Beneficial for the player  Undoubtedly, one of the most important things for a professional sportsperson is to have a long, healthy and fulfilling career. No matter what a sportspersons motivation is, whether it is the pleasure from winning or the money a player always needs to be in top form. Playing on the international level helps athletes improve themselves.  First of all, no matter of sport, the level of the sport is much more intense when it is international, as obviously, the best players are taking part in it. Santos vs Boca Juniors have always been very thrilling football matches, but none of them compare with the matches between Brazil and Argentina. If you, as an athlete, are forced to play in a much more competitive environment, then you have to bring your A-game to the pitch on every single occasion as the stakes are high every single time. In time, this improves skills and develops capabilities, as you are challenged on regular basis.  Second of all, when it comes to team sports a lot of scouts are watching internationals in the hopes of spotting new potential talents for big teams. This can be a very good opportunity for players to get noticed and to receive the credit they deserve. For example Luis Suarez transferred to Liverpool for £22.8 million in January 2011 shortly after the 2010 world cup,(1) while Alex Furgeson noted on having bought Javier Hernández ”If we had waited until after the World Cup we would have had to pay maybe three times the price”(2). If they fail to seize the opportunity, players are much more likely to remain unnoticed and unknown outside their own country. It is in their interest to be in the spotlight for the greatest amount of time, and there is no bigger stage than international competitions.  (1) Metro, ‘Luis Suarez Liverpool transfer agreed after Ajax accept £22.8m offer, 28 January 2011,   (2) Field, Dominic, ‘Javier Hernández lifts Manchester United spirits after week of turmoil’, The Guardian, 25 October 2010,


It should not be dependent on one man or one woman to carry the weight of the nation upon their shoulders. Winning the world cup should not be about just whether an individual plays or not but about the team. Even in the Olympics one individual’s performance makes little difference in most cases to the whole of the team.  Good results may lift a nation but it is wrong to suggest that this should mean that everyone who is called on to represent their nation should have to answer that call. It is up to the coaches and managers to make the best use of the men and women they do have.  Moreover if a country is relying on one individual then they are almost certainly putting too much pressure on them. Instead the country needs to focus on broadening the base of the team by finding more talent so that no one individual is irreplaceable. It should be remembered that individuals are far more often unable to take part in international competition as a result of injury or other reasons rather than a refusal to represent their country.


A moral duty to play for your country  It is clear that any individual, no matter his chosen area of expertise needs the appropriate environment to achieve his maximum potential. The people involved in professional sports are no exception. They need coaches to guide them, stadiums in which to practice, sponsorship and funding to allow participation at some competitions. Any person who succeeded in making a career in sports partly owes it to the society he grew up in that provided these facilities and opportunities. Let us not forget that especially in poor areas, most of the sports trainings are done “pro bono” by good Samaritans who want to lend a hand.  Therefore, as other people invested in their development, every sportsman has the moral duty to pass on that help, and also lend a helping hand towards those who weren’t as privileged. Representing the nation is a part of this moral duty to repay that which the country has given. This improves the image of that country and allows it to get the recognition in deserves for bringing up such talented players. Cristiano Ronaldo is one of best paid soccer players in the world and mainly got to where he is due to his talent, determination and countless hours on the pitch. But he was also born in Portugal, where he took advantage of the entire football industry that exists there. If he had been born in Sri Lanka, his talent would have gone unnoticed.


There are no grounds on which to claim that these athletes have any sort of moral duty towards the society which raised him, as the society itself benefited from its investment and a moral duty should not arise from the accident of being born into a particular country.  The moral obligation, if it ever existed, is to the club and is fully fulfilled whether they stay at the club they were raised by or if they leave. If they stay, they will help the club win matches, championships and therefore money, which could in turn be used for the development for other young, talented players. If they leave, the club will receive a significant fee for the transfer, money which could again be used for the same purposes. Either way, they will bring significant advantages to the society that raised them, without having to play for the national team.


Benefits to the nation  It is not just the player or athlete who benefits from taking part in international competitions but the nation as well. Every nation wants to do well in international sporting completions and every national wants their nation to do well internationally. Every country wants all of their best sportspeople to take part so that they have as much success as possible. This is partially about prestige; Jamaica is perhaps best known worldwide at the moment as a result of the fame of Usain Bolt and other successful sprinters, if it was not known for this it might instead be known for its gang wars and murder which is not what a country wants people to think of when their country is mentioned. (1)  But it is also about the economy. Countries that do well in international competitions may get an economic boost as a result. Economists suggested that winning the World Cup could have a positive impact of between 0.25 and 0.5%, which if it is in the context of near zero growth can be a big impact. This is a result of the feel-good factor from the victory. And we must not forget that feel-good factor itself; wining international competitions, or even just individual events lifts the mood of the country.  And if a country is successful in a sport then that sport provides an opportunity to bring social benefits through social programs to reduce violence or campaigns such as that against racism.(2) Success is however something which is much more likely if a country is able to field its best athletes and players internationally.  (1) Observer Crime Reporter, ‘Murders soar’, Jamaica Observer, 24 September 2013,   (2) The Economist, ‘Crime in Mexico: Out of sight, not out of mind’, 19 October 2013,


The claim according to which players would willingly play badly in order to get thrown out from the team is not only false, but completely outrageous. There are several points which indicate this.  These are extremely popular and important competitions. In order to get to international level you need to have a very strong character, to value your team mates and cherish the fans. No such player would be willing to throw a match by playing badly. Doing so would hurt the team, fans and nation, and bring widespread criticism.  Throwing a game is also noticeable if there is a significant difference between domestic and international form. Being selected shows good form making it difficult to claim another reason for poor results. Moreover, if they are found out, they have a lot to lose, as their reputation would be destroyed. The Pakistani cricket team scandal involving corruption and match-fixing proves the risks players face when trying to get involved in backstage games and alter the result through poor performance. (1)This damages the athlete’s career, their reputation (even if it is not corrupt) and their financial situation. No one will want someone known for unprofessional behaviour.  (1) Greenwood, Chris, “Bowlers Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Aamer received a year and six months respectively ”, Daily Mail, 4 November 2011


It is true that freedom is one of the core principles of society, but it is neither an absolute value, nor one which isn’t legitimate to confine at some moments. This coercive measure isn’t very time or energy intensive. In general, international competitions are pretty scarce, once every two or four years, and they last only for a couple of weeks. Therefore, the athletes have total freedom over their career, as coming to a championship once in a while won’t affect it.  In addition, the sportsmen shouldn’t be looking at this decision judging solely by their interests. The decision-making process should take more factors into consideration. In a significant number of cases, there is reason to believe that the players think only about themselves and don’t think about the help they could give to their team and therefore to the nation. For example, the Cameroonian footballers refused to appear in a friendly against Algeria just because the Federation didn't pay the corresponding bonuses and appearance fees for two games (against Morocco and Sudan).(1) Such examples of selfish behaviour should be discouraged. They shouldn’t prioritize a small sum of money, which they would’ve eventually received, over the fans. Under this curtain of “freedom” we are allowing them to be selfish and always put their needs first. A society where players would give from their own time in order to help achieve a greater goal is a more desirable one.  (1) Gama, Karla Villegas, “Samuel Eto'o Refuses to Play for Cameroon National Team Again “, Bleacher Reports, 27 August 2012


