Whether one approves of, participates in, or supports sport programs, one must acknowledge their importance as social, economic, and cultural phenomena. While some may agree with Jimmy Cannon who claimed that "sports are the toy department of human life," perhaps more would support Earl Warren's observation about the world we live in as reflected by our newspapers: "The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures." Indeed, these two perspectives give us a glimpse of the irony that makes sport so inscrutable today. On the one hand, it connotes a frivolity that pales in contrast to such significant social and political issues as the plight of Yugoslavia, oppression in China, conflict in Iraq, homelessness around the globe, and violence in our neighborhood schools. Yet, sport provides us with hope. It has become a universal medium through which people of different countries, socioeconomic levels, cultures, races, genders, and ages can communicate, and set standards of excellence which all can admire and for which all can strive. For those who set records or create unique movement forms we are all grateful because such acts show us that human potential is vast, that perceived limitations are often self-imposed, and that we can all perform at higher levels given some degree of creativity and a willingness to practice with intensity. In many ways, sport has become a modern art form which is accessible, understandable, and cherished by people around the world.

In the United States, sport has impacted all of our major institutions. It is an integral part of education, business, politics, the military, health, popular culture, language, and even religion. Table 1 shows that of the approximately 265 million U. S. citizens (1996 census data), a fairly large proportion are active in a broad variety of physical activities, ranging from walking to racquetball. Not only do Americans enjoy participating, but Table 2 also shows that they like to watch athletic events. As well, The National Sporting Goods Association finds that they are quite willing to purchase a wide variety of sporting goods products, and in 1996 this was estimated to be over $57 billion dollars (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1997). As a composite, these data suggest that our involvement with and attraction to sport can not be explained as merely a frivolous amusement. It permeates our lives on all levels, as participants, spectators, and consumers. Yet, its meaning to us as individuals and as a society remains somewhat unclear. Is it just a diversion from more serious pursuits, or does sport have some higher value? Seemingly, a more analytical examination of the concept may help us to find out the answer to this question.

Table 1. Sports Participants in United States 1990 & 1995¹

Activity	1990	1995	%Change
Swimming	67,469,000	61,531,000	-9
Bicycling	55,245,000	56,308,000	2
Fishing	53,776,000	49,999,000	-7
Exercising with Equipment	35,329,000	44,328,000	25
Bowling	40,117,000	41,898,000	4
Basketball	26,315,000	30,098,000	14
Hiking	22,042,000	25,047,000	14
Golf	22,959,000	23,959,000	4
Aerobic Exercising	25,108,000	23,052,000	-8
Running/Jogging	23,817,000	20,635,000	-13
Football	14,451,000	20,365,000	41
Volleyball	23,195,000	17,957,000	-23
Softball	20,076,000	17,611,000	-12
Hunting	18,512,000	16,253,000	-12
Baseball	15,576,000	15,728,000	1
Skiing (alpine and xcountry)	16,488,000	12,689,000	-23
Tennis	18,401,000	12,571,000	-32
Soccer	10,920,000	11,976,000	10
Backpacking	10,809,000	10,244,000	-5
Calisthenics	13,185,000	9,339,000	-29
Racquetball	8,070,000	4,699,000	-42

Data from Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1991, and 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992; 1997).

Table 2. Spectators at Major Sports Events 1990 & 1995.

Event	1990	1995
Horse Racing	63,803,000	42,065,000 1
Major League Baseball	55,509,000	51,288,000
College Basketball2	31,518,000	33,510,000
College Football	35,330,000	35,638,000
Professional Football	17,666,000	14,772,000 3
Professional Basketball	18,586,000	19,883,000
Professional Hockey	13,786,000	17,105,000
Soccer	3,229,000
Professional Boxing	3,000,000

From U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997).
* 1982 data.
11994 data. 2men and women’s NCAA teams. 3 1993 data. 4 1994 data.

Before attempting to understand the meaning of sport to our lives and to our society we first need to step back and define the following terms: play, games, sport and athletics. This is not simply done as an academic exercise, but one which will hopefully help us to ascertain why individuals are initially attracted to sport, why they continue to engage in it, and why some decide to drop-out. Today there is a great deal of confusion about what our physical games are intended to accomplish. They can be an informal part of most children’s lives, but they can also be highly structured programs in our schools, or billion dollars businesses. On the one hand they serve as a recreational diversion, but on the other they become more serious endeavors. Confusion naturally arises as to whether: (a) they should be organized and run solely for a participant’s interest and satisfaction, (b) they are effective in conveying positive values such as discipline, perseverance, and sportsmanship, (c) they should be used to promote a particular group such as a school or community, or (d) they should be packaged, as in professional sports, to serve as entertainment for spectators? Depending on how one answers these questions others arise such as: (a) who should pay for sports programs and facilities, (b) who should be allowed to coach, and how much autonomy should be given to players in making decisions about their own involvement, (c) the amount of daily and weekly practice time that should be required, and (d) how playing time should be allocated during contests.

These are but a few of the questions whose answers determine how sport is organized by administrators and coaches, and experienced by players and fans. However, it is often the case that these questions are not asked, or answered because an assumption often exists by those in charge that everyone really "understands" how sport works. But, Guttmann (1978) questions this assumption and astutely points out that "One reason that sports are not understood is that familiarity has made their significance seem obvious when it is not" (p. vii). Indeed, while most adults have participated in various forms of sport while growing up, it is interesting to watch just about any level today and observe spectators who are all too ready to share their "expert" opinions about player capabilities, coaching decisions, what a player should have done, and the importance of a particular contest to general well-being. Yet, it is more likely the case that such persons really have only a superficial understanding of what is going on. Much of sport takes place below the surface. Besides the obvious aspects of the immediate competition related to the score, much of sport is about the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and motivations of participants. Of these the casual observer knows relatively little. Not all individuals are motivated to attain the same personal or team goals, not all experience the emotions of winning and losing in the same way, not all feel reinforced for participating, and not all take the endeavor as seriously as others think they should. While some individuals may wish to pursue excellence in sport and attain Olympic or professional fame, others, with equal or greater levels of skill, may only be seeking a recreational diversion from more mundane activities. Some may become involved to enhance their fitness, while others may be more interested in becoming part of a group and finding a social outlet.

Unfortunately, a participant's motivations for engaging in sport are often a mystery, and not fully understood or considered by administrators, coaches and teachers who oversee programs. Seemingly, such individuals may adopt a particular idea about the way an activity is supposed to be, perhaps from their own past experiences or the models presented in the media, and impose this notion on their chargers regardless of who their clientele is and why they decided to become participants in the first place.

