Spectator sports: the opium of the people?

This summer's orgy of sporting events has been eagerly awaited by youngsters and adults alike. Unlike the masses, however, I care for neither England nor any other team in Euro 2004. Watching men running around in shorts has always seemed like a waste of time to me. And for the patriots out there: aren't there more relevant reasons to be proud of your country?

People are quick to blame trashy soaps for the rise of the couch potato, whereas watching football is seen to be the virtue of a true man. However, at 90 minutes a go (plus 30 minutes of halftime and postmatch arguing), a football match is three time as long the average sitcom and is invariably accompanied by a few cans of beer, packets of crisps, and cigarettes. Hardly a healthy option, especially when one in five adults are obese.¹

But nothing gets the heart racing like watching a good match, people say. Well, I say, how about actually playing a game of football yourself. In all walks of life, watching doesn't compare to actively doing the real thing, and sport is no exception. It may take more motivation, but playing sport is considerably more rewarding, physically and mentally. With recent concern over child obesity, and the general consensus that adults are equally fat and lazy, isn't it time to get off the sofa and into the park?

What is the solution? I'm not suggesting anything draconian like banning televised sport. People should be allowed to do what they enjoy doing. And I agree that footballers are great ambassadors for sport, at least when they're on the pitch. Without them fewer people would be inspired to join in. But there should be a shift in emphasis from watching sport to playing. Maybe sports facilities should be improved at a community level rather than a national or international level. How many tennis courts could you build with the £161m ($292m; €242m) of public money that is being spent on Wembley stadium?² It should be about widening participation and making sport totally convenient and inexpensive to take part in. Who knows, then we may be able to produce more sporting champions.

In the end, though, no amount of money will alter anything without a change in attitude. People need to get their priorities right, and the recommended 30 minutes of exercise five times a week should come high up on the list.³ Physical inactivity needs to be seen as socially unacceptable, whether it is due to watching football or otherwise. As the tournament draws to an end, the emptiness that follows will be a good opportunity to become more active.

1. BBC. Obesity -crisis talks' to be held. London: BBC, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3691913.stm (accessed 14 Jun 2004).
2. BBC. FA comes in for Wembley criticism. London: BBC, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3474367.stm (accessed 14 Jun 2004).
3. BBC. Do we need to take more exercise? London: BBC, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3669517.stm (accessed 14 Jun 2004).

       

           

Responses published this month Articles Responses REVIEWS Spectator sports: the opium of the people?       Stephen Damato (July 2004) Tom Duckham (July 14, 2004) Read this response REVIEWS Spectator sports: the opium of the people?       Stephen Damato (July 2004) Tom Duckham (July 14, 2004)       Landscape Management Westminister College duckham_tom@yahoo.co.uk I agree with some of the views published in the article. Money should be spent at grass roots level. Is there really a need for a new national stadium? I think not. Watching sports always motivates kids to go out and start playing but facillities aren't always there. Tennis is a prime example. The only courts around require one to pay £6 per hour. This just isn't affordable for many people. If someone wants to start playing cricket, where can they go? Money needs to be used to make these sports accessible to the masses.