There is no need for compulsion  There is an old saying ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. In order for this proposal to be taken into consideration, a problem regarding the world of sports must be identified.  Fortunately for sports, it works like a charm. In a great many sports revenues are going up, television rights are being sold for higher prices than ever before and more and more children are enrolling in sporting activities. Despite the global economic slowdown, sports revenues worldwide should grow by about 3.7 percent to $145.3 billion by 2015, according to a research report.(1) The current system works and there is no need to change it.  Moreover, if we were to introduce this coercive measure, there would be numerous disadvantages without significant benefits. It would make no sense to create purposeless tensions between individuals and sporting federations. It is even more absurd considering that competitions and sporting events wouldn't benefit at all. This is because almost all top sportspeople accept the request to represent their country, and indeed see it as an honour and privilege.  Therefore, it would create no advantages regarding the level of the game or increase the spectacle.  (1) Stutchbury, Greg, “Sports Industry Expected To Continue Steady Growth Despite Economic Woes: Report” , Huffington Post, 12 September 2011


No guarantee of success  A man who performs a certain task out voluntarily is guaranteed to solve it better, faster and more efficiently than someone who is forced to do it against his will. Even if these players would come and participate in the training and matches, there is no guarantee that they will give 100%.  Any sportsperson who did not want to appear at the competition is not going to be motivated no matter what it was that meant they did not want to attend. This will be even more the case if the reason was one of fitness, tiredness or form.  The second reason which will add to the lack of dedication from these players is the frustration that they are forced to play against their will. If they cannot change the system, or appeal, then it can only lead to more irritation and indignation. Not a good frame of mind for an international competition. Discord in a team can only lead to failure, as shown by France’s humiliating drop out of the 2010 world cup having not won a game despite having big international stars.(1)  When performance is affected by motivation then there is little coaches or managers can do except take them off the team. They will simply perform less well than more motivated athletes so that they don’t need to take part, so fulfilling their original intent.  (1) Associated Press, ‘Humiliation now complete for France at World Cup’, ESPN, 22 June 2010,


Liberty  Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.  We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)  The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.  (1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011,


How well the finances of sports are doing has little relevance to the international game. Indeed it creates the potential problem that as club, or domestic level competition grows more lucrative so sportspeople may feel that they have less need of taking part internationally.  Even if there are currently few who reject a call up this is something that will vary from nation to nation, sport to sport, and time to time. Any national sporting association that faces a crisis that threatens to disrupt their capability of meeting international competition should have the ability to make it compulsory for their best players to represent their country. Thus when Cameroon’s players engaged in strike action it was not just one player which the team could do without but the whole team who did so.(1)  Moreover, even if lower quality players can be substitutes the change would still influence the overall face of the competition and the team’s chances. Having the best possible players, even if some are there by compulsion increases competition to be selected. This puts more pressure on everyone to perform. Every player who will come to the national team can be a valuable asset for it, either if he plays or if he “warms up” the bench.  (1) Associated Press, ‘Cameroon squad go on strike in row over appearance bonuses’, theguardian.com, 15 November 2011,


The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most home-grown ones. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. It also is an indictment on the school programs in place and youth football as a whole. It has little to do with a lack of opportunity at club-level, for clubs will always look locally for cheap, ready-made talent. They are forced to look overseas because foreign-born players are proving to be better bets. Furthermore, these foreigners thereafter assist the few local-born players who have made the grade. Therefore, if you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will actually weaken both club football and the national team.


It will improve the quality of the national team  Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side.


Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society.


The sport’s governing body, FIFA, wishes to implement a ‘six plus five’ that would be enforced by each member association  The six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs.


It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues  Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent.


Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.


Sporting organizations, of which FIFA is merely a more powerful example, cannot and will not be permitted to introduce a rule that denies otherwise-qualified persons from maximizing their income by moving overseas. Furthermore, and regarding the six-plus-five criteria specifically, the five foreigner-limit applies only to those which are not home-grown, encouraging the bigger clubs to look abroad for younger talent to bring into their academies. Once in the academy, they will gain home-grown status and therefore not count as one of the five foreigners. Therefore, FIFA’s proposal does not fix the problem but exacerbate the fears of exploitation.


The youngsters from poor nations who excel in Europe do so because of their move, not irrespective of it. It is a fallacy to suggest that all players develop in a vacuum, that their ability is irrespective of their development opportunities. For the best youngers in poor and under-developed nations, being poached by the rich European clubs is a way out, a means to realising their obvious talent. Taking away that source risks wasting not only a precocious young talent but also denying him the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, it can be expected that the poached youngsters will give back to their host countries, in the form of national team appearances and domestic league endorsements, later in their careers.


It will encourage fans to support their local clubs  A focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent?


Restrictions would prevent the poaching of the best youngsters from poor nations  This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country.


There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.


The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]  [1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online:


Restrictions are unnecessary  This plan is unnecessary – Manchester United is one of the most successful club sides and often fields more locally-born players than its rivals. Most big clubs are working hard to build strong football academies to bring talented youngsters through. The logic is simple, home-grown youngsters can be developed much more cheaply and easily than foreigners. In any case, money will still remain vital to success – this plan would mean that the richest clubs will simply pay silly sums of money to buy up all the best local players. Therefore, competition within domestic leagues would not even up, it would simply lead to a re-shuffling of the best home-grown talent. Really the FIFA proposal is just an attack on English football clubs as they have been so successful recently. The issue wasn’t raised previously when Italian and Spanish club sides dominated European competitions.


It doesn’t solve the problem of protecting countries outside of Europe from losing players  In practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future. And what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country?


It is illegal under European Union law.  FIFA’s plan is illegal under European Union rules: ‘The implementation by FIFA of this proposal in the European Union would violate EU law. The Commission is not considering any change to allow FIFA to push forward this idea. FIFA is aware of this fact.’ [1] . The rules say that you can’t discriminate against people from other EU countries on the grounds of their nationality - exactly what the six-plus-five plan would do. And the EU has agreements in place allowing people from non-EU European countries like Switzerland and Norway to work freely in EU states, plus a lot of countries in Africa and the Caribbean as well. This means most of the overseas players currently with European clubs would be able to take FIFA to court if it tried to put its plan into practice. And if six-plus-five won’t work in Europe, there is no point applying it elsewhere.  [1] BBC Sport. (2008, May 30). FIFA backs Blatter on quota plan. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from BBC Sport:


Competition would actually improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs can buy up all the best global players and so dominate domestic competitions – often no more than two or three teams have a real chance of winning the big European leagues. This makes tournaments predictable and boring, while clubs become the playthings of billionaire owners. Even international club competitions like the European Champions League are now dominated by just a few teams – in 2008 three of the four semi-finalists and both finalists were English. Forcing clubs to develop home-grown talent would level the playing field, make money less vital, and give more teams a chance to compete for top honours. This would inadvertently drive players to get better, because there would be fewer short-term fixes available to a team’s poor form.