Major Sport Ethics in the United States

Along these lines, Scott (1974) has cogently argued that three main ethics seem to pervade sport in the United States. The first, which has been attributed to legendary NFL coach, Vince Lombardi, asserts that "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing." This ethic has been around for many years, and emphasizes that athletics should be product oriented, with excellence of outcome as the first, and perhaps only, justifiable goal. Normally, as Scott conveys, this ethic has been associated with a rigid structure in which an authoritarian coach has absolute control over every aspect of the activity. This often extends from a team's grooming and dress code, to the way its plays are selected and implemented. As well, such a belief system is consistent with an environment in which self-sacrifice is applauded and often manifested by such things as participants subjugating all other activities to athletics, performing while injured, and using illicit drugs to enhance performance. Furthermore, coaches who ascribe to such an ethic typically teach their athletes that opponents should be viewed as obstacles or enemies to be overcome, rather than as persons to be appreciated for the necessary and important challenges they present. In assessing the impact of this product oriented ethic, Scott asserts that it has been associated with great success and been responsible for much of the excellence we see in sport. On the other hand, he also feels that it has been responsible for the many abuses we read and hear about, including the dehumanization of athletes, college recruiting violations, good coaches being fired for not winning championships, and the wide use of so-called "performance enhancing drugs." As well, we have become aware over the years, how such an ethic has led to the systematic elimination from sports of individuals possessing less talent (many of whom are young children) or unwilling to make the total commitment required by such a standard.

In contrast to this win at all cost notion, a counter-cultural ethic has evolved which stresses the importance of sport as a medium for human development. In Leonard's (1975) words this contrast to the Lombardian ethic might be conveyed by the phrase "Winning isn't everything, it's nothing." Within such a framework the most important question put to the individual is "how did it feel" rather than "who won"? Since the process is emphasized, in contrast to the outcome, there is less rigidity by the coach in decision making. In fact, within such a framework players are encouraged to make all decisions (Laughlin, 1974), and coaches are urged to play only a minor role in serving as resource persons in organizing and administering the activity. Advocates of this ethic argue that sports first and foremost should be self-actualizing, promoting fun, social involvement, and psychological and physical well-being. As well, when opponent's are part of an activity, cooperation with and an appreciation for them is emphasized. The rationale underpinning this idea is that an opponent who gives his or her best effort will force a participant to respond with his or her best effort. When one becomes part of such a process, self-development results, as does greater self-understanding. Ultimately, it is believed that promoting such a process leads to greater to self-actualization. The non-competitive, "new-games" movement evolved as a reaction to the "win at all cost" mentality. The restructuring of conventional games to de-emphasize outcome also reflects this alternative frame of mind.

While the counter-cultural ethic has been adopted by many, Scott (1974) has argued that it is somewhat unrealistic to ask athletes who train for two to four hours a day to act as though winning is unimportant. An example of this point may be illustrated when several years ago I was involved as a coach in a YMCA basketball league for girls and boys aged 7 - 11. Because league officials thought that competition had gotten too intense, they decided to try an experiment in which one game would be played without keeping score. The idea was that players and coaches could then focus on playing without having the pressures associated with winning and losing. Interestingly, this experiment never had a chance for success since the players secretly asked their parents to bring pencils and paper to keep score. As they ran up and down the court they requested, and were given, updates on the status of the game. The only individuals who did not know which team was "winning" were the coaches and officials!

This event reinforces the idea that sport is not separate from the world in which it occurs, and that it is not a simple thing to change the way people think about or are accustomed to participating. To paraphrase Robert Boyle (1963), sport mirrors American life, and American life is based on competition which permeates all of its major institutions. Consequently, since the 1800s, sport has been promoted as a medium through which important cultural values could be acquired and the seeds of competitiveness sown (Underwood, 1981). While sport may teach our youngsters the virtues of teamwork, responsibility, discipline, and hard work, it also reflects the competitive nature of our institutions. Consequently, it should really be no surprise that the basketball experiment failed. The game appeared to have little meaning without the players knowing who was ahead and who was behind.

A third framework for sport Scott calls the radical ethic. This is a compromise position which reflects the idea that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with competition, but that there needs to be a balance between the "win at all cost" mentality and the idea that winning is meaningless and only the process is important. Consequently, this approach brings symmetry to process-product emphases, by promoting the idea that both are linked, and that neither is meaningful alone. Victory which is tainted by violating the rules or exhibiting poor sportsmanship is tarnished. By the same token, playing without striving for victory devalues competition, and limits the challenge sought by an opponent. In this instance, worthy competition requires cooperation if both the process and outcome is to be meaningful. An example of this ethic was illustrated several years ago in a tennis match between Steffie Graf and Monica Seles. Both players struggled for every point in a three set match. Both maintained equanimity throughout, and in the end Graf was victorious, but the sense of the crowd was that both had participated in a noble endeavor. Each had challenged the other to become better. Victory was important to both. One’s feeling after the match ended was that something very special had just transpired, and that competitors and spectators had all gained something from the event.

Given these major ethics, the issue for most of us involved in sports programs is how much emphasis should be placed on competition, pursuing excellence, and dedicating oneself to an activity, while at the same time making certain that the process is healthy. Certainly achievement becomes meaningful only when a worthwhile challenge is met by employing effective and honorable means. Circumventing rules, injuring an opponent to gain an advantage, or using illegal performance enhancing drugs is as odious in the sports world as is insider trading, collusion, and payoffs in the business world. But preparing assiduously over many hours in order to enter a noble struggle against another person, team, or natural obstacle in which comparative achievement can be assessed has the potential to be both physically and psychologically healthy, educational, and intrinsically rewarding.

Why Sports Can be Confusing

In my view, the key to experiencing the many rewards of such participation without suffering from the abuses so widely publicized, is a function of understanding the essence of sports. Without doubt sports may be confusing to people because the type and form of an activity may appear quite similar across a wide range of age levels, ability groupings, and degrees of psychological maturity, but the meaning that such activity has to the participants and society at large may be dramatically different. For example, the child who begins to play basketball in an after school program when he is in fifth grade, advances to playing on the junior high school team, the high school team, and then possibly the college squad, traverses a continuum which spans a range of different activities, often without an awareness of having done so. In each instance the individual is perceived to be engaged in basketball, but the structure and organization of the activity changes from being informal with a few basic rules, to being highly organized with rules that are codified and enforced by certified officials. The individual's purpose may also have changed from partaking for recreational and social reasons, to pursuing excellence, or fulfilling the requirements of an athletic scholarship. The amount of time and effort allocated to training and practice may have also evolved from having no commitment at all to having a very serious one manifested by practicing for as much as four or five hours a day. The degree of dedication and willingness to develop skill may have changed from being relatively unconcerned to being totally preoccupied with improving. The importance of outcome may have also shifted from being of only some concern to having life and death consequences (e.g., the Donnie Moore Story). While in all instances the casual observer might hastily surmise that basketball was being played during each stage of the individual's life, the activity was dramatically different. The structure became increasing complex. The participant probably had less freedom and made fewer decisions about who played, when play was to occur, and how it was to be conducted. As well, participants, coaches, and spectators probably had a greater investment in both quality of performance, and final outcome as the activity became more formalized and professionalized. From the more "sport-like" tone which characterized early participation, the activity became more "athletic-like."

