We’ve all heard the expression “to level the playing field”, meaning to keep it fair for all the players. Usually it’s used in a political sense.
Examples: Affirmative action, to “level the field” for minorities. Or a tax cut for small businesses , to “level the playing field” so that the little guys can compete with the big corporations.
My question is: where did the expression come from? Is there any sport where having a non-level playing field is a common problem? In every sport that I can think of, the players switch halves of the field during the game, for the specific purpose of making it fair and equal for each team.
Take my example of the politician offering tax cuts because the big well-established corporations have an advantage over a new,small business. How is that comparable to a sloped field? And if, say, the field is sloped----it’s a bad expression. Because the solution is not to “level” the field. The solution, in all sports, is to have the players switch sides of the field.
So I hereby submit a law that the expression be eliminated from English language:
From now on, no one will speak of “levelling the field”. They will only speak of “being forced to switch sides of the field.”
Pinball? Although each game is played by only one player at a time, with a possible interpretation of one’s opponent being “the laws of physics”. In that case, to switch sides as you suggest, one would have to imagine being able to redefine the laws of physics, while whoever was previously doing that tried to keep the ball in play with the flippers.
Which inspired Houston’s Minute Maid Park, which does the same.
Additionally, yes most sports change sides, but any unevenness is still an advantage for the home team, which is presumably used to dealing with those conditions.
I was just at a soccer game this weekend in which the pitch was about 5˚ across and probably upwards of 10˚ longitudinally. Now to speak plainly, the 9 year olds didn’t really seem to mind, but they were curious how they were behind 6-0 at halftime and won the game 6-8.
So I can imagine the level field was ideal but most teams and games didn’t have such a field until quite recently except for the top level teams.
One could also interpret the expression as being a call to level, as in to raze completely (as by bulldozer), the playing field Sort of the ultimate form of “I’m taking my ball and going home”.
Baseball specifically has a non-level playing field in the form of the pitcher’s mound, and its height has been changed over the history of the game to favor the pitcher or the batter.
Of course not–not at competitive levels. The field for any decent school or professional-level competition will be graded. Any departure from level (such as the pitchers mound or the drainage crown on a football field) will be deliberate and symmetric for both teams.
However, many people have the experience of playing sandlot or pickup games on uneven surfaces. Going uphill in touch football, soccer, ultimate frisbee, or volleyball can be disconcerting and a distinct disadvantage.
Even in pickup games, you may switch sides (suckers walk!), but it doesn’t really solve the problem. It just means that you switch from having an advantage to having a disadvantage. For a pickup game this may add to the fun. But again, in a serious competition, you don’t just switch sides, you play on a level field.
My beef with the expression isn’t that it’s illogical; it’s that it’s trite.
The playing area at Lord’s Cricket Ground famously slopes - the northwest side is some 6-8ft higher than the opposite end. The nature of the game of cricket is such that, during any particular game, certain players may enjoy the slope more than others, and it’s well-known to cause problems for players who haven’t played there before.
When the problem is not that the field is sloped but that it’s got so many holes it looks like there’s been a moles convention, yes you do have an uneven field problem. Switching sides won’t solve it, you need to flatten (level) the field.
Thinking of my high school’s “outside fields” here - any game there had us praying that nobody would manage to step in a hole or rut and break something important.
I don’t know if this is true or an urban legend, but reportedly at the old Montreal Forum the goal at which the Canadiens shot two periods out of three was one inch (or one centimeter – I’ve heard both) wider than the goal at the opposite end.
The OP seems to be confused. As noted, playing fields are generally level in sports because people realize an unlevel field would be an unfair advantage for one team.
So the expression isn’t saying that sports need to have its playing fields leveled: sports has level playing fields. What the expression is saying is that other activities should try to be like sports and do what they can to allow competitors to meet on an impartial basis so that their comparative abilities decide the outcome rather than some outside element.
I we take the metaphorical use of the term “level playing field”, then it is clear that there are many sports where competitors are advantaged or disadvantaged relative to the other participants.
An early starting position in a ski race, for example, confers a significant advantage (because the course isn’t as icy as it will become after a dozen or so people have run the course), and may well be determined by your standing in previous race events.
Why are you and the OP assuming it originates from a sport with an unlevel playing field? if you’re familiar with sports, you can easily see how an unlevel playing field would give an advantage to one team or the other, without actually having to think about it any further. Not everything has to have an actual literal origin.
Sort of the ultimate form of “I’m taking my ball and going home”.