There are individuals who don’t like sports – although I think it’s fair here to draw a distinction between spectator sports and participatory sports. There are folks who could care less about watching games on TV or following a local team who play golf or run in 5Ks. But I think the OP is interested in spectator sports.
196 of the world’s 207 countries sent athletes to the 2012 Olympics. There are more countries in FIFA (209) than in the UN (193).
I don’t think we can say that there are any places where, as a whole, folks just don’t care about spectator sports at all.
Re: The Chosen - There is gigantic difference between participation and spectator. I imagine that there are people in almost every group who need – at times – to play or exercise. But frankly, it is hard for me to understand how people get so worked up over watching other people play and exercise. I’ll admit that I too get excited if I happen to see someone succeed (or fail) at a very difficult play, but that is so transitory, it’s just not worth investing a whole season’s worth of time, money, and allegiance. Not to me anyway. I just don’t get it. I could continue my rant, but this is GQ, and I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between being a player and a spectator.
I know that India has a lot of excellent cricket players, but even so… for a country of a billion people, they produce remarkably few world class athletes in any sport. I mean, per capita, India MUST win far fewer Olympic medals than any other nation.
That would suggest to me that Indians as a whole are not at all sport obsessed.
I disagree, India are the current cricket World champions and the IPL (Indian Premier League) is one of the most watched sporting leagues in the World and has massive revenues.
I can see quite a bit of overlap between the appeal of sports and the appeal of war. If sports serve to channel some of mankind’s instincts and predilections toward warfare into more harmless, peaceable pursuits, I’m all for them. My WAG is that societies in which sports are unimportant tend to be those in which deadlier forms of conflict are important, so that sports aren’t necessary to take their place.
Or could just be that many, if not most, people find sports ‘fun’ to varying degrees and there’s really no need to put it in to explain their place overarching sinister conspiracy theory-like context whilst at the same time taking a bit of a dig at those who follow them (referring to Claverhouse’s post)
I myself am I fan of sports and have nothing for love for the rest of the World, excepting people from Swindon and Oxford who are scum (URZZZ!).
As I thought, Orwell wrote about it, long long ago before the rise of the multimilliondollar industry complex between the sports clubs, the media and government agencies; and whilst I never quite take him seriously, he makes sense here.
And how could it be otherwise? I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn’t know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles.
In England, the obsession with sport is bad enough, but even fiercer passions are aroused in young countries where games playing and nationalism are both recent developments. In countries like India or Burma, it is necessary at football matches to have strong cordons of police to keep the crowd from invading the field. In Burma, I have seen the supporters of one side break through the police and disable the goalkeeper of the opposing side at a critical moment. *
The orgies of hatred bit is overblown now, because outside a few major regions, people are apathetic to national hatreds now. However I shouldn’t think by substituting inane artificial rivalries for nationalistic drivel anything of value is achieved.
Although the image of the British football hooligan was mainly media hype, and never affected 99/9% of Britons, I’ve actually heard partisans of one team denounce other teams with hatred, insane though that sounds. Apart from the fact that running about a field is trivial, hating people you’ve never met because they support other loons scampering abour is equally trivial.
Not sinister, sensible. I make no moral judgement regarding non-violent methods of crowd-control. But I might not admire them for it, nor the people who demand other people get hot and bothered about things that excite the former.
And in modern civilisation sport is not only an obsession — unlikely to exist without the exposure of media which inundates the masses — it is a real and potent symbol of nullity. If one likes sports, play sports: don’t follow an artificial team and demand that that is regarded as virility.
Actually, later on, in the 1960s spectators actually fought and died on South America and Africa.