On this level, we have two situations. On one hand, there are a lot of sports where women and men receive equal media coverage and monetary rewards starting from athletics, where at the world championships the gold medal winner is rewarded the same, no matter of sex(1) and ending with tennis, where for example at the US Open, one of the 4 biggest tennis tournaments of the year, both the male and female winners receive the same amount of money. On this level, we see that there is absolutely no discrimination whatsoever. (2)The fact that women play fewer sets is by no means a form of discrimination as we can see that, at the end of the day, they get the same amount of money and equal, if not more, publicity than the male tennis players.  On the other hand, there are sports, like soccer, basketball or cycling where women simply don’t have the necessary physical requirements for example to shoot a goal from 40m away, thus making a female soccer match less thrilling than one played by males. Women will never have the possibility to win these competitions, thus there will be no monetary or media coverage advantages for them of competing in the same league as men. It is better for them to be the best at a smaller tournament than to be the last at a bigger one. For example, Caster Semenya who won gold in the women's 800 metres at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:55.45 in the final would not have even qualified for the men’s final, in which the worst time was 1:47.80.(3)  (1) Jamaica Observer, August 07, 2013   (2) US Open Official Site 2013,   (3) Eric Vilain “Gender Testing for Athletes Remains a Tough Call”, New York Times, June 18, 2012


Preventing discrimination in sport  Assuming we would have two equally muscular and equally fast male and female athletes, the current system clearly discriminates the female athlete by not allowing her to compete in the male league. It is against the very nature of sports to treat differently two athletes who have the same strength, speed, agility, dexterity, mental focus, determination, ambition based purely on their type of chromosomes.  This is extremely important as most of the time the women’s competition gets less attention from the public and sponsors, as seen in the cases of Women’s National Basketball Association and National Women’s Football Association. So, by forcing them to stay in those leagues, you are denying potentially successful athletes fame, pride and money. The Giro Rosa, one of the biggest women cycling competition, offers a prize money of 460 Euros, which is a mere thousandth of the Tour de France's 450,000 Euro top prize.(1)  (1) Barth Sarah “Why can’t we have a women’s Tour de France?”, Road.cc ,July 14, 2013


First of all, sports are one of the most popular and promoted activities for young girls around the world, they receive advice to practice sports from a wide variety of sources: parents, friends, school teachers, etc. There isn’t a lack of motivation on their part on this level, especially as there are a lot of female sporting competitions that get a lot of media coverage: volleyball, handball, swimming, ice skating, etc.  This measure will actually discourage teenage girls from practicing sports on a professional level. Due to the huge gap in physical strength most of the female athletes will only get defeated in these competitions with men. Seeing these so called “role models” getting beaten at, for example, every single soccer match reduces the chances of girls wanting to enrol in this type of activity as they will see the competition being too powerful, diminishing the possibilities of ever winning a competition. You need to show them that it is possible for them to win, and that’s why you need Serena Williams to win so many Grand Slam Tournaments, that’s why you need Alexandra do Nascimento to be named Best Female Handball Player of the Year and that’s why you need to separate the sexes in sporting competitions.(1)  (1) Wikipedia, 2013


Athletes should decide for themselves.  In sports it is crucial that the best person wins no matter of his or her sex. We should let the women decide if they are prepared enough to participate in men’s events, and not take that decision for them by forcing them into set leagues. American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times. In November 2012, she asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event. The request was denied(1). If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete in a certain discipline, she should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete. The examples of Danica Patrick, a “NASCAR driver who won the 2008 Indy Japan 300 and finished 3rd in the 2009 Indy 500” and Seena Hogan who holds multiple records in ultra cycling, which haven’t been beaten by any man or women to this day(2), show us how women can improve a competition in a significant way. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who wins, the very purpose of sports forces us to let them take the decision, as we cannot accurately suppose that women are worse than men at every single competition of every single sporting event as shown by the stated examples.  (1) The Associated Press, “Skier Lindsey Vonn can't race against men in WCup” November 3, 2012   (2) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011


First and foremost, it is very important to realize that the desire to take part in men’s sporting competitions must be backed up by physical capabilities of women to be able to win against men. Unfortunately, if we look at statistics we realize how big the gap between the two sexes is: “Michael Phelps is a full 26 seconds ahead of the women's world record holder in a 400m medley, the best female is more than 10% behind the best male - 12 minutes in a marathon (and 20 for most of the top women at the moment), more than 1 second in a 100m race, more than 1 meter in the long jump.” (1) Thus, the states purpose of sports, that of “let the best person win” is already being achieved, as, sadly, in a wide majority of cases men, due to their physical attributes, do perform better.  Promoting performance is not the only purpose of sports; another should be promoting gender equality. This measure, due to the wide physical gap between the two sexes, would simply perpetuate ideas that women are not equal. It doesn’t matter that there will be a few examples of women who managed to succeed, as these will be overshadowed by the significant majority of female athletes who won’t. A world in which gender equality is promoted, but where not every competition is being won by the best athlete is more desirable than one in which discrimination is perpetuated but you make sure that “the best one wins”.  (1) Sports Scientists, April 15, 2010


Encouraging future female athletes  One of the best ways to have a healthy life, avoid obesity and learn crucial values like respect, teamwork and fair play is by practicing a sport. In order to incentivize women from around the world to get involved you need to give them role models; women who receive a lot of media coverage to whom they can look up to. Unfortunately, women’s sports don’t receive as much media coverage as men’s sports because they are considered to be less spectacular and thrilling. By allowing certain women, who have the necessary skills to compete against men to get this coverage you will give young girls the necessary motivation to start practicing sports, thus bringing a massive social benefit to the society. This happens already to successful women who are lucky enough to compete with men, as shown by Danica Patrick, so why should we stop here?(1)  (1) White Rea, “Patrick inspiration to young females” MSN Sports, February 23, 2013


Firstly, passionate viewers of these violent sports are not watching them only for seeing blood and broken noses, but for the technical abilities and the strategic tactics in these sports. As a result, they tend to focus more on the speed and precision of one’s uppercut than rather on the effects it has on the opponent’s body, thus they will be able to ignore the violence towards women, as they currently do towards men.  Secondly, if indeed there is a part of the population who watches violent sports but is averse to watching if there is violence involving women, then they should feel nothing but excitement when a woman will win a boxing match for example against a man, overcoming this irrational stereotype.  This is because a lot of this hatred against violence against women even in a competitive situation is based on the idea that the woman is both powerless in front of the man and not willing to fight him; essentially a view that women should be subservient. Obviously, neither of these points stands when talking about professional sporting competitions.