As an illustration of how subtle such changes can be, the author can recall what it was like growing up and participating in basketball. My recollection is that the activity had a subtle allure early on. The simple joy of playing was sufficient reinforcement for me to spend many hours on the court. But, as the years passed and I moved from being a 9 year old playing basketball in the school yard to a 21 year old participating as a varsity level college athlete, subtle changes took place in how the activity was structured, the expectations of coaches, and who got to play. This was an unconscious voyage from sport to athletics. Not only were the players bigger and better, the coaches more intense, the spectators more numerous, the outcome more important, but my freedom to play as I wished was greatly diminished. After many years of relatively mindless involvement, I had also realized that the joy and passion that I once held for the game had also waned. Increasingly I wondered why I was involved in something which I did not particularly enjoy, or understand.

For me, it was only after many weeks of anguish and having distanced myself from my college basketball team that I began to understand that playing basketball in college was not the same as playing in high school, that playing in high school was different than playing on an elementary school team, and that playing on an elementary school team was different than playing in the schoolyard. At the earliest stages there were no coaches, spectators, reporters, or all the other hoopla that goes along with high school and college athletics. There was simply the game, which the players controlled. There was also the excitement associated with free-lancing, and occasionally executing what seemed like the ideal play for the developing circumstances. When things did not work-out as anticipated, we were not taken out of the game by a coach who ridiculed us for attempting to do something "stupid." Our penalty for losing was not derision, but having to sit out a game or two until our turn to play came up again.

In college, the game started to feel wrong. Participation had become a chore and practice, or games for that matter, were not fun. There was little room for experimenting since a fairly rigid system of movement patterns had been imposed on us by the coach. As happens to so many players who are given limited roles to perform, I felt that only a small part of my talent was being utilized. This was very frustrating, since I had always envisioned sports as an area which was expansive, allowing me, as well as others, the freedom to manifest all of our skills and abilities Now, and to a lesser degree in high school and elementary school, limitations were being placed on this freedom. These restrictions seemed to be inversely related to the joy and excitement that I previously experienced in the countless hours of schoolyard play? There, perhaps, efficiency of the unit was not as high, but fun and excitement prevailed since there was more opportunity to exhibit and experience both individual and group spontaneity. The incessant instructions from the sidelines never were heard and, thus, did not ruin the rhythms inherent in the flow of bodies up and down the court. Indeed, the challenge of making decisions about who and how to play, the rewards for experimenting, the freedom to come and go when one pleased, and the comradery and interpersonal competition all seemed to contribute to the excitement and satisfaction I found in basketball. In contrast, at the collegiate level, the loss of freedom in decision making, the constant rehearsing of movement patterns that stifled individuality, the requirement of practicing for a set time regardless of whether fun and satisfaction had faded away hours before, the chastisement and grief suffered for making performance errors, the gloom and doom that followed a defeat, and the incessant sense that we needed to please the coach before pleasing ourselves all seemed to lead me to the question of why I was still "playing" basketball? Surely, what basketball had become on this level was not what had attracted me to it in the first place.

Perhaps, my belated observations and feelings coincided with the findings of a study by Ewing and Seefeldt (1988) who reported that sports participation declines dramatically and steadily between the ages of 10 and 18. An analysis of their data suggests that having fun is the prime motivation for participating in sports and a lack of fun is the prime reason for dropping out. Contrary to all the hype that seems to be associated with winning, participants ranked this last on a continuum identifying the 10 most important reasons for their involvement. The most important motivational factors identified, in order, were to have fun, to improve one's skills, and to stay in shape. Dropouts indicated that they might return to sports if practices could be made to be more fun, if they could get more playing time, and if coaches understood players better. These data certainly seem to suggest that for most potential participants the process of what goes on during sport is more important than its outcomes. Seemingly, if sport is to prosper and become a more powerful medium for human development we need to know a great deal more about such things as "fun", how to maximize skill development for all participants, and ways to make sport more intrinsically rewarding for persons engaged at all levels.

It was several years later that I began to understand what had happened to me, other players confused about their involvement and, I suspect, many of the children who dropped out in Ewing and Seefeldt's study. In a sense, an analysis of the concepts "sport" and "athletics" helped me to grasp what had gone awry in my "playing" career. Subsequently, I found an understanding of these concepts to be invaluable as an athlete, coach, administrator, and as an instructor of sport theory courses. Indeed, deconstructing the meanings associated with ‘sport" and "athletics" helped me clarify the inevitable relationship that exists between a program’s stated and unstated objectives and the means by which they can be achieved.

Play, Games, Sport, Athletics, and Work

As seen in Figure 1, the concepts of sport and athletics can be placed along a continuum anchored on its ends by the terms play and work. It should be pointed out that by being on a continuum each concept has some properties which are shared. Those being closest together have the most in common and those furthest apart the least in common. Hence, play and work have the least in common, while sport and athletics have a large number of similarities. Furthermore, in such a scheme, sport has more elements typically associated with play, while athletics have more properties customarily linked to work.

Figure 1. The Play-Sport &emdash; Athletics- Work Continuum.

Moreover, the concepts identified on the continuum have no absolute definition, but are in essence theoretical constructs. This means that they only take on meaning by how we commonly, and conventionally comprehend them. With this in mind, over the past 20 years I have abstracted ideas from people who have written about these concepts which may help to highlight similarities and differences in the way we think about and use the terms identified.

Play

According to sport philosopher Bill Harper, "Play is voluntary, spontaneous, light and one of the traditional sources of pure pleasure for humans" (Gilbert, 1975, p. 89). He believes that the motivation for play is purely intrinsic in nature, and that participating in an activity for reasons other than to amuse oneself detracts from its playful nature. Hence, for Harper, playing squash to become more physically fit, learning tennis to gain social acceptance, or running around a track to earn an award are not playful motives. Furthermore, Harper believes that participants must have control over the activity, if it is to maintain its playful nature. He contends that, "Whenever the participants have less control than the organizers about how they play, who they play, when they play, then it is not really play" (pps. 89-90). From his perspective, it seems, play is fragile and not something that can be easily legislated or regulated. As well, one can see that as one moves toward the athletic end of the continuum control of the activity typically shifts from the participants to organizers who may be coaches, administrators and owners.

Another prominent writer who indirectly wrote about play was Robert Frost in a poem entitled "Two Tramps in Mud Time or, A Full-Time Interest" (1936, pps. 125-126). In this poem he paints a picture of a man splitting logs in a forest. It is clear that the wood-splitter is enjoying both the physical sensations of using his body, and the beauty of being outside on a brisk spring day with the sounds, smells, and inhabitants of the forest. Soon thereafter two professional woodcutters happen buy and offer to split the logs for a fee. The last two stanza's suggest that play may be associated with a utilitarian by-product, but as conveyed by Harper, can still be motivated by intrinsic factors.

Nothing on either side was said.
They knew they had but to stay their stay
And all their logic would fill my head:
As that I had no right to play
With what was another man's work for gain.
My right might be love but theirs was need.
And where the two exist in twain
Theirs was the better right-agreed.
But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For Heaven and the future's sakes.

