Re: The duty of players towards fans


"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:_Nyol.13919$IC4.1160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:70fo5aF48lnkU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In which case, why should the fans be expected to fund something with which they fundamentally disagree?

They shouldn't, any more than people should be expected to come into my bar and pay my wages. They should make their own minds up about what they're funding and whether or not to fund it.


But if large numbers of customers expressed dissatisfaction with what your bar was doing, would you take that on board, and maybe do some things differently in the future. That's the question here.

Maybe like if smoking were to be re-allowed, and your policy was to keep it banned, and people wanted to smoke and were not happy that they couldn't. That sort of thing.


I think your point would be more valid, if everything else was perfect and sporting already.

But, we all know that things aren't all equal in football, the playing field is already not level, and there is already implicit collusion.

Yep, but that's all kind of unavoidable, surely? The example given below being a classic example.


Unavoidable, yes, but not unredressable.

It's not an issue about 'whose morals are right', simply that any given morality can bend the already inexact rules to make things better - and possibly should indeed do so, *if* there happens to be a consensus among stakeholders about what would be for the best.


Yep, it was a little hard on Charlton. Well remembered. But, like I say, that's unavoidable. In line with Liverpool's realistic trophy-winning objectives, they probably did the right thing by their fans, would have been stupid to weaken a CL trophy chance unnecessarily, so they fielded a weaker team who probably, for the most part, played with an unavoidably diminished sense of motivation. That's a world away, though, IMHO, from expecting that those players should _set out_ to lose or whatever.


For me, it's just a different point on a sliding scale, and maybe things would be better if there was more honesty about what was going on.

Sometimes the results of football matches make me wonder how much collusion exists.

Consider two evenly matched teams who are likely to fight close contests in their two meetings. Isn't it mutually beneficial for them both, and their supporters, for the Chairmen to agree prior to the season that they will take one win each, and both pick up three points, rather than risking drawn games with points lost into the ether, to the benefit of all the other times in the division? That's simple game-theory.

And perhaps, maybe, it already happens.

My argument is that such a thing is not necessarily bad, and more transparency would be good. I actually quite like the idea of football teams doing agreements amongst themselves, similar to the internal politics of professional wrestling.


I had a problem with Paulo Di Canio's refusual to score that time *because* it was against Everton - a team that had already themselves gained extensively from cheating. But, if it had been against a team that had long been fairly hard-done-by, like Sheffield United, I would have applauded it.

Yep, but that's all based on your own subjective judgements on what's morally 'right' or better. Unless your views are shared by most fans, then from a commercial or moral perspective, should clubs and players really be looking to win or lose matches on the basis of the will of Sir Benjamin Nunn? Not sure they should bother.


But that's just my opinion. It could be any cunts opinion about anything. The question is whether history and and general 'fairness', should be factored into the sought-after outcome.


By your logic, cheating against Everton, for instance, is morally more acceptable than cheating against, I dunno, Coventry I guess.

To me, cheating is cheating.


So, if a team has, in your opinion, been badly wronged in the past, and something happens to slightly right that wrong, you would deem that a bad thing?

How about a man who got away with committing murder, who was then wrongly accused of a lesser assault charge? Want him to go free because you won't consider what happened previously as a relevant factor? etc.


It's a bit like Al Capone who got away with loads of crimes that are generally considered morally wrong, then eventually got convicted on tax evasion charges. Ordinarily, I would consider strict sentences for tax evasion overly harsh, because I'm very unsympathetic to the whole principle of taxation in the first place... but in this instance, moral justice was done.

I guess I'm just unsure about the concept of 'moral justice', and who would be qualified to determine what that is. Maybe the government should appoint you as 'Minister Of Right And Wrong' or something.


You're missing the point here, Joe.

It's not about imposing my opinion, which is as arbitrary as anyone elses, it's about challenging the *pre-existing premises* that:

1. always trying to 'win' is right
and
2. always trying to 'win' is a win.

The nature of the 'morality' and 'justice' is entirely flexible. This debate exists outside of personal preferences and opinions.

I wonder if, within your own personal morality, the concepts of 'sportsmanship', 'winning' and 'losing''n'*** are so deeply entrenched that these are not flexible on a philosophical level? And if so, why?

BTN

.

Loading