If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.  (1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011


There will be a negative effect on women’s leagues  Unfortunately, in the Status Quo there are a lot of women sporting leagues which are completely overshadowed by men’s, such as cycling, basketball or soccer. What is needed in order for them to grow is a lot of talented, gifted women athletes which will create the “thrill” needed to attract media coverage, which in turn attract sponsors. In time, as more and more young female athletes are drawn into these sports, slowly but surely they will grow and narrow the financial and coverage gap between them and men’s leagues. But if women are allowed to compete in men’s leagues the very best females in that sport, who are the bedrock for future development, will likely quit the women’s leagues for the men’s. Women already seem inclined to do this, American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event.(1) As a result, the women’s leagues will be stripped of their best competitors. Left on its own the level of competition will rise and will surely catch up with the men’s leagues as far as money and media coverage is concerned. This is being proven by tennis, handball and athletics where there is as much money and fame for the female winners as there is for the male ones.  (1) The Associated Press, “Skier Lindsey Vonn can't race against men in WCup” November 3, 2012


This could simply swap inequalities around  Despite the fact that gender equality in sports often comes as an argument for applying this motion, it is rather the other way round. If indeed it is so important to let women compete in men’s leagues, on what ground do we ban men from competing in women’s leagues? If we look at it from the point of equality, it would be only normal that if women are equal to men, men are equal to women, and if females can move from one league to another, so should males. Either option we choose, there are negative consequences that follow.  On one hand, if men are not allowed to migrate from one league to another, this whole plan will have a boomerang effect as it won’t resolve gender discrimination, it will only switch the discriminated gender. There is no basis on which males should be denied this advantage.  On the other hand, if we do allow them to compete in women’s leagues, there won’t be male and female leagues, there will be two male leagues, as unfortunately, just as women won’t win many medals in the men’s leagues so men are much more likely to win in the women’s. As a result, female leagues would be destroyed if men are allowed to compete in them.  Therefore, due to the consequences brought by any of the options, this proposal is undoubtedly damaging for sports.


Destroying the pleasure of watching certain sports  In today’s society, we have reached a point where a significant majority of the population is extremely sensitive towards domestic violence of any form, but particularly coming from a man directed towards a woman. Unfortunately, a wide variety of extremely popular sports are to a certain degree very violent such as: boxing, kickboxing, rugby, MMA or American football. Certain matches between a male and a female, no matter the winner will, cause a huge amount of visual discontent among viewers as no one wants to see a man knocking unconscious a woman with an uppercut. This would send a terrible message about violence against women and would be extremely unpopular and subject to large numbers of complaints. Subjecting women to such violence in these sports, even if the women in question puts up a good fight, will as a result of the sensitivity of many towards this kind of violence decrease the popularity and thrill of these otherwise extremely exciting sports.


Crimination would increase  From the very beginning, it is important to understand that many sports are based on the physical attributes of the individuals. Whoever has the biggest muscles, whoever is fastest, whoever lifts a bigger weight, he is the one who will be declared champion. When we look at the statistics, they reveal the massive gap between the athletic capacities of the two sexes for example “The women's speed world records are all about 90 percent of the men's speed world records, in both short, middle and long distances.”(1). This only means, that although some women will win some sporting events, the vast majority of competition will still be won by men. As a result, more than ever, a message of female inferiority will be transmitted because in a direct competition between the sexes males will constantly win an element which was lacking in the past.  This is defining sport in men’s terms not women’s. It says sports are men’s sports and relegates women’s to a secondary status at the same time having men constantly winning against women will show that this definition needs to be challenged. This is extremely important and it will come in direct contradiction to our efforts as a society to promote gender equality and to diminish stereotypes. We shouldn’t try to turn sports into a “Competition of the sexes”.  (1) Meyer Robinson “We Thought Female Athletes Were Catching Up to Men, but They're Not”, The Atlantic, Aug 9 2012


On this level, it is obvious that letting men compete in women’s leagues is a dreadful thing to do. On the other hand, there is absolutely no discrimination towards men on this level so there is no reason to open up women’s leagues to men. The levels on which women are discriminated are the money they receive and the air time they get. Allowing them to migrate from one league to another is by no means an advantage in itself, but rather the means through which they can receive as many benefits as men do. Men already get those advantages so both sexes are treated equally on the point which is the root of discrimination.  There should still be this differentiation, as indeed a competition between men and women can be very biased in a lot of cases, but what is important is to let those women who can face men head-to-head to so.


On this point, it is relevant which of the two plans gives more incentive to young girls to enroll into sports thusly creating a wider pool of talent, which is necessary for women sport to grow. Firstly, as men’s leagues are more televised, women who compete in those will get more fame and attention so inspire girls from all around the world compared to playing into an ignored, untelevised, ill-funded league. Secondly, as there will be female winners even in the male leagues, this will act as a further incentive for teenage girls to start practicing sports as there would be much more media attention for Serena Williams for example if she won the men’s US Open than for winning the women’s tournament.  Moreover, by having talented women competing in competitions which get a lot of media attention you would actually incentivize people to start watching women’s leagues as well, as that is where those very talented female athletes came from. They will act as proof to the fact that women’s leagues can be thrilling, thus increasing interest and media coverage. In time, due to the increase in the league’s wealth and TV coverage, some females who started to compete in men’s leagues may even come back.


Everybody knows umpires make mistakes; it happens often enough that fans and players all recognize it is part of the game. Nobody expects umpires to be perfect, but everyone wants umpires to strive for perfection. It’s just like with players: everybody wants their favourite players to strive to play perfectly, but nobody actually expects them to be perfect. Thus, we can’t sacrifice other elements of the game (discussed elsewhere in this debate) on the altar of perfection.  It is disingenuous to liken instant replay to eyeglasses or to mere tools to “supplement” umpires’ skill. Instant replay becomes a substitute for—not a supplement to—umpires’ skill. There is no skill involved in watching a slow-motion replay and determining whether a player was tagged; millions of fans do that each night from the comfort of their living rooms. We do not want the fundamental character of baseball to be changed by removing umpires from the equation, which is what happens every time instant replay is used.