Seemingly, Frost does not view play as something that must be disassociated from what many would perceive as work. Indeed, he suggests that uniting one's avocation and vocation is his object in life. In a sense, just as with constructs such as beauty or justice, play seems for him to be in the eye and the heart of the beholder. This suggests that the form of activity or whether or not some utilitarian end is achieved is less important in defining play than the attitude or spirit with which the activity is pursued. Hence, the continuum in Figure 1 might be perceived as really representing a psychological dimension rather than a system for classifying activities in an absolute fashion. So what appears to be work may be play, and what appears to be play can be work. Only the participant really knows by the thoughts, attitudes and feelings that involvement engenders. Such an idea has been inferred by others such as the ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau. He was quoted as having said:

It's fun to do things you're not made to do, like going to the moon or living under the ocean. I was playing when I invented the aqua-lung. I'm still playing. I think play is the most serious thing in the world.

As noted by Harper, freedom to chose and control an activity is apparent in what both Frost and Cousteau characterize as play. Furthermore, there is intense intrinsic interest in the activity itself. As well, useful ends may or may not be a serendipitous by-product of involvement. While a utilitarian motive may have been a prime motivation for engaging in the playful behavior initially, fascination with the task becomes the primary reward for continuing. For example, artists and writers may or may not earn large sums from their creations, but they continue to paint even though they may have to do so while impoverished. Here, as in true play, behavior is reinforced by the intrinsic rewards generated by the behavior itself.

One of the most prominent authorities on play was Johan Huizinga who published a classic work on the subject entitled "Homo Ludens" (1955). In it he concluded that play was characterized by being engaged in an activity on a purely voluntary basis, which had time and space properties different than in normal life, a rule structure which after being accepted was absolutely binding, and a unique consciousness typified by feelings of tension, joy, and total involvement.

Again, we see the criterion of voluntary involvement. Hence, according to Huizinga, and consistent with Harper's ideas, an activity itself can only be characterized as play when coercion or participation to gain what Wenz (1985) calls "exchange value" (i.e., fame, fortune, and motivation for self-improvement) is absent. A word often used to describe such motivation is autotelic. This means that the inspiration for playing is found in the psychological rewards inherent in the activity itself, and not from its "exchange value." Such rewards might include, but are not limited to, such things as fun, excitement, challenge, and the myriad sensations associated with mental and physical exertion.

With respect to the notion that play occurs within fixed limits of time and space, Huizinga notes that play normally has a beginning and an end, and is psychologically and/or physically separated from our normal living areas. As well, time and space in the play world often have unique characteristics. For example, Frost's woodchopper may have gauged time by his perceptions of exertion rather than by the dials on a watch. Similarly, a college basketball game may have two 20 minute halves, but each 20 minute period may really take 50 minutes, and if one includes the half-time interval, a contest might last two hours. In baseball time units are called innings, with nine innings being the duration of a game. For tennis, sets determine the length of the activity. In children's games such as Pom Pom Pullaway or Capture the Flag play duration can be short or long depending on the time it takes for one team to capture the other one.

Space is also different in the play world. We have "playgrounds" such as tennis courts, soccer fields, and running tracks. We also can play in parlors, yards, tents, or forests. The point that Huizinga makes is that society typically allocates special spaces for play that are different than the spaces normally used for work. While this may be true in general, one might also argue that if we accept the notion that play tends to reflect an attitude more than a specific behavior, then the demarcation of play and work space could become more ambiguous than Huizinga's analysis might suggest. For example, a computer can be used for serious work or for playing various types of games. My computer version of Iago, an electronic version of a popular board game, even has a menu called "Job Security - The Boss is Coming" which, if activated, turns the game screen into a spreadsheet for the purpose of making others think that I am working rather than playing! On the other hand, how would we classify the space of a football stadium when professional teams engage in the Superbowl? Are the athletes playing or working?

As with the creation of unique measures of time, and the identification of special spatial locales, Huizinga also notes that play normally has a rule structure which is freely accepted, but absolutely binding. Acceptance of the rules of the play world typically suspends the rules of normal living for the duration of the activity. The rigidity of these rules can also vary from those informally accepted by children playing "house", to the highly structured adult games characterized by such activities as chess and bridge. The rules of sport and athletic contests seemingly fit along the play-work continuum and may vary from the less structured pick-up games organized and run by children in the playground to the highly formalized athletic activities overseen by the NCAA (e.g., the Division I 1998-99 Manual contains 489 pages!). It is interesting to note that in Huizinga's analysis, the point is made that the "spoil sport" is frowned upon more than the cheat, because the latter pretends to be abiding by the rules, while the former withdraws from the game, and by so doing rejects the rules which others have accepted. Consequently, the "spoil sport", in a sense, threatens the existence of the activity. Seemingly, without some form of agreed upon order, the play world can not exist.

Perhaps the most intriguing property of play that Huizinga identifies, which is consistent with the attitudinal hypothesis suggested earlier, is the player's perceptual/cognitive absorption in the activity. A more thorough examination of this phenomenon by Csikszentmihali (1975) and more recently Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) has led to the coining of the term "flow" as a descriptor for this disposition. In essence "flow" has come to be understood as a state in which one is so involved with the activity that self-consciousness is lost. More precisely, it is believed that when in this state an individual, psychologically, becomes closer to being a part of the activity, aware of actions executed, but not of awareness. The rock climber seems to glide up the rock as if the mountain and his body were made for each other. The tennis player's racket becomes an extension of her arm. The horse and rider become one unit. The skier and the slope fit together in a perfectly harmonious relationship.

Interestingly, many anecdotal reports support these ideas. Roger Bannister (1955), described what might be interpreted as the "flow " state in play when he conveyed feelings about running along the beach when he was a child (pps. 11-12):

... The earth seemed almost to move with me. I was running now, and a fresh rhythm entered my body. No longer conscious of my movement I discovered a new unity with nature. I had found a new source of power and beauty, a source I never dreamt existed.

Seemingly, Bannister was letting his body perform without having his mind act like a Marine sergeant directing every action. Interestingly, this capacity to "let go" may have been essential in his breaking the four minute mile, which many at the time considered to be more of a psychological than a physiological barrier.

In a somewhat controversial tennis book Gallwey (1974) pursued this idea in writing about the importance of eliminating the belief in mind-body duality that western culture has inculcated upon us. He argued that tennis is played most skillfully when one performs unconsciously, allowing strokes to unfold without direction from higher conscious centers in the brain. Smith (1985) also seemed to support this notion in relating a discussion he had with Jascha Heifetz at a dinner party one evening. He asked Heifetz what he thought about when giving a concert. Heifetz responded that if the concert was on a Saturday night he thought about the smoked salmon and bagel he was going to have on Sunday morning. Smith pondered that if Heifetz was thinking about the bagel when playing the violin, who was thinking about the concert? From Gallwey's viewpoint, the answer would be that his hands were taking care of the violin, and if his mind had attempted to do so, Jascha Heifetz would not be a concert virtuoso.

Interestingly, this perspective is not particularly novel, as it has existed for many years in the abstruse approach taken by Zen masters who emphasize the importance of mind-body unison. Herrigel (1953) in his classic, "Zen in the Art of Archery" emphasizes that it took him over six years of practice to begin to understand that the more he tried, the less he accomplished. And in his classic exchange with his teacher regarding what he should and should not do to release the arrow, Herrigel asks: "How can the shot be loosed if "I" do not do it?" The master replys "It shoots." Herrigel responds, "I have heard you say that several times before, so let me put it another way: How can I wait self-obliviously for the shot if 'I' am no longer there?" The master responds, "It waits at the highest tension." Herrigel then asks, "And who or what is this "It?" To which the master responds, "Once you have understood that, you will have no further need of me." While using a different language, seemingly Gallwey, Heifetz and Herrigel are conveying the same idea that ego involvement and self-consciousness are enemies to mastery.

