What is the net benefit of sports (UK: "sport") to humankind?

beauty, mainly

pros:
-aesthetics, many sports are beautiful to watch at the highest levels, tru marvels of human athletic performance
-what better way to hash out which city/state/university/nation is superior than to play a fun game, much better than war/epic street brawls/trivia bowls
-capacity to unite ppl across the globe because they like the same type of rubber item going into nylon netting game as you
-playing them is fun in the right circumstances (some parity of skill level, competitive without being humorless)

cons:
-cities that use taxpayer $ to subsidize a private business venture with hundreds of millions of their own so they can get a slightly nicer arena for professional athletes to play in
-the ritualistic abuse athletes put their bodies through
-the enmeshed relationship between American education institutions and athletics
-local fans who riot when their team wins/loses/does anything
-capacity for ppl to be unrelenting dicks to each other because they don't like the same team of dudes who propel a rubber item into nylon netting
-lot of women play sports but majority of attention paid to male athletes
-the idea that sports are "important"

not exhaustive list obv

I would actually watch the olympics if it were street brawling or trivia

there is boxing, u know

another pro is that athletes actually get exercise and most people need more exercise

biggest pro is that it's something you can put on tv and only pay the slightest attention to. It's a very pleasant form of white noise for me.

sport is as important as any other cultural achievement and without culture what is the fucking point?

-cities that use taxpayer $ to subsidize a private business venture with hundreds of millions of their own so they can get a slightly nicer arena for professional athletes to play in

- the enmeshed relationship between American education institutions and athletes

Neither of these are intrinsic to sports, though, right? I mean, they're fixable cons.

I'm by no means a expert on the topic but I'd have thought sports were good for the economy.

They might also help to form some sort of basis for localised 'community spirit', as well as uniting people across the globe. Some teams, such as Charlton Athletic FC in London, are socially active with initiatives attempting to improve things for locals - http://www.cact.org.uk/index.php

Spectator sports compete with other cultural endeavors for subsidies and attention. The question isn't sport vs. nothing, but sport vs. whatever else would engage the public attention.

IIRC, economists have found that professional sports venues don't really add to economic activity in any given locality. They just reallocate spending from other entertainment.

Teaches people cooperation and how to deal with failure, right?

The one thing I will say in favor of BYU-ID is they only have intramural sports and pretty big participation in those. I am bitter about playing sports and I hate them but I think they do a lot of good for a lot of people. Like I could totally use some lessons in cooperation, and finding a safer avenue for getting the fear of failure out of my system.

They also gave us this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWpkqI6P3w

I want those baskets back.

"sports" seems kinda broad?

you're talking about team sports? individual sports? action sports?

tbh we did just poll sports

http://panlogispo.net/images/Art/huey-lewis-sports.jpg

- capacity for ppl to be unrelenting dicks to each other because they don't like the same ...

- lot of women ... but majority of attention paid to male ...

these would also not go away w/ less sports

people like having something to do. sports are good for that.

if people don't have sports then some/many of them will then find time to pursue weirder hobbies.

like warhammer, or stamp collection, or fan fiction

Suspect that society as a whole is healthier for sport existing, even taking into account lazy fuckers like me whose involvement tends to extend to watching it for hours in the pub on a Sunday afternoon.

Can't see many negatives

Kinda talking Western advanced capitalist society here, rather than historical points around the world where physical fitness is the difference between eating and not eating.

its actual importance is probably disproportional to the amount of money/attention spent on it though and the idolisation of sport personalities in comparison to their actual real contribution to the world.

Lots of talk in the cycling press about Bradley Wiggins victory in the Tour De France inspiring more people in the UK to ride bikes, which is obviously a social benefit on a few different levels (e.g. general health of the population; more journeys being made by bike might equal fewer journeys by car; increased uptake might lead to better awareness of cyclists by car drivers; provision of better facilities for cyclists). Be interesting to see what impact it does have.

its actual importance is probably disproportional to the amount of money/attention spent on it though and the idolisation of sport personalities in comparison to their actual real contribution to the world.

Depends on the sport. Most sports aren't exactly awash in money and attention outside the Olympics etc.

iirc Chomsky's argument against sport is that it distracted attention from more important issues (this is true I think) and this diversion is the reason that dominant institutions support sporting events (I don't know about that though)

did the predicted sharp spike in the uptake of cricket happen after Ashes 2005?

xpost but that has to be compared again with the importance (for want of a better term) of those sports

sorry add an extra xpost to those two

I think the primary issue I have with sport is related to the commercial value placed on the highest levels of attainment in some sports; i.e. footballers and basketballers getting filthy sick wages. Increased levels of health, social cohesion through shared experience, etc etc all seem like good things.

iirc Chomsky's argument against sport is that it distracted attention from more important issues (this is true I think) and this diversion is the reason that dominant institutions support sporting events (I don't know about that though)

This is true but hardly confined to sport, and if sport suddenly didn't exist tomorrow then something else would take its place.

All we require is bread and circus games, etc etc.

Gives men something to talk about, so they don't have to talk about "feelings" and relationships and all that eyewash.

http://cdn1.elitedaily.com/elite/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/elite-daily-andy-murray-crying.jpg

Stop yer bubblin', ya big Jessie

i dont think this is the right question, feels a bit like asking "what is the net benefit of art" or something

what is the net benefit of art

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HEXlBKQWh40/TtECHkZdptI/AAAAAAAAAQs/znucGexo1mg/s1600/earth-without-art-6368.jpg

thats just the word earth in scare quotes so nbd

max srs q: what is the right question?

i dont know, im not sure there is a "right question," i guess i agree with thomp to some extent, not sure sports fits into a cost-benefit analysis

well the way the poll questions are worded are a bit tautological to my mind. it's like asking what's the benefit of society to society.

thinking maybe limit it to professionalized sports then? or the business of sports?

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

iirc Chomsky's argument against sport is that it distracted attention from more important issues (this is true I think) and this diversion is the reason that dominant institutions support sporting events (I don't know about that though)

This was part of it (the weakest part imo) but there was more to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbckGjuYpk

The idea that it is training in submission to authority and irrational jingoism seems central to his comment.

The 'jingoism' bit of it seems important to me, considering that often, coaches athletes are not even from the city they supposedly 'represent' and are traded freely, that team owners may not even be from the city.

"coaches and athletes"