|
The word sport covers a multitude of activities, ranging from athletics to the
field sports, hunting, shooting and fishing; from rowing to
equestrian events,
from boxing to hockey and soccer. To assert that TV will kill these off is
obvious nonsense. With or without TV, the instinct to pursue these activities will
remain. Sport enhances health, builds muscle, satisfies the competitive instinct,
encourages fair play, and creates friendships and excellent social contacts
among those who share sporting interests. Since Greek and Roman times,
when the Olympics were founded, and took place, as today, at four-yearly
intervals, sport in some shape or form has always been a leisure occupation,
and it will certainly take more than the downside of television to kill it off. We
will consider that downside in a moment.
First, the benefits of television coverage should be appreciated. It is undeniable
that televised sport offers first-class entertainment to those who are interested.
The watcher watches in comfort, out of the rain and the cold. It is also
undeniable that some sports, e.g. golf, come across far better on TV than they
possibly can to the spectator on the spot. The cameras keep up with the ball
in its full are, underlining the outstanding prowess of the top players. Team
games can also be watched in comfort, and again with a comprehensive view
of the whole pitch. The zoom-lens gives close-ups from many angles, and the
immediate play-back facility shows the top-class players' abilities, the fouls, both
accidental and professional , and the refereeing standards. All brilliantly
exposed. Sponsorship provides crucial funds to sports teams at all levels,
whether their matches are televised or not. Sponsors fund teams in proportion
to television coverage and ground attendance. So improvements to grounds
and spectator facilities are made possible, and money is provided for the
purchase of star players. Finally, to be able to watch the top players perform
with apparently effortless brilliance must encourage young people to go out and
try to do likewise. Today, sponsorship provides money for the rich rewards
available to stars, and this offers an added incentive to young hopefuls.
Of course, televised sport has its drawbacks. Many people believe that ideally
all sport should be amateur, the pursuit of physical excellence for its own sake,
and with no financial reward. The film 'Chariots of Fire' highlighted a brilliant
young miler. But as he moved towards Olympic status he too had a trainer!
Was the trainer unpaid? It is certainly true that television encourages
professionalism, even among amateurs. Rugby football in the UK, the amateur
game, has been forced into a league system, which leads to star
poaching.
It also moves players towards demanding money, particularly when training
occupies an increasing amount of unpaid time. Stars, who lose months every
year on tours, must, realistically, be repaid. At present, amateurs are indirectly
recompensed through giving their names to newspaper articles, by writing and
signing books, by endorsements of sports goods and by appearances at
functions. Television exposure is behind all this. This is why many people
basically disapprove. The line between the pro and the amateur is becoming
blurred.
Another criticism is more arguable. It is that many people are becoming sport
watchers rather than sport players. There is also the argument that the
television has reduced gates at unglamorous matches and events, and this
has already led to the sale of many run-of-the-mill clubs, or their liquidation.
Moreover, the excitement of the crowd atmosphere is lost in one's own home.
As with the cinema, a visit is preferable to watching on the box .
Thirdly, there is the old Olympic ideal. This is, partly, to spread international
goodwill. Today, through satellite television, the Olympics are watched
worldwide by untold millions. Does this foster goodwill and fair play, or does
it tend to nationalism, a win at all costs attitude? And it may be coincidence,
but drug abuse among athletes has grown up alongside television.
The money motivation has been mentioned. It seems not unreasonable for
players, whether amateur or professional, to be properly recompensed, but
television creates stars , whether real or bogus, and these people can demand
enormous sums, out of all proportion to their contributions and abilities. This
hype is to be deplored. It does nothing for sport.
So television may be said to do as much harm as good. However, it will never
be the death of sport .
|
