George Orwell wrote: “Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence.” (1) Even more depressingly, perhaps, sports sociologist George Sage claimed that “organised sport has nothing at all to do with playfulness – fun, joy, self-satisfaction – … sports are instruments not for human expression, but of social stasis”. (2)

These views might sound overly dramatic and slightly heavy. Sports psychologist Terry Orlick summed up America’s approach to sports in the 1970s in simpler terms: “We do not teach children to love sports; we teach them to win games”. (3)

Many of us today, by contrast, seem to believe that there is not enough emphasis on competition and winning. A headline last year in the Guardian asked, “Are ‘non-competitive sports days’ really better for school kids?” The article reports that 86% of parents questioned did not approve of the idea. David Cameron famously condemned the ‘all-must-have-prizes’ culture in school sports, and education more generally, and called for a return to more competitive sports.

Sports is one area in which most of us take some level of competition for granted, certainly for adult professional sports, but also to greater or lesser degree for adolescents and children. Many parents I have spoken to over the years have strong views on school sports: some talk about the facilities, others about the availability of “qualified” coaches. Some complain about the lack of “real competition” at sports day, and the fact that everybody gets a medal.

I’m often left wondering what these parents are hoping to get out of school sports. Why do we accept situations that so obviously create misery and a sense of failure for some children? Even if a medal for the winner makes him or her happy and motivated, by definition the majority of children will not feel like that. And will the celebration of winners help improve participation and performance in the longer term?

Those who advocate competition in sports put forward a range of arguments: It’s a good thing to celebrate achievement. Winners “deserve” it. Competition promotes excellence, it makes competitors try harder.

Celebrating achievement

Let’s assume we want to celebrate achievement. A child beats three others in a race, or long jump. What achievement exactly is to be celebrated? Has that child practised harder than anyone else all year? In some exceptional cases, maybe. But in most cases, it’s likely that some children either have certain natural abilities, or have developed sooner or differently. In many cases, the luck of the draw determines chances of winning.

Sports psychologist Amanda Hills argues, “it is unfair not to celebrate the achievements of a sporty child”, according to Leo Benedictus in the Guardian. But we could also take the view that such a child already has the satisfaction of having mastered a particular challenge and skill. As they get older, there will be opportunities to join clubs at city or county level and enter competitions. But singling them out for special attention in a school environment that is trying to encourage love of sports by all doesn’t make sense. Any recognition that they might deserve must be outweighed by the feeling of inferiority and failure experiened by a far greater number.

More importantly perhaps, the idea of celebrating “achievement” in this way assumes that “success” equals winning. Perhaps the better response is not that we shouldn’t celebrate success, but that we need to redefine success. Other ways of looking at success are not only more likely to generate satisfaction and a sense of achievement amongst a far greater number, but also to support improved performance overall and for individuals. The well-known basketball coach John Wooden has promoted the idea that fulfulling individual potential, trying your best, is the definition of success, with winning merely a by-product. Similarly, the concept of “task orientation” emphasises the importance of personal mastery and effort over comparative performance. (4) This in turn is more likely to lead to enjoyment and the experience of “flow”, or complete immersion. (5)

Even in the context of games that are structurally competitive – such as football, hockey or netball – it should be possible for a coach to create opportunities for all players to experience success in this way. Shields and Funk (2013) argue that coaches should set challenging but achievable personal goals, and comment more on effort and technique than on accomplishment and mistakes. (6)

By contrast, aiming to win is more likely to lead to feelings of failure and low self-esteem, including among perceived “successful” athletes. This is partly attributed to the “psychological gulf between euphoria and fortification of self-esteem. … Winning … feels good but fails to addess the underlying dynamics that gave rise to competitiveness in the first place”. (7).

Kohn concludes: In terms of both motivation and the skills involved, winning and succeeding are two different things. To beat any number of others is not a satisfying indicator of actual skill or accomplishment. (8)

Promoting excellence

As for promoting excellence and encouraging better performance, this raises a number of questions. Better performance for all or the few? And to what end?

There are numerous studies that suggest competitive sports not only put off – and reduce participation amongst – those who perceive themselves as less able, but also those who think of themselves as high performers. A focus on competition rather than task and skills mastery may lead to reduced enjoyment and commitment. Studies of high school students in America have found that those students driven by competitiveness and comparison with others were less likely to practice their sport in their free time than those who focused on learning the sport for its own sake and their enjoyment. Morever, high performing athletes who are overly focused on competition and winning may find it more difficult to persist in the face of failure or challenge. (9) Norway’s recent success at the Winter Olympics has been attributed in part to its non-competitive approach to children’s sport. Before the age of 13, sports in Norway is purely about enjoyment and friendship. Young players and athletes are encouraged to play for fun and not keep score.

We could also argue that an emphasis on winning can lead to perverse and unsporting behaviour and incentives. Many of us will have witnessed the “star” football player who ignores numerous opportunities to pass to his or her team mates, only to be cheered when he or she scores a goal. Or the player who proudly proclaims to their parent when asked how the match went, “I was the only one who scored!”. Indeed, Kohn highlights a number of studies that suggest emphasis on winning can encourage aggressive behaviour and cheating, both on and off the playing field. (10)

The purpose of sports

If not winning, what should school sports – and sports more generally – be about?

Sport England’s vision emphasises inclusivity and participation: “We want everyone in England regardless of age, background or level of ability to feel able to engage in sport and physical activity”.

For children, this means laying “the foundations for being active throughout their lives. Two things matter most at this age: basic competence and enjoyment.”