It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill  Umpires must make split-second judgments, often from bad angles and with many elements to watch simultaneously. Mistakes will happen. Even the official rules acknowledge this when it tells umpires, “You no doubt are going to make mistakes” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1] Some calls will have to be made from a significant distance away from where the umpire is located—a commonly cited justification of MLB’s adoption of instant replay on boundary calls. [2] Fans hold umpires to an exceptionally high standard; as former umpire Nestor Chylak put it, “They expect an umpire to be perfect on Opening Day and to improve as the season goes on.” [3] But it is impossible for a human to attain perfection on his own, so we should provide him with the tools that will enable him to meet the exacting standards set out for him.  It is folly to withhold technology that is already available. Even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, generally an opponent of instant replay, acknowledged “that the extraordinary technology that we now have merits the use of instant replay on a very limited basis” when he announced its adoption on boundary calls. [4] Just as we would never countenance a rule prohibiting umpires from wearing eyeglasses to see calls better, we should also not tolerate a rule that essentially keeps umpires blind to a reality that everyone else—reporters, coaches, and fans—has access to. Well-respected Sports Illustrate columnist Joe Posnanski captured this point well: “Baseball ... should institute replay because it’s just not sustainable in today’s technological world to make bad calls on the field. Those days are over.... You can’t keep giving the fans at home better access to the truth than the home plate umpire.” [5] Instant replay is a necessary tool to help umpires “see” better.  [1] Ibid .  [2] Ed Price, “Baseball Brunch: Upon Further Review…,” AOL News, May 31, 2009,  .  [3] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac,  .  [4] Jack Curry, “Baseball to Use Replay Reviews on Homers,” New York Times, Aug. 26, 2008,  .  [5] Joe Posnanski, “Meals and Squeals,” SI.com, July 27, 2011,  .


Both the arguments provided by the proposition are faulty.  First, the vast majority of umpires’ calls might be correct, but that’s because the vast majority of calls are completely uncontroversial. The question is what percentage of difficult calls do umpires get right. And it would appear that umpires do not stack up well. An ESPN study of close calls found that umpires get over 20 percent of them wrong. [1] More frequent use of instant replays might correct some of these calls, but it would do so at the expense of severely damaging umpires’ credibility, which would impair their ability to do all the other important aspects of their job.  Second, in crucial moments, it’s imperative for umpires to be especially attentive, and for them to make conclusive decisions. If umpires know that they don’t have to get the call right because the cameras can save them, then they’re more likely to get it wrong. And if umpires’ decisions are not final, then what should be the most exciting moments in baseball games will be supplanted by monotonous waiting for umpires to review the footage.  [1] T.J. Quinn and Willie Weinbaum, “Study shows 1 in 5 close calls wrong,” ESPN.com, Aug. 16, 2010,


With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games  There are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships (e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above). These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa. In short, the results of the games are illegitimate. This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game (or hundreds of hours watching an entire season), only to see the wrong outcome—which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision.


Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them  The main goal of an umpire is to make accurate calls. Umpires are meant to ensure that a player who is out is called out, for example, and that a foul ball is ruled a foul ball. When an umpire makes an incorrect call, he is falling short of fulfilling his primary responsibility. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly.... Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]  Without a doubt, instant replay helps to improve the accuracy of calls. When a play can be reviewed after the fact, in slow-motion, from multiple angles, it’s almost inevitable that the result will be a more accurate judgment. Instant replay serves as an additional tool for umpires, allowing closer examination of events. By providing umpires with an extra set of eyes, video cameras will better enable umps to fulfil their purpose.  [1] Major League Baseball, Official Baseball Rules,  .


Umpires have to balance several important considerations: ensuring impartiality (and the appearance of impartiality as well); avoiding unnecessary delays in the game; ensuring that all rules are followed; and to behave in a manner that compels respect from all parties. To argue that the umpire’s job comes down to accurate calls is to oversimplify a very complicated role. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires: “When you enter a ball park your sole duty is to umpire a ball game as the representative of baseball.... Keep the game moving. A ball game is often helped by energetic and earnest work of the umpires” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]  [1] Ibid .


This debate is clearly highlighting a difference in philosophy about the role of the umpire. Proposition first says that umpires should not be a central part of the game (see Argument Four). Now Proposition says that a game’s outcome is illegitimate if it was decided by a poor call by an umpire. This is the wrong way of looking at it. As long as the umpire tried his best to make an accurate judgment, then his call is “legitimate,” as is anything that flows from it. “Legitimacy” is not the same as “accuracy.” Indeed, the umpire’s call might be the sole source of legitimacy. Proposition previously quoted legendary umpire Bill Klem, but remember two of Klem’s other statements: “Gentlemen, he was out because I said he was out,” and “It ain’t nothin’ till I call it.” [1] There is no such thing as a “legitimate” outcome divorced from the context of an umpire’s call.  [1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com,  .


Baseball is not just about the players. It’s about managers, coaches, fans, and umpires too. It is a rather narrow view to argue that baseball umpires should remain invisible. Umpires play a central role in every game. They make signals that are meant to attract attention. When a crucial play occurs in the bottom of the ninth inning, all eyes are on the umpire to see what the outcome will be. Bruce Froemming, who broke Klem’s record for most MLB games umpired, had this rejoinder to Klem: “One of the really wrong theories about officiating is that a good official is one you never notice. The umpire who made that statement was probably a real poor official who tried to get his paycheck and hide behind his partners and stay out of trouble all his life. Control of the ballgame is the difference between umpires that show up for the players and the managers.” [1] Rather than denying umpires’ central role, we should acknowledge it.  Joyce’s blown call—and the sorrow he felt afterward—are as memorable, and as part of the culture of baseball, as any celebration of a perfect game. Joyce’s post-game press conference might not go in the record books, but it will remain as much a part of baseball history as Galarraga’s achievement would have. It is pure assertion to argue that that is not what baseball is about or what fans want to see.  [1] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac,  .


Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature  Instant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard. This will occur in two ways.  First, the vast majority of umpires’ calls are accurate. Statistical analyses have shown that well over 99 percent of calls are accurate, [1] but this is not always appreciated by spectators. Instant replay will often confirm umpires’ calls, which will call to the public’s attention just how often umpires get it right.  Second, in cases where umpires’ incorrect judgments could have very bad consequences—for example, in the case of Armando Galarraga’s ruined perfect game, or in deciding the outcome of a crucial game—instant replay will allow a reversal. This will spare the umpire much guilt and shame. Umpire Tim McClelland, who was involved in questionable calls during the 2009 playoffs, said as much about his experience and those of Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game: “After watching what I went through in the playoffs last year and then what Jim's going through, I think more and more umpires are coming around to [increased use of replay].” [2]  Former umpire Don Denkinger expressed a similar sentiment. He blew a call in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series, and probably changed the outcome of the entire season. “I had 30 great years ... and I had one call that’s all anybody ever wants to talk about. It’s not right,” he said, adding that he now supports instant replay. [3]  [1] Gil Imber, “Stats Prove MLB Umpires Call 99.5 Percent of Plays Correctly,” Bleacher Report, Oct. 26, 2011,  .  [2] Paul White, “Expanding instant replay not an easy call to make for MLB,” USA Today, June 12, 2010,  .  [3] ESPN.com News Services, “Denkinger supports replay in baseball,” ESPN.com, June 3, 2010,


Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires  Umpires are supposed to facilitate a smooth game. When they are the center of attention, it is usually because something has gone wrong. Legendary Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem accurately stated, “The best umpired game is the game in which the fans cannot recall the umpires who worked it.” [1] The game is supposed to be decided by the feats of the players on the field, not the fallibility of the men in blue. Instant replay will help make this happen.  With instant replay, we would not have had Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game, holding a tearful press conference apologizing for his missed call. Instead, we would have had images of Galarraga celebrating his historical achievement with his teammates. The latter, not the former, is what baseball is supposed to be about, and what fans want to see. Instant replay will ensure that baseball revolves around the players, rather than the officials.  [1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com,  .


