A little competition never hurt anyone…or does it? I am sure we have all heard the little saying ‘its just a friendly competition,’ but on a worldwide scale, sports are more then simply a fun, harmful game. There is a thin line drawn between power and competition. No matter what, there is always a winner and a loser.
The World Cup has forever been not only a soccer competition but also a fight for world recognition and superiority. On a worldwide spectrum, competition and nationalism go hand in hand. When a country’s sports team is in a competition, the nationalism increases and the people have pride in their nation. If a country is victorious in a sporting match, the citizens and inhabitants morale improves and their nationalism soars; a sense of superiority and power is now present.
Another example of great political influence in competition is in the Olympics, an additional worldwide competition. The most famous Olympic power struggle to date has been during the Cold War in 1980, between the USSR and the United States. As depicted in the Disney movie Miracle, the United States upset the Soviet Union in a close hockey match and proved to be victorious. The triumph not only was a win in the athletic field but also paralleled a political victory. The hockey match was more then just a game; it was a struggle for power. The one thing I believe that is beneficial to the aspect of worldwide team sports is when players compete they are not only thinking of themselves but how to best represent their country and work together as a team. The hockey victory was based on teamwork and unity.
With all competition comes both a positive and negative result. If a country wins it’s a great victory and a boost in nationalism, but on the downside a loss could be detrimental to a countries political and national spirit. A loss is not only a defeat, but also has deeper implications. One of the points mentioned in the sports blog, which I disagreed with, was the notion that the way in which the players compete is a direct representation for how a country is operated or run. Eve said that the amount of times a player passes the ball or the manner that a player presents himself on the field can be credited to the countries dynamics. I completely disagree with this statement because one persons’ behavior should not affect the way a whole country is viewed, but unfortunately this is a common misconception. In the case of Michael Phelps, his lapse in judgment led to a loss of nationalism and respect in America. We put athletes on such a high pedestal and when they do not live up to their expected greatness, we question their dedication to the country which the represent.
I like the connection to power. That's a good move.
ReplyDeleteGround the essay early in the bloggingheads video, and use it more as a springboard so you aren't writing in a vacuum.
In the last paragraph, you treat the video as though it were supporting the link between the game and the country, but they were actually criticizing this.
Odd ending with Michael Phelps. He came out of nowhere and it's funny that after saying we shouldn't connect the players to the country, you go ahead and say that Phelps' connection to his country was questioned.