The first point of attack is the tendency for sport to take itself too seriously. In the chapter ‘Sport and Stupidity’, Humphreys suggests the level of engagement, the ‘intellectualisation’ of sport by commentators, pundits and society at large, in part fills the vacuum left by politics and religion. But he takes the point too far in maintaining this damages society and that sport is to blame. His contempt for ‘sporting societies’ is made explicit when he claims, ‘The sportiest societies are also the dumbest. One word for you: Australia’. Here, he verges on fear of ‘mob mentality’ as well as showing contempt for the behaviour of individuals.

The false assumption that sport is ‘character building’ also comes under heavy attack, as Humphreys challenges the idea that being a successful sportsman leads to success in other areas of life. This myth has been propagated for two reasons. The first comes from the desire to use sport to introduce children to a world that many see as being increasingly competitive; the second from the notion that sport teaches children ‘fair play’, the rules of life. Without religious moral authority and given a move away from discipline in schools, it then falls to sport to teach youth a secular moral code. I think Humphreys is correct in pointing out this has no grounding in reality, but in pointing out this error he makes an even greater one himself.

In attacking the idea that sport encourages ‘transferable qualities’, Humphreys alludes to a number of recent studies. Most conclude that participating in competitive sport is detrimental to character. So:

‘The longer athletes remain in the sport, the more their moral reasoning is affected by the competitive experience’

and:

‘It appears that sports do not teach the critical reasoning skills paramount in making good moral decisions’

Even more alarming is Humphrey’s argument that the more competitive the individual, the lower their moral reasoning capacity. He cites a work by Bredemeier and Shields, which shows businessmen are more capable of making morally correct decisions than sportsmen, who were tested with questions such as ‘what would you do if your coach asked you to deliberately injure another player?’.

Staying with Bredemeier and Shields, Humphries highlights another character flaw in those exposed to competition: their inablility to see beyond their selfish interests to ‘the other point of view’. This is, of course, a crime of the modern age. Such criticism of the athlete is beautifully captured in the following quote from Bredemeier and Shields:

Egocentrism is the hallmark of immature reasoning in everyday life, but the sporting realm provides socially legitimated opportunities to suspend the usual requirement that others’ interest be given equivalent consideration to those of the self.

My point of departure with Humphreys is twofold. Firstly, athletes’ moral character was scrutinised only within a sporting scenarios, which doesn’t ascertain whether the ‘wrong’ moral choices would be made be the same individuals elsewhere. Secondly, sport is nothing if it is not blatant self-interest unleashed, and this precisely why it is beneficial to the individual. It happens in an arena where social norms and rules do not and should not impinge. Beating people in a sporting context is not pathological and there is little or no evidence to show that such behaviour carries over into ‘real life’. Egocentrism is crucial in sport, especially at elite level, it is the driving force behind everything that makes sport playable and watchable. 

Foul Play does not fall into the trap of turning sport into a cause, a trend amongst sports bodies and government policy makers. It does, however, manifest a particularly nihilistic and fearful attitude to sporting competition. This makes it virtually impossible to see the positive side to sport and its contribution to the human experience, leading to the grim conclusion that ‘sport is play gone wrong’. Humphreys seems to embrace another cultural trend that sees certain activities or entertainments as encouraging unpalatable behaviour.

Sport is alluded to as an addiction, moreover, an addiction to primitive appetites that have long since become unacceptable in society at large. And this applies not just to those who participate but to those who watch. Highlighting this antisocial element in sport is taken to an extreme in the book with reference to the football match that led to the war between Honduras and El Salvador. But it seems odd to me not to observe that tensions between the two nations were already high and that the football match was a catalyst rather than a cause.

In attacking the ideas (and industry) based around sport breaking down all kinds of barriers between people, Humphreys does have some interesting insights. The infamous case of Jesse Owens and the Berlin games is one example. Questioning the supposed humiliation of the Nazi regime by Owen’s triumph, Humphreys rightly points out that Hitler was anything but embarrassed. The games enhanced Germany’s and the Nazis’ standing in the world, and the Americans were complicit in banning Jewish members of their team from competing in a number of events in order to appease the hosts. Owens himself points out he was treated well by the regime. Goebbels took pleasure in manipulating the treatment of black athletes to highlight the racial tensions within American society. But Humphreys ends up reverting back to the position that there must be something inherently wrong with sport if it can lead to such political manipulation.

He is also scathing of the government-sanctioned policy wonks who have created a bureaucracy that attempts to insert its own agenda into sport and that has ended up hampering – and in some cases dismantling – the community, grassroots and ‘informal’ features of sporting organisations. The attack on the hypocrisy and disarray of the drugs issue in the chapter ‘Sports, Lies and Self-Deceit’ is actually quite refreshing. But the pessimistic position again rears its ugly head in that nothing is offered in place of this, and sport itself is blamed for creating such a situation. Although highlighting a number of myths and partly debunking them, ultimately Humphrey’s nihilistic stance is unjustified.

I suggest we reassert what it is to be a sportsman and what is good about it. To be a good sportsman one needs natural talent. One needs to have undergone an intensive training programme over a number of years. One will have to have gone through a selection process, where ones abilities are scrutinised. Finally, one will have to perform successfully in competition: the more successful, the more challenging the competition becomes. This process does not damage the individual and society; it requires dedication and a certain robustness, characteristics that I argue should be celebrated and encouraged.