercedes F1 team for not enacting team orders and allowing their drivers to race in the Bahrain GP[4]. One false move and both drivers would have been off the track, destroying a massive advantage in the overall competition.  

link

The correct choice would be to allow one driver to win and tell the other to back off. They didn’t and the sport is entertaining because of it.  

There has been an occasion where two high profile teams been thrown out of a competition for not using there "best efforts" to win[5].

The looser of the game would have faced a lesser skilled (on paper) opponent. Therefore it was right option to loose. Both teams quite literally followed this tactic, it led to so many complaints that a number of players were thrown out[6].  

So back to the football game, Liverpool, before this match, have been rated as one of the most lethal attacking teams this season. Chelsea on the other hand has the greatest defensive record this season[7]. With that into account Morinio was unlikely to play an attacking game. It was therefore the correct choice to go defensive, playing to his team’s strength.  

This does not make for “entertaining” viewing, the spectators were expecting a boxing like clash of epic proportions. In the end they got a clinical game, with Chelsea wielding the knife.  

So it was right choice and the right outcome for Chelsea. For the spectator, well sorry guys sport is a cruel mistress.