As we have seen, the potentially harmful and counterproductive effects of competitiveness make a strong case for focusing on basic competence, and enjoyment in particular. Barbara Lamblin, American Olympic swimming champion in the 1970s, wrote a poem about her experiences which includes the lines (11):

“I loved swimming until it became a nightmare for me

until it turned into a fear trip

when I became a winner afraid to lose

because America can’t love a loser,

a second place person

…

can’t we do it for the fun of it,

for the love of it,

instead of the gold of it”

If the aim is to broaden participation – with obvious public health benefits (physical and mental) that this entails – an emphasis on mastery and fun makes sense. Numerous studies support this view. One, for example, asked 700 high school students about their reasons for not participating in sports. The most common answer was “not enough fun”. (12) In another study, 70% of young hockey players questioned suggested they would like to play hockey more without worrying about winning, while only 4% said they thought winning was the most important thing. (13)

A radical alternative

A more radical approach would remove any basis for comparison by changing the structure and rules of games. Orlick in particular has championed the use of “cooperative” sports and games instead of competitive ones. He and colleagues have developed a suite of cooperative sports and games, many based on the skills we know from traditional team sports such as volleyball and football, with rules adapted to a cooperative challenge in which there are no winners and losers. In “Bump and Scoot” volleyball, for example, a player who hits the ball over the next immediately moves to the other side. In the “total reversal” version of football, there is no goalie, points go to the other team, and scorers switch to the ‘winning’ team, which is the team with the most points. (14)

A less radical approach might simply do away with scoring, or insist on “friendly” matches only, rather than joining a league. This was the approach taken by pioneering head teacher Alex Blook, whose East-end school St George-in-the-East (opened in 1945) enthusiastically joined the local athletics association but insisted that its fixtures were not included in the league tables for various shields. (15)

And of course there are many sports that can very obviously and easily offer intrinsic reward, with an emphasis on mastery rather than competition, for example rock climbing, skiing, long distance running, wild swimming, dance and many more.

The main conclusion from all of this is that less competition is likely to equal more fun, greater participation, and even better skills development. Orlick cites the example of a PE teacher who introduced cooperative gym classes which resulted in the children developing higher self esteem and feeling happier. One student commented: “We really only play to have fun. I never really enjoyed gym, only getting out of the classroom. But one reason why I didn’t enjoy it was because everyone played to win. This year was different. We realy participate in your games. I enjoyed gym very much and I know everyone else did too.” (16)

Kohn illustrates the point with an extract from Joseph Heller’s novel “Something Happened”, in which the school sports teacher is complaining to the narrator about his son:

“When he’s ahead in one of the relay races, do you know what he does? He starts laughing. … And then he slows down and waits for the other guys to catch up. Can you imagine? The other kids on his team don’t like that. That’s no way to run a race, Mr. Slocum. Would you say that’s a way ot run a race?”

“No.” I shake my head and try to bury a smile. Good for you kid, I want to cheer out loud … for I can visualize my boy clearly far out in front in one of his relay races, laughing that deep, reverberating, unrestrained laugh that sometimes erupts from him, staggering with merriment as he toils to keep going and motioning liberally for the other kids in the race to catch up so they can all laugh together and run alongside each other as they continue their game (after all, it is only a game).”

This seems to me something we can aspire to. We need sports days where children fall over in the three-legged or sack race and can’t get up for laughing so hard; where the relay baton is dropped and team mates shrug their shoulders, laugh and carry on; where every single child feels they’ve joined in and had fun.

 

Notes

1. Kohn, Alfie (1992) in “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”, p. 163, quoting Orwell, George (1950). “The Sporting Spirit.” In Shooting the Elephant and Other Essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950.
2. Quoted in Kohn, Alfie (1992). “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”, p.85.
3. Orlick, Terry (1978). “Winning through Cooperation”. Washington, D.C.: Hawkins & Associates. P. 24.
4. Nicholls, John G. (1989). “The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education”. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusets. London, England.
5. Kohn, Alfie (1992). “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”.
6. Shields, David Light and Funk, Christopher (2011). “Teach to Compete”, Strategies, 24:5, 8-11, DOI: 10.1080/08924562.2011.10590945
7. Kohn, Alfie (1992). “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”. P.111-112.
8. Kohn, Alfie (1992). “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”. P.112.
9. Duda, Joan L. (1988). “The relationship between goal perspectives, persistence and behavioral intensity among male and female recreational sport participants”. Leisure Sciences. 10:2, 95-106. Lochbaum, Marc R. and Roberts, Glyn C. (1993). “Goal Orientations and Perceptions of the Sport Experience.” Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 1993. 15, 160-171.
10. Kohn, Alfie (1992). “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”.
11. Quoted in Orlick, Terry (1978). “Winning through Cooperation”. Washington, D.C.: Hawkins & Associates. Pp. 113-118.
12. See Orlick, Terry (1978). “Winning through Cooperation”. Washington, D.C.: Hawkins & Associates. Pp. 131-132.
13. See Orlick, Terry (1978). “Winning through Cooperation”. Washington, D.C.: Hawkins & Associates. Pp. 132-133.
14. Orlick, Terry (1978). “Winning through Cooperation”. Washington, D.C.: Hawkins & Associates.
15. Fielding, M. (2015). Why co-operative schools should oppose competition and what they might do instead. In Woodin, T. (Ed.). Co-operation, learning and co-operative values: Contemporary issues in education. Pp. 17 – 30. Abingdon: Routledge
16. See Orlick, Terry (1978). “Winning through Cooperation”. Washington, D.C.: Hawkins & Associates. P.202.
17. Kohn, Alfie (1992). “No Contest – The Case Against Competition”. Pp.82-83.