Summarizing, this "feeling" aspect of play is associated with a unique consciousness typified by feelings of tension, joy, and total involvement (i.e., "flow"), Csikszentmihali concluded that "flow" is a state in which a sense of ego is lost but concentration is vastly increased and feedback from activities is enormously enhanced. Often, time and space perceptions are altered. Baseballs might look bigger. Squash balls may move slower. The diver might perceive that she always seems to have enough time to enter the water at the correct angle. The tennis player feels instantly whether the shot is a good one, as does the basketball player, the marksman, and the archer. These perceptions often give a player an increased sense of competence. Taken as a whole such factors would seem to contribute to the autotelic quality at the core of play.

As seen in Figure 2, Csikszentmihali has hypothesized that the primary factors which produce perceptions of "flow" are the relationship between challenges presented by a situation and the capabilities available to meet them. According to this model, when challenges are much greater than capabilities, anxiety is produced. On the other hand, when abilities are greater than challenges, boredom results. When challenges force people to operate at the limit of their capabilities "flow" is often the reward. Furthermore, in a series of studies Deci (1975) has shown that people have the highest intrinsic interest in activities which they freely choose to do, and in which high levels of competency are attained. Taken as an aggregate, the ideas associated with "flow" seem close to identifying the perceptual/cognitive elements that combine to make play so rewarding (e. g., Furlong, 1976), or more simply put, "fun."

Figure 2. The "Flow" Model.

An addendum to the notion of "flow" which has never been mentioned by authors writing about this phenomenon, that I believe correlates with many of the factors discussed in this context, is an idea attributable to Esposito (1979). He has cogently argued that one of the most alluring properties of sport is the opportunity to experience possibility. By this, I think, he is referring to the challenge and excitement of striving to control situations and oneself as an activity unfolds. Ironically, most of the time we experience failure in sport. Baseball batters make outs more than they get hits. Basketball players normally have shooting percentages below 50%. Gymnasts, with rare exceptions, never score a 10. Golfers normally do not get a hole-in-one. Because of this propensity to fall somewhat short, there exists the eternal challenge to do better. Hence, each new contest, or action within a contest, provides an opportunity to experience a higher level of success, or even perfection. The golfer seeks the perfect stroke. The backstroker strives to swim the flawless race. The basketball player imagines making the winning basket as the buzzer sounds. The ski jumper achieves a personal best. As Esposito points out, non-participants have difficulty in understanding motivation derived from possibility. Perhaps this coupled with reinforcement from involvement in autotelic activities helps describe the behavior of persons who spend long hours practicing, but report their experience as play-like?

Prior to discussing the concept of game, in which most of our play is instantiated, I wish to briefly assess whether or not play has any redeeming value to society. From a social perspective, it is probably reasonable to state that the construct of play has somewhat of a hedonistic, non-utilitarian quality about it. Perhaps this is so since most individuals probably associate play with participation in games of various types that are normally conducted during one's "non-work" time. As well, the rewards of play seem to fall within the personal intrinsic psychological realm, rather than within a larger social context. Accordingly, our culture tends to be more accepting of large amounts of play in its younger and older persons who are typically more removed from the work force. On the other hand, excessive play by those given the responsibility of producing a society's material goods and services is normally frowned upon because if play was pervasive during working hours little would get accomplished. Seemingly, such ideas appear to be ingrained in our collective unconscious and have a long historical tradition (Stone, 1972). Thus, work and play, to a large extent, are viewed as opposites, with the former being more highly valued, at least from a social and economic standpoint, than the latter.

Yet, as pointed out by Harris (1980), the play spirit is essential to cultural and technological development, in that in play we often experiment with restructuring activities by changing their goals as well as the means by which they may be achieved. Examples of this sought of thing are abundant throughout the play world. Indeed, the new game's movement in the 1960s seemed to be an attempt to create play situations in which cooperation replaced competition as the main objective, and winning and losing became meaningless. This capacity to recreate situations without real consequences has also been a rationale for the success of play therapy in children. As conveyed by Terr (1999), play can be utilized as a means by which individuals can experiment and find a way out of situations in which they appear to be "stuck" because of fears derived from previous trauma. Marano (1999) has also argued that even for psychologically buoyant individuals this experimental quality of play provides individuals with a relief from stress and a means through which they can become reinvigorated, optimistic and creative. Seemingly, such qualities would provide necessary ingredients for becoming more effective in one's work life.

Changes in technology have also often come about from "playfull" experimentation and altered the means through which a game or a contest's goals are sought. We now have Kevlar poles in the pole vault, titanium frames for tennis rackets, and aluminum bats in softball. We have also had changes in instructional technology which have us now high jumping with the Fosbury Flop, swimming the backstroke underwater, and doing various types of cross-training to maximize our physiological potential. Play has also penetrated the "real world", where we now have many "think tanks", and organizations which essentially play games to assess anticipated outcomes when changes are made in tactics and strategies (e.g., the Pentagon playing war games). Harris' point is that without activities having this experimental quality, normally associated with play, whether they be sports oriented or industrial in nature, culture and technology become stagnant and, in time, fail to serve a society's need for innovation. Furthermore, as conveyed previous by Jacques Cousteau, a playful attitude is often responsible for inventions or discoveries that may have significant utilitarian impact.

A final point related to play is conveyed by Fink (1974), who argued against the idea of talking about play as if it were something that exists and can be understood only in relation to the "non-serious" parts of our lives. Instead, he writes that "play is itself a fundamental phenomenon of existence, just as original and basic in itself as death, work and domination (p. 77). ." Many observers throughout the ages have acknowledged the universality of play, and its importance to human existence (e.g., for a review see Vanderzwaag, 1972). Hence, it may be more appropriate to understand and appreciate play, if this is at all possible, not in terms of what it contributes to society in a material sense, but what it contributes to the quality of life. Seemingly, by placing play on a continuum with work we tend to see it as an opposite. Perhaps by juxtaposing it with other life phenomenon such as love or beauty, we would tend to see it in more qualitative rather than materialistic terms.

Wideman (2001) appears to be supporting such a view in discussing the meaning of inner city playground basketball to the African American community as he equates such "play" with art.

"The art in our styles of playing hoop as eloquent as our styles of playing music. Art is speech in as many forms as we can invent to communicate what we experience, how we feel about being alive. Art's a medium for expressing what's crucial and worthy of being preserved, passed on (p. 230)."

He goes on to equate playground hoop as a cultural equivalent of African-American music and dance. Wideman astutely points out that what appears to the unsophisticated eye as play in the form of a game actually has many more levels of meaning to the knowledgeable observer. From his perspective a group of boys and men running up and down the court at his Westinghouse Park not only contains elements of "perfect" movement forms, but portrays years of social and economic oppression that is expressed through:

"...the shuffle, the dance, the drive to excel, to fly... what matters is shared space, shared aspirations, the shared shuffling dance, the depth and weight and heat of the shared spirit ...(p. 239).