Baseball looks a lot like the game played 100 years ago. But it also looks very different in many crucial ways. Minorities can now play. The height of the mound has been changed. Night games are now played, with the help of lights. Technology—from the material of bats to the shape of gloves to the design of cleats—has evolved. Even the composition of baseballs is different. If all these things can change without eliciting much objection, then why would instant replay violate a tradition? And even if it did, it’s not clear that that tradition is a valuable one (as opposed to a neutral one or even a downright undesirable one). [1]  [1] ZombieMonta, “Why baseball purists are dead wrong about instant replay,” Inhistoric, Sept. 5, 2011,  .


Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.  First, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.  Second, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.  Third, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.  Finally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc.


Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball  Baseball, like all sports, “is the pursuit of transcending imperfection.” [1] It is not supposed to be executed with robotic perfection; it is supposed to involve human beings all trying their best to do the best they can.  Fallible umpire calls are part of the drama of baseball. Many people enjoy the excitement that comes with the fallibility of umpire's calls. This sub-plot in baseball in unique and should be preserved.  Indeed, fooling the ump is a time-honored part of the game. [2] It is not cheating; no rule is broken when one pretends to have been hit by a pitch to try to dupe the umpire. It is a colourful, even skilful way to work within the imperfect, very human parameters that the sport.  [1] Mark Coatney, “The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call,” Daily Beast, June 2, 2010,  .  [2] Tom Krasovic, “Dusty Baker Defends Umpires Amid Calls for Expanded Instant Replay,” AOL News, Oct. 9, 2010,  .


Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive  Not all video reviews will lead to an accurate ruling. Sometimes, camera angles could give a tricky, incorrect impression. Or they could shed little light on what actually happened. In these cases, instant replay will afford the appearance of certainty when the reality is much more complicated. In addition, all of the harms of inaccurate calls that Proposition is trying to solve will continue to exist.


Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review  There are two types of plays that defy instant replay. The first is one that would belong to a longer sequence of events, called “continuation plays.” Often, when an umpire makes a call, the ball is still in play, and more plays might follow. A commentator offers this scenario: “For example, if the umpire calls a ball foul and replay shows it was fair and the decision is overturned by replay, how do you handle the base runners?” [1] There’s just no easy way for video replay to be used in continuation plays.  [1] Don Hunsberger, “Let’s bring meaningful instant replay to baseball,” Daily Commercial, June 6, 2010,  .


Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used  One of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years. Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions. Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history. It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago. Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented.


Even if instant replay will not result in 100% accuracy, it will improve the chance that any individual reviewed call will be made correctly. In the status quo, umpires make their calls as if they’re certain, so projecting false certainty really should not be a major concern for the Opposition. What video review will do is ensure that the umpire can be at least as confident about his call as the managers, coaches, and millions of viewers watching at home


Instant replay will take too long  We already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision. In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost. It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport. “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes. [1] Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game.  [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011,  .


If a play is part of a longer sequence of events, then don’t use video review for that play. Only permit it for when the ball is dead or play stops immediately upon the conclusion of the play. Continuation plays can easily be placed outside the scope of instant replay.  Also, there’s no such thing as “normative” calls on a play. If an umpire deems a “phantom tag” sufficient for an out, he is making an incorrect call. The rules do not allow for phantom tags. If instant replay puts an end to this practice, so much the better.


Proposition is not arguing for all calls to be made via instant replay. Balls and strikes, for example, are best left to umpires because they are regarded as more subjective, and because there is no video equipment that consistently renders results that are widely viewed as accurate.  Besides, the human element that really matters is that of the players. The umpires’ human element might be substituted for making sure that the players’ human element is what decides the game. The point of the baseball game is for players to win or lose the game, not for umpires to win or lose the game. A baseball game played by robots but umpired by people would have lost its “human element,” but the same certainly would not be said about a baseball game played by humans and officiated by robots (or even just human beings who occasionally consult video footage and interpret it in their human minds).


It would still require a large initial outlay of cash in order to equip all stadiums with the technology and train officials in using it. Also, the technology would need to be constantly re-designed and re-developed so that it could keep up with technological advances; this would be extremely expensive and endless, but necessary to keep technology up-to-date, relevant and fit for purpose. Some people suggest that the money would be better spent improving existing official options, such as improving refereeing academies.


Technology is available  GLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials.


Challenges in tennis and cricket are limited to three per side – here the number of challenges are potentially unlimited and GLT could be invoked whenever a team senses the possibility of gaining an advantage. Without limitations, the game could be endlessly stopped while officials turn to technology to confirm their decisions.  Football is a continuous game, with a natural ebb and flow, which the interruptions caused by GLT would disrupt.


The introduction of technology is inevitable  Football is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) "During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee", and 2) "These decisions are final"1. The referee already "acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step.  1 FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 edition, FIFA, December 2008, p.41, (accessed 24/05/11)  2 Laws of the Game 2010/11, FIFA, p.22, (accessed 24/05/11)


Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.


Take, for example, Sunderland’s freak victory at Liverpool in October 2009, the so called ‘Beachball incident’ where a winning goal was deflected off a large red beach ball, it may well have gone in anyway but it undoubtedly distracted the keeper.1 GLT and instant replays would not have resolved the controversy, as the ambiguity was legal; the law did not have a clear position on the incident. GLT would have been useless here; it is only as useful as the laws and humans behind it.  In March 2010 FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued added: "No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?”2  Decisions would still be at the discretion of the person watching the video (a second referee, of sorts), who must interpret what he or she sees in a limited space of time.  1 ‘Freak goal was wrongly allowed’, BBC Sport, 18th October 2009, accessed 25/05/11  2 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11


GLT is used across a range of other sports  Technology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped. Football is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials. 1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)


Technology is more reliable than human judgement  Goals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them.  Howard Webb has added his voice to the pro-technology debate: "anything that makes my job easier, that makes me more credible, I've an open mind to. We are still using human opinion in those decisions and maybe on a matter of fact like the goal-line some technology might be the way forward. I personally prefer it when there is no debate about the referees. It's a difficult position, [to judge over the line]. It's at speed, and it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel in a less than privileged position by not having the opportunity [to use technology] but that's where we are. It's for other people to decide where that argument goes."1  Currently, referees are condemned for making honest mistakes when they have not done anything deliberately wrong. There will always be human error when subjective decisions must be made; this cannot be eradicated but we have a responsibility to minimise the risk. GLT may not change many games but its focus is about consistency and quality assurance. 1: Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)


Supporters love the game, not the soap opera. As Howard Webb articulated, "Controversy is not the reason why I watch football but we need to be careful not to change what draws millions to football. I still keep an open mind of the future. It's a tricky thing to do."1We must progress on terms of reason, not tradition.  1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)


GLT would not be used to assess any and every incident in a match; it would only be invoked to support a referee when a goal-line decision was particularly difficult to judge from a distance. The referees would exercise due diligence in referring to it, and it is likely that many games would pass without it being necessary.


The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world  Only professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.  Further, currently amateur teams playing on Sundays play the same game, with the same rules and ethos, as the professionals. With GLT, many argue that this would no longer be the case. In a press conference in March 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote: "One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV."1  For example, the FA Cup has 4 or 5 qualifying rounds consisting of amateur and semi-professional knock-out phases because the Premier League teams with GLT capability are introduced. This could mean that games are run according to different rules at different stages of the same competition (and, indeed, possible even the same round if some clubs draw Premier League teams and others are small-club affairs).  1 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11


The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario  In order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence.  These incidents tend to balance out over the season. Teams do not win leagues or are not relegated because of one isolated incident in one game; they win because of skill, strength and tactics, over the course of 90 minutes for a game, and a whole season for a league.


Controversy and debate are a part of the game  Controversy will always be a part of the game; because laws must be interpreted by an individual, fouls will always be called on the basis of opinion, even if that is someone re-watching the incident on a monitor. If fans accepted mistakes as exactly that, they would cease to matter; the authority of the referee would be absolute and the game would move on without undue mention. GLT is unnecessary.  Sepp Blatter famously argued that "Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport"1. Supporters love to hate the referee; it provides them with a scapegoat for defeat. With GLT, the authority of referees would be irrevocably diminished. They would become merely cogs in a mechanic process of decision making. If we come to rely on cameras to govern the game, the passion is drained from it.  1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)


The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology  In other sports there is just one question: was the ball in or out? Was the player safe or out? In football, the issue would not be that simple. Not only would the GLT-operative have to consider whether the ball was wholly over the line or not, but they would also have to look at the build up to ensure that the goal was legitimate. Was there a foul? An offside? As in the notorious case of the 2010 World Cup Qualifier Play-off France v Ireland, was there a handball? This would not only be extremely time-consuming and thus detract from the spectacle of the game, but could also be potentially endless. In cricket or tennis this delay is more natural as matches are expected to take several hours; one of the hallmarks of football is it’s frenetic pace. Challenges could not be limited in an attempt to prevent this, because if a team were to run out and a blatant wrong decision were noticed they would be in the same position as they are now; GLT would have achieved nothing.


The frequency of use is not the point of GLT. It is a back-up system, a support infrastructure, whose purpose is to help minimise inconsistencies and serve justice when called upon. The cost is a small price to pay for the transformative effect it could have upon the one game where it matters. Early in the 2009/10 season Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out against Bristol City after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out.1 They lost two points because neither the referee nor the assistant referee saw the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this would almost certainly have resulted in the club being liquidated. Just because it is rare, that does not mean it is not valuable.  1 Palace denied replay over ‘goal’, BBC Sport, 27th August 2009, accessed 25/05/11


it is a fallacy to say that if GLT cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. Nobody is suggesting that GLT be set up for all games down to grassroots level. Compromise is necessary in order to encourage reform within in a game whose stance on technology is anachronistic.  Also, other sports have only implemented technology in the professional sphere. They recognise that there is a massive amount of money and emotion invested in the professional game, and fairness is deserved as a reward.  If both teams know the rules, they can both play the game according to the same standard; GLT would not make teams play with different rules, it would just mean that some games are better equipped.


Under the BCS, every single game is important as losing the BCS is often catastrophic when it comes to qualification for any of the subsequent Bowls. As such, the playoffs mean that regular season games become less relevant as winning and losing only has an effect on seed and qualification becomes a lot easier. Further, BCS builds up the need for an undefeated season for certain teams to be able to qualify.  As such teams are more likely to give everything to every single match during the regular season under BCS, unlike in some leagues where a clear winner will emerge very early on and not have to play nearly at 100% capacity in order to win the conference overall. [1]  [1] Klosterman, Chuck. “No college football playoff, please.” ESPN. 01/02/2007


Playoffs Offer More Suspense  Within the playoff system every game during the playoffs is a knockout. As such, every single game in the playoffs carries the potential risk of excluding the losing team from the remainder of that season’s games. This works incredibly well to build up tension, because favourites have lost to teams that were believed to be a lot worse. With history supporting this idea all players and fans are likely to feel tension during the playoff games which directly contributes to the enjoyment of a game. Further, given the prevalence of late game comebacks in American football, due the ever present threat of an interception, it means that fans are still likely to enjoy games even when their team is likely to lose going into the later quarters.  Further, the playoff system still significantly incentivises good work during the regular season. The top ranked team would face the lowest ranked team in the first round and gain home field advantage for being the higher seed. It is beneficial for both sides because under BCS, the second team has no guarantee that it would even be included and the former team would not be guaranteed home field advantage. [1]  [1] “Wetzel’s playoff plan.” Yahoo Sports. 7/12/2009


The Bowl system results in a few incredibly important matches for players. As such, offensive coordinators for teams bring out every single trick that they have in the book to win them.  Every player involved in the Bowl system goes all out to win these events because they are the only televised matches that most players will ever see. Given that that is true, Bowls have a reputation for being some of the most exciting and spectacular matches of the year. The viewing audience for Bowls is disproportionately high because of this.  As such, the exposure for teams participating in Bowls is significantly higher and would be lowered if the resolution were to pass, the inevitable result of lower viewing figures for the individual matchups. [1]  [1] Klosterman, Chuck. “No college football playoff, please.” ESPN. 01/02/2007


Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness  The BCS system unfairly discriminates against 45 of the 120 teams that participate in college football. Given that some of these teams participate in non-BCS leagues they can perform incredibly well and still not get into the BCS. Further, the BCS system is flawed beyond this given that both Boise State and Utah were deemed unsuitable for the competition despite the fact that they went undefeated in the seasons before their rejection. The winner of the BCS is meant to be the best collegiate football team in the country. However, if undefeated teams are unable to compete it makes the system incredibly unfair, and reduces the legitimacy of the BCS title itself, undermining the value of the competition overall.  Finally, as noted football analyst Michael Shull notes, due to flaws in the computer algorithms used to allocated BCS places, some teams that do well for a single season as an outlier or due to a positive change for the team do not get into the cup. This potentially means that the same teams consistently get into the cup and gain $17 million in revenue regardless of whether they win or lose. As such this system ensures that those who do get selected just get richer and better and thus become more likely to be picked by the computer system in the future. [1]  [1] Shull, Michael. “BCS No More: Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS.” College Sports Fans.


The practice of having multiple “Bowls” creates a system where more teams “Win” at the end of the season. Whilst college football is serious, it is understood that college teams’ players participate in collegiate events in order to gain the skills and experience that will enable them to join NFL teams. As such, the participation of talented youngsters in college football is dependent on collegiate tournaments being seen as fair, impartial and meritocratic tests of players’ and teams’ skill. Confidence in the meritocratic nature of the system is not enough to guarantee the interest of the best players, however. Returns on the investment of time and effort and opportunity that players engage in must be high. The odds of gaining recognition as a good player within the collegiate system must outweigh the risk of losing out on the chance to participate in high profile games.  In a situation where playoffs are introduced, only one team stands victorious at the end, the others lose and are inevitably forgotten about. This is incredibly discouraging for those players who do lose, and might cause them to drop out of football in the future, which significantly harms the NFL’s pool later on, impacting significantly on the national pastime. Deterred by the risk of sinking into obscurity, junior players may avoid participating in college teams altogether.  Further, the concept of playoffs often results in weaker teams defeating ones who have had a much better regular season. Ultimately this is less fair, as the side which consistently performs well should be awarded more accolades than a side that gets lucky during a game which happens to have been assigned a greater weighting within the BCS’s algorithms. Again, when there is an upset, the harm to the losing team is often greater than the benefit to a winning team that is likely to lose in the next round of the contest. [1]  [1] Davis, Michael. Kane, Time. “Would a college football playoff be fair?” Real Clear Politics. 12/11/2009


Playoffs Lead To More Exposure  The issue with the BCS system, as mentioned above, is that teams selected by an often broken and biased BCS mechanism receive more money and exposure than more talented, harder working institutions, making them more likely to be selected by the same mechanism in the future. Standout teams that only perform that well for a season are able to get significantly more exposure under the proposition model.  Due to the very high profile nature of playoff games- as well as the fact that there would simply be more playoff games with palpably fair and meritocratic outcomes later in the playoffs- more people will watch college football. Specifically, including more teams in a playoff based competition will mean that more fans get their favourites in to the playoffs and as such more people watch. Secondly, the increased number of matches’ means that it is more likely that fans will be able to catch another match if they cannot watch one. Finally, should an upset happen, the amount of interest generated in the subsequent match is incredibly great and generates significantly more exposure for both teams participating. [1]  [1] Sanderson, Matthew. “The conservative case for college football reform.” The Hill. 06/01/2010


There is an impetus for playoffs among fans, with 63% saying that playoffs similar to those used in college basketball should be implemented.  Further, given that the games would have implications for the national championships they would not suffer a loss in attendance given that right now the “Bowl” games are viewed by most fans as being meaningless exercises. Given that most view these games as meaningless and simply go for the camaraderie and the pageantry they feel, it seems logical that in playoff games that have ramifications for a legitimate championship they are more likely to go. Fans already do this for college basketball which has sixty extra games and doesn’t even happen during a time when people are off from work for the Christmas and New Year break. [1]  [1] Starin, Harvey. “There is nothing wrong with college football playoffs.” Sun Sentinel. 01/07/2010


The existence of the Bowls is simply a way for the BCS businessmen to earn large amounts of money. Under the status quo, the BCS businessmen get a share of all revenues generated from each Bowl. Further, the money is also then divided further, with the television network that covers the game taking some of the revenue. Further, given the games aren’t played on home turf, instead on a stadium that is hired for that day’s play, money is lost on travel.  By comparison, under the proposition, if high seeded teams win consistently, they would play at home, not lose money to the BCS officials and thus gain significantly extra levels of revenue just by running business in-house. [1]  [1] “Wetzel’s playoff plan.” Yahoo Sports. 7/12/2009


Playoffs Result in More Injuries and Hurt Academics  The toll on the bodies of players in American football is much greater than that of other sports, primarily due to the high frequency of physical impacts in the sport. To be able to get through a season, players often need to play through more minor injuries and thus need fairly long rest periods between games. However, playoffs would all be run within a small window of time, meaning the accumulation of injuries would be greater and thus players would be more likely to risk much more serious injuries just to be in the championship game.  The quality of the championship game would suffer significantly because of this, but also players might riddle themselves with long term injuries that they could come to forget in the future.  Alternatively, players with an interest in their long-term careers would be likely to pull out of the bowl system altogether.  Further, football players often have to take a lot of time away from classes in order to play football games under the status quo. A lot of the time players catch this work back up in the holiday. However, this would be impossible under the new system as the entire Christmas holiday would be potentially lost to playoffs. [1]  [1] Scripps Howard News Service. “Florida president to push playoff plan at SEC meetings.” ESPN. 29/05/2007


Playoffs Would Not Benefit Fans  College football fans tend to have lower budgets than those of NFL fans. Specifically because there are many more colleges and owing to the lower number of fans per game, there usually aren’t deals on travel. As such travel between grounds is expensive. Given that playoffs result in more games being played it is apparent that supporters of the various teams will incur more cost. Further, if their team loses where they might have instead won a lesser competition, the supporters will likely be less happy than they are now. As well as this, when a team does win in the playoffs, the people watching that team face a very high burst of costs should they want to continue to support that team.  Further, if the fans do have to stay at home they will as a result be subjected to watching a game with a half filled stadium with no real atmosphere. [1]  [1] Purdy Mark. “College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea.” Mercury news. 8/01/2010


Playoffs Would Earn Less money  BCS makes consistent money for the Universities and colleges that partake in the system. The issue is that, should a playoff system be implemented, it is likely that these institutions would seek to undermine it in order to simply revert back to the old system. Should they withdraw their teams, the overall skill ceiling of college football would lower significantly.  The fact that playoffs would occur during the Christmas period also means that owing to the cold weather at the time, the number of fans that would be drawn to the stadiums to pay money would be significantly lower than in regular season. The “Bowls” system makes sense because the only one near the Christmas period is the national championship which is considered high profile enough to draw a crowd. [1]  [1] Purdy Mark. “College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea.” Mercury news. 8/01/2010


As at least 18 year olds, college football players know the risks of injury that college football might entail and should they choose to continue playing it is their right to do so. If they get injured they have consented and are not harming anyone else. Further, the teams that get through the playoffs are most likely to be the teams that have won the most games. Generally in football, the teams that do win the most games have suffered the fewest injuries on the dint of them being very strong at protecting their running backs and quarterbacks.  Academically, football players are mandated to attend a minimum number of classes and often are better at attending classes than many other students. As such, playoffs would be fine, especially considering they come during the holiday period where often students are home with their families and not working anyway. [1]  [1] Schad, Joe. “Auburn coach Tuberville calls for playoff system.” ESPN 05/10/2006


It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.


Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games  When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.  [6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008.   [7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013.   [8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012.


The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”11: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.  [11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002.


Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport  Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.  More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.  [5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009.


The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.


Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.


Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good  The sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.  Making chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.  [9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000.   [10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference.


Chess is highly popular and should be represented  Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.  Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.  [12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009.


The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.  Furthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.


Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values.