Philosophy of Football: Defining Football. Part 1

We have all grown up playing, watching, supporting, loving, hating and obsessing over football. By now it might seem reasonable to assume that we have a pretty good understanding of what the sport essentially is. But do we? Ask the man in the pub what he thinks it is and he might come up with the following reply; 'it’s that game where a load of blokes kick a ball about.' Is he right?


On a very basic level, perhaps, but there is a lot missing from this definition; not only does it ignore the fact that women can play the game too, but it also misses out the tactics, the fans, the money, the aesthetic, the culture and a huge amount of other important aspects of football, which help to make up the rich tapestry of the game. However, a definition can go too far and become over-inclusive; are the winding up orders taken by the HMRC against football clubs who have run into financial difficulty really part of football, or are they in fact, part of the legal system or business? It is a very difficult question. Our objective here is to decide what is part of football, and what is only on the periphery of the game. This leads me onto the first part of our inquiry rather nicely.

What is Unique about Football?

In his essay ‘Is Sport Unique? A Question of Definability’, SK Wertz claims “that sport has no autonomous features”[1] whatsoever. He thinks that “its problems and characteristics [are] all reducible to other areas”[2]. This might seem like an extreme claim, but before we dismiss the idea, we should look at his claims in more detail.

Wertz defines unique as “a feature F applies exclusively to the concept of sport”[3]. With this definition in mind, it seems as though his claim is not as strange as first thought. For example, do the ethics of cheating apply solely to football? No, it can apply to cheating on examination papers too. How about the aesthetic of football, something which is often regarded as one of the sport’s most basic attributes? Richard Galvin questions this also: “how does one argue that sport is an art or has a deep affinity to art whereas taking out the garbage does not?”[4] After all there are some similarities between them. In football there is a goal, to score (in the goal obviously), the beauty is in how the players play the game. According to Galvin, this can be extended to taking the rubbish out. There is also a goal; to put the rubbish out (in the bin obviously), so why can this not be done beautifully?

However, I think Galvin is wrong in his point. Taking out the rubbish is an everyday, standard activity. It must be done or the house will become filled with rubbish, become smelly and unhealthy. Football on the other hand is fun, not functional. No-one enjoys taking out the rubbish, and everyone can do it to an equally adequate standard. This is not true of football. We enjoy it, but realise that it is a difficult activity to master. Anyone who saw my teams right-back on Sunday will realise that not everyone can play to an adequate standard and, as a result we marvel at those who play brilliantly. This is why when we see our neighbours put the bins out, we shrug, but when we see a 30 yard volley into the top left hand corner of the net, we admire. It is extraordinary, not mundane as Galvin’s reasoning would have us believe.

Wertz’s problem, however, still remains. There are other extraordinary sights, which can have the same impact on a person as a 30 yard volley, so football does not seem to be unique in that respect. But could this view actually be a good view for thinking philosophically about football? Naturally football plays a part in our wider culture and because of that, its influence seeps into “anthropological, artistic, economic, political, religious, and social”[5] areas, all of which have philosophical questions to be asked of them. In my view it is a good idea to be being inquiring into the nature of football through the spectrum of these already established mediums. There is no need to limit the philosophy of football to that which is completely unique to it. As you can see from the examples I used above, if we did limit ourselves to the purely unique aspects of sport, we would rule out ethical and aesthetic questions about football only because they do not only concern our sport. What I am arguing for here, is using other areas of philosophy when they are useful and relevant to our inquiry into the nature of football. Not dismissing the idea that because, say, Descartes was not directly considering football, or sport in general, when he wrote The Meditations, that to use it to aid our inquiry would be useless.

So, is football actually unique, philosophically speaking in any way? I think so. Whilst Wertz certainly has a strong argument I do think there are areas of football which differentiate it from other areas of inquiry in philosophy. Topics of philosophy often merge together. Take the philosophy of science for example. Questions of ethics in science are often deemed important, but the ethics is not strictly speaking, unique to science. However, the angle at which the philosopher must come at to tackle the question is. I argue that this is the same of any Philosophy of Football. Science, despite not being a completely unique subject is deemed worthy of philosophical study (according to Steven French) because:

“as a cultural phenomenon science has had more of an impact on our lives than any other ... there is a profound way in which science has changed our understanding of our origins. Consider the further, related development of the theory of evolution and the way it has changed our understanding of our origins ... [science] has had a huge impact on human society over hundreds of years – so how does it work?”[6]

The question this poses us now is; does football have similar elements which make it worthy of philosophical study? If we were to write a similar proposal on why football is worthy of philosophical study we might also point out that, as a cultural phenomenon, football has a great impact on many people’s lives. Indeed, in the case of some people, born nine months after a World Cup win; it might even be the cause of their lives. Football has a huge impact on people across the world; the globalisation of the game in recent years is probably the best example of this. We could even argue that football has changed the understanding of our origins. Admittedly, not in the same way that science does, but in on a personal level. I imagine for many people it will be an important part of their life and will lead them to understand more about themselves then they otherwise might have.

So, football is worthy of philosophical study in the same way that science is. But how should we go about deciding what to study philosophically? And where will our unique viewpoint of football that I have been arguing exists come from, so we can then view the interrelated philosophical topics through our footballing prism? The answer will come soon, in part 2 of ‘Defining Football’. In the meantime, pack a towel and a change of underwear; we’ll be going on a trip.

Thanks very much for reading, feel free to leave any comments or questions you may have.

---

[1] Wertz, SK (2002). ‘Is Sport Unique? A Question of Definability’. In: Holowchak, M Andrew Philosophy of Sport: Critical Readings, Crucial Issues. New Jersey: Pearson Education. pp86-95. p86

[2] Wertz (2002). p86

[3] Wertz (2002). p87

[4] Galvin, Richard F (1991). ‘Nonsense on Stilts: A Sceptical View’. In: Rethinking College Athletics. Edited by Judith Andre and David N James. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp87-99

[5] Wertz (2002). p89

[6] French, Steven (2007). Science. Key Concepts in Philosophy. London: Continuum. p1