Consequently, it appears that the essential property of play reflects an individual's state of mind more than anything else. Presumably, this state is related to the freedom to enter activities which are rule governed, challenging, and intrinsically interesting to participants. Freedom to experiment with means-ends also seems to reflect a playful disposition. When activities have these properties, we often find them to be autotelic, and conducive to providing situations in which "flow", hypothesized to be the "fun" in play (Furlong, 1976), may be experienced. As well, it seems evident that play is not a superfluous part of life, but an inherent property, just as is love, beauty, knowledge, and art.

In a more recent analysis that attempts to bring the ideal in line with the reality, Roberts (1995) points out that the meaning of play is subject to the culture in which it is instantiated. He argues that because free time is more of a premium in present day society, we wish to maximize every spare minute. Consequently, "If we're playing, we better be achieving some recognizable results to justify the expenditure of time. … More and more, we see play in terms of yet another emollient that can be applied to the Self. We focus not on the play, but on the benefits play can provide us and we consciously play for them. We end up playing because we feel we should be playing. It is, ultimately, a doomed endeavor." Hence, one might surmise that the play element has been somewhat diminished today, and that, as we will see later in this chapter, has had an impact on the way sport is manifested.

How Does Play Relate to Games and Sport?

To understand how play relates to sport, one first needs to understand the meaning of the concept game, since all sports are instantiated in one form or another within a game. According to Loy ( 1968), a game is "... any form of playful competition whose outcome is determined by physical skill, strategy, or chance employed singly or in combination" (p.1). It is probably true that we could add effort to those factors which might determine outcome in games, since one may often overcome skill or strategy deficiencies by being persistent.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Vanderzwaag (1972), the critical property of game is rules. These define what may or may not be done to achieve the desired outcome. Rules also give an activity structure by specifying the spatial and temporal constraints under which opponents strive. In many instances rules can be unique since participants may create them, as in a "pick-up" basketball or softball games. Otherwise, in more formally structured games already codified rules are followed. Game rules are normally separate from those of everyday living. For example, they might restrict our movement patterns, such as in baseball where we must stay within the base path, or in chess, we can only move in accordance with the way pieces are permitted to advance and retreat. Furthermore, unlike in normal living, when the game ends, or a player quits, the rules no longer limit the individual’s behavior.

It has also been noted that in games rules make actions deliberately inefficient in order to create challenges (Guttmann, 1978). For example, in chess one is prevented from capturing an opponent's king by simply reaching across the board and taking it. This can only be done by utilizing one's pieces in a highly restrictive fashion. Likewise, in golf one does not get a low score by simply carrying the ball to the cup and dropping it in. One must strike the ball with a club. Similarly, in basketball a player is not permitted to carry the ball the length of the court, climb a ladder, and then place the ball through the hoop. The ball must be dribbled, and with the exception of the dunk, shot through the rim.

Taken together then, games are artificially created situations, defined by rules which are freely accepted, absolutely binding, and conceived in such a way as to make the attainment of ends deliberately inefficient. As well, luck often determines outcome. Individuals or teams then can strive to achieve a desired outcome by developing and utilizing skills, strategy, and/or endurance to overcome rule dictated limitations to action. Competitive games are appealing to many individuals because of the equality of conditions created and enforced throughout a contest to insure that outcome is determined by these factors, rather than by some prior inequality that may have existed in normal everyday living. In sport, unlike in many daily activities, it does not normally matter that one is rich, a member of a particular "racial" group, or socially privileged. The intent of the rules and standards of enforcement insure that the better performance will prevail. All that counts is that the basketball go through the hoop, the runner pass the finish line first, or the diver earn more points. In a society in which various types of advantages often determines a person's relative success, the notion of suspending the perquisites of privilege, and striving under equal conditions for a desired goal coincides quite well with the democratic values that our culture espouses.

Games may serve various additional functions in a culture. As suggested by Sutton-Smith (1968), the nature of games often reflect what a society values. For example, in hunting cultures games of physical skill predominate. In cultures where religion is perceived to be an important factor in overcoming survival uncertainties, games of chance are prominent. In societies characterized by advanced technology and large industrial-military complexes, games of strategy come to the fore. Many anecdotal accounts of the relationship between participation in games and real life behaviors seem to support the notion that games can provide opportunities to develop the skills, and internalize the values that a society holds dear. The statement that "the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton," incorrectly attributed to the Duke of Wellington, is one example of the perceived relationship between a society's games and its character (Underwood, 1981). The inference being made is that such game playing experiences instill in youth such valued qualities as competitiveness, discipline, loyalty, leadership, followership and perseverance which may be subsequently used in important, non-game situations.

As seen in Figure 3, Guttmann (1978) has illustrated the relationship between play and games. In this scheme, play may range from that which is spontaneous, typically found in the play of young children where few rules may exist to the more highly structured rule intensive types found in the more formal games of adolescents and adults. Furthermore, formal games may range from those which can be characterized as noncompetitive in nature, such as those typified by the "new games" movement, to those which are highly competitive. Finally, this framework breaks down competitive games further into those which are typically more cognitive in nature, such as chess or bridge, and those whose outcome is primarily a function of physical prowess, speed, strength and endurance, such as basketball. This latter category of game, is what we ordinarily refer to as sport (Loy,1968).

Figure 3. Guttman's Classification of Games.

While play is a more encompassing concept than sport, Schmitz (1972) believes that it is an essential element of sport. He argues that as is characteristic of play in general, sport is freely entered, has an uncertain outcome, and is separated from the "real" world by having a distinctive spatial configuration and a unique temporal structure. Furthermore, persons involved in various sports frequently report experiencing aspects of what Huizinga referred to as feelings of tension, joy and total involvement, more recently alluded to as "flow". In essence, because of an enduring set of formalized rules, games of sport give us opportunities to repeat the physical forms of play each of us find rewarding. Ideally, sport in its purest sense, provides us with opportunities to experience all of the laudable qualities we normally associate with play.

Nevertheless, what may be true for sport, is not necessarily true for athletics. This distinction may seem strange to some since the terms sport and athletics have become synonymous in everyday language, in newspapers, and on television. Understandably, the casual observer views sport and athletics similarly because their game structures appear identical. Yet, a more detailed analysis of these concepts will reveal that distinguishing between sport and athletics is not just an exercise in semantics, but important in helping us to understand why so much confusion exists regarding appropriate application of the sport/athletic ethics previously articulated. Along these lines Keating (1964, p. 28) has written:

... historically and etymologically, sport and athletics have characterized radically different types of human activity, different not so far as the game itself or the mechanics or rules are concerned, but different with regard to the attitude, preparation, and purpose of the participants... In essence, sport is a kind of diversion which has for its direct and immediate end, fun, pleasure and delight and which is dominated by a spirit of moderation and generosity. Athletics, on the other hand, is essentially a competition activity, which has for its end, victory in the contest and which is characterized by a spirit of dedication, sacrifice and intensity.

To illustrate Keating's position, one could employ Frost's poem once again, and propose the analogy that the woodcutter, is like the sportsman, more interested in the feelings, sensations, and perceptions of wood cutting in the pristine forest, than the efficiency or quantity of wood cut. On the other hand, the professional woodsmen would be closer to persons involved in athletics, where output and results are the focal point. Consequently, the approach each might take toward cutting wood might be expected to be dramatically different. With a process orientation, the protagonist in Frost's poem is simply out to delight himself. Thus, he may be a bit more selective in choosing which tree to cut, use more primitive tools to produce greater physical effort, and take the time to enjoy the sights, smells and sounds of the forest. The "athletic" woodcutter, on the other hand, would be more product oriented. Cutting the greatest amount of wood in the shortest time would be his intent. Conceivably, this individual would be more methodical, use heavier equipment, and possibly be under the direction of a supervisor whose job it is to achieve a targeted goal in a specified time period.

Vonnegut (Laughlin,1974), gives another interesting illustration which helps clarify the essential difference between sport and athletics in conveying the following anecdote (p. 179):

A friend of mine was a superjock at Yale, but in his senior year he quit the varsity ice-hockey team. He organized a hockey team where you had to have a beard to play. He challenged Rhode Island School of Design to a game, the two teams skated to the middle of the hockey rink carrying their jerseys. They made a big pile of them, then chose up sides. That was beautiful. These were friendly, cheerful people and they were doing amusing things. Their goal was to delight themselves, not to defeat each other.

In this example a healthy play element is evident. Clearly, the participants entered this activity without any form of coercion. Once entered, the role structure of the participants seemed flexible. There were no coaches controlling the action. Winning was not a major goal. As with the sportsman woodcutter, the process appeared to take precedence over the product. Such activity represents sport in its purest form.

Michener (1976) also recognized that sports differ from athletics when he pointed out that "big-time" college athletic programs are really not the same as the programs which are often used as justification for their existence. He believed that we should stop attributing all the alleged values of sports to "big-time" collegiate athletic programs, since their main purpose is to raise revenue, entertain spectators, and increase enrollment. In fact, he proposes that at the highest level of college athletics, teams should be professionalized, and athletes be allowed to earn more reasonable salaries than provided by scholarships. As well, he contended that participants in such programs should not be required to attend classes if they are not motivated to obtain an education. Nonetheless, he does contrast such athletic programs with those which are more participant focused in a hypothetical "Division IV" in which recreation would be a prime motivator, athletic scholarships would not be awarded, and no admission charged to spectators. Clearly, in such a scheme Michener is making an operational and conceptual distinction between athletic programs which are more consumer oriented, and sports programs which focus on the wants and needs of players.

Huizinga (1950), in discussing similar thoughts, but using the terms sport and athletics interchangeably, seems to have been on the same wavelength with Michener when he wrote (p. 198):

...The ability of modern social techniques to stage mass demonstrations with the maximum of outward show in the field of athletics does not alter the fact that neither the Olympiads nor organized sports of American Universities nor loudly trumpeted international contests have, in the simplest degree, raised sport to the level of a culture creating activity. However important it may be for the players or spectators, it remains sterile. The old play-factor has undergone almost complete atrophy.

Here, Huizinga, infers that to understand the role of play in our sport and athletic games one needs to go beyond an examination of overt structure and assess such things as the motivation for the event, and the temperament of participants. Seemingly, Huizinga was being critical of the degree to which participants have become restricted in exerting personal freedom. Indeed, today in the NFL virtually all plays are sent in from the sidelines, and athletes have little or no part in making decisions about tactics and strategy.

In an interesting paper on play, sport and athletics Schmitz (1979) further analyzes why he believes athletics are commonly associated with an attenuated play element. First, he argues that an over emphasis on winning deters playful expression, because such a focus tends to detach the last moment of a contest from the whole game. Accordingly, he believes that there is a tendency to devalue excellence and aesthetics of performance in favor of simply assessing who was victorious, regardless of how victory was achieved. If carried to the extreme, as many contests are, the game becomes merely a naked power struggle in which just about any means justifies the end. A cursory examination of "big-time" collegiate athletics is a testimony to Schmitz’s first argument. We have seen coaches running out onto the field in an attempt to injure an opposing player. We have read about many instances of athletes using illegal "performance enhancing" drugs. We have seen and heard a great deal about illegitimate recruiting practices, the doctoring of transcripts to make ineligible athletes eligible, and the general control coaches have exerted over an athlete’s life. Seemingly, the quest to be Number One outweighs the virtue of practicing ethical behavior in becoming Number One. When victory in the contest is prized so much, it is not difficult to understand why the play element has atrophied.

A second abuse viewed by Schmitz is an exaggerated emphasis on efficiency of technique. This would include pressuring individuals to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy seeking technical proficiency. At the extreme, this may lead to boredom, overuse injury, and a desire to drop-out. As noted by Schmitz, the line between a coach creating an environment in which individuals become self-motivated enough to practice for long hours, and one in which the individual feels tyrannical pressure to practice beyond his desire to do so is narrow. Yet, in the first instance the play element is healthy and continues to survive, while in the second it is corrupted. Again, within the athletic environment the threat to the play element involves issues of freedom and control. Pursuing excellence by working hard and having the final decision related to training protocol, is quite different than being required to work hard and employ a practice regimen that is dictated by a coach who can terminate one's scholarship.

The third assault to the play element in athletics conveyed by Schmitz, relates to spectators, money and professionalization. As noted by Harper and Huizinga the true player participates freely, not because he has agreed to deliver services for wages earned, must fulfill the obligations of a contract, or is attempting to attain social and economic objectives. While external motives for Schmitz are not unworthy ones, they tend to conflict with the play element, normally associated with intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivations. Spectators, especially those who pay to view a game, tend to perceive participants as objects who are paid to entertain and bring honor by winning, to the school, town or city which they represent. For those who pay to view athletic events it is probably not an exaggeration to propose that outcome takes precedence over player satisfaction, especially when athletes may be paid millions of dollars a year to perform. It is interesting to note that famed major league baseball manager, Tony LaRussa, ascribed to the following mantra: "... four important things in baseball, in order of importance, are: play hard, win, make money and have fun. The problems start when the third and fourth take precedence over the first and second" (Will, 1990, p. 49 ). Apparently, he is advocating a strong work ethic which proposes that task motivation should take priority over personal intrinsic rewards. Seemingly, if the play element were to be an important consideration in athletics, one might argue instead, that the first and fourth should take precedence over the second and third. When large sums of money are at stake, it is understandable that the importance of intrinsic rewards will be diminished, and the play element will be devalued.

To summarize, athletics differs from sport in the following ways: (a) spectators take on an overwhelming importance resulting in a much greater concern for winning, (b) teams are selected with greater care, (c) more attention is given to establishing and enforcing the rules, (d) more effort is devoted to standardize facilities and equipment, (e) more energy is expended analyzing and practicing skills and strategy, (f) more emphasis is placed on discipline, intensity of effort, and pursuing excellence, and (g) less attention is focused on such things as freedom of expression, experimentation, self-direction, and enjoyment. The continuum in Figure 4 graphically illustrates the range of activities which extend from being more sport-like to those possessing more athletic-like properties.

Figure 4. Hypothetical example of activities which range along the sport-athletic continuum.

The extent to which play is a part of games in which physical prowess is a predominant factor in determining outcome depends upon the structure and spirit in which the game occurs. When we examine the Superbowl it is difficult to perceive where the play element can be found. Such an event, which is highly outcome oriented, is characterized by intense preparation, little freedom by the athletes to make decisions, and an expectation for high exchange values (i.e., individuals are rewarded by money, and fame). Clearly, in the Superbowl spectators and fans are extremely important. In fact, the contest would not take place without them. Furthermore, there is little concern by anyone (i.e., coaches, fans, and participants) whether the individuals on the field are enjoying themselves. Some may, while others may not be having fun. Winning is the all encompassing goal!

On the other end of this continuum we find pick-up basketball, especially as played in suburbia (Carlston, 1986). This endeavor, in contrast to the Superbowl, has no dependence on spectators, is open to individuals with varying degrees of skill and requires little in the way of formal dedication or preparation. As well, participants often adjust rules to their preference or as a consequence of unique court conditions. Furthermore, players have total freedom to make decisions about the selection of team members, their assignments, and overall strategy. People generally participate in pick-up basketball because it is intrinsically rewarding to them, not because of direct exchange values they may receive. Surely, if the game did not possess the properties of play and provide enjoyment to participants, there would be no one who wished to be involved with the sport.

Activities falling toward the middle of this continuum possess a mixture of sport and athletic properties. For example, NCAA Division III Field Hockey normally has minimal spectator interest, but involvement requires a fair degree of skill, formal practice hours, a schedule of games, and direction from a coach. Winning is normally an important goal, but doing so in a manner in which participants learn from and enjoy the process of team membership should be of equal importance. No monetary exchange values are acquired by participants, but often status or popularity within the sport/athletic culture may be a sought after by-product of proficiency. Clearly, this activity is not as formalized or structured as that of the Superbowl, but it is also not as free flowing as the pick-up basketball games found in school yards, parks and YMCAs.

Ultimately, however, no definitive explanation of whether or not the play element exists in sport or athletic endeavors is sufficient without an understanding of a participant’s attitude toward the activity. Conceivably, it is possible that an individual engaged in what appears to be a very professionalized athletic event may exhibit playful attributes, while a person engaged in what typically might be classified as sport, exhibits an attitude more commonly associated with athletics. The structure of an activity may bias a participant’s approach to a particular enterprise, but in the end, he or she gives it meaning. As viewed in Figure 5, the extent to which the play element is alive would depend on where an individual fell on dimensions concerned with control and reward (for a more in depth analysis see Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 1987). When an individual perceives herself to determine with whom she participates, when she participates, and her role in participating, and engages in an activity because of the intrinsic rewards derived it is likely that conditions are favorable for a healthy play element (i. e., HP) to exist. When an individual perceives outside controls to be high, and their motivation for engaging in the activity to be a result of external rewards to be acquired, one would assume that conditions would reinforce a weak play element (WP). Consequently, just as children who engage in relatively low organization physical activities are playing, persons engaged in professional athletics who have achieved great stature and wealth may revert to play, since they typically have greater power to determine their roles. As well, they have already acquired money and fame, and can thus focus on the intrinsic rewards associated with involvement. Over the years, many prominent performers have conveyed their need to go beyond the limitations imposed by highly professionalized athletics to attain the satisfaction associated with play. Some are given this opportunity (e.g., Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson) and transform their sports, while others are traded or retire. Consequently, the play element would be expected to be much more prevalent in sport, but may be found in our most professionalized athletics.

Figure 5. A Hypothetical Scheme for Determining the Degree to which an Individual Experiences Play in an Activity.

From this analysis, I believe that it is justifiable to conclude that sport and athletics are not inherently good or evil, but simply different types of endeavors. Athletics have as an end winning, the creation of records, or the conquest of the environment (e.g., climbing a mountain). Such outcomes are typically achieved by dedication, long hours of practice, self-sacrifice, and often, near dictatorial direction from a coach or leader. While it is debatable as to what degree the play factor may permeate athletic activities, play is not the primary goal of athletics. The primary rewards associated with participation in athletics comes from competency feedback, and such things as money and status. When the point of a game can be so characterized, participants are engaged in athletics, and an appropriate ethic might be one which focuses on winning. The prototypical athletic ethic in the United States, attributed to Vince Lombardi "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing", comes closer to typifying athletics than it does sport. As noted by Scott (1974), this ethic, regardless of how one might feel about its single minded product orientation, "...has guided those who live by it to some of the highest levels of athletic excellence known ... (p156)."

When we turn to sports, as discussed, we find that process takes precedence over product, and that the major rewards are intrinsic in nature. Participants should be freer to decide with whom they play, when they play, how long they play, and with what tactics and strategy they play. While the Lenoardian ethic "Winning isn't everything, it's nothing" may anchor the sport's end of the sport-athletic continuum, it is probably too extreme an ethic for us to follow for most of the activities which could be categorized as sport in the United States today. Winning does play a part in such games as pick-up basketball and intramural frisbee, but other elements are of greater importance. In sport process oriented goals including such things as promoting play, providing equality in participation, encouraging social affiliation, developing physical fitness, and cultivating skill acquisition are the major objectives. Consequently, one can see that the ethic associated with sport, in many ways, is much more difficult to operationalize than that associated with athletics because of the complexity of balancing emphases on both product and process.

For the volunteer, as well as the professional coach, the distinctions between sport and athletics are essential since our society views participation in physical activities as important from both psychological and physical health perspectives (Sallis, & McKenzie, 1991). When we confuse the two activities by promoting a sport's ethic in an athletic environment, or more likely, and athletic ethic in a sport's environment, it is inevitable that we will have many frustrated participants who ultimately drop-out. On the other hand, the analysis of play, games, sport and athletics articulated in this chapter will, hopefully, provide a richer understanding of our culture's physical games and ultimately lead to a more coherent match between a program's goals and its participant's objectives.

Bannister, R. (1957). The four minute mile. NY: Dodd, Mead.

Boyle, R. (1963). Sport - mirror of american life. Boston: Little, Brown.

Carlston, D. (1986). An environmental explanation for race differences in basketball performance. In R. Lapchick (Ed.), Fractured focus: sport as a reflection of society. MA: Lexington Books.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. NY: Plenum.

Esposito, J. (1979). Play and possibility. In E. Gerber and W. Morgan (Eds.), Sport and the body. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Ewing, M., & Seefeldt, V. (1988). American youth and sports participation. Athletic Footwear Report, 1-8.

Fink, E. (1960). The ontology of play. In E. Gerber and W. Morgan (Eds.), Sport and the body: A Philosophical Symposium, 73 - 83.

Frost, R. (1936). Two tramps in mud time or, a full-time interest. In M. Mack, L. Dean, and W. Frost (Eds.) Modern poetry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961, pps. 125-126.

Furlong, W. (1976). The fun in fun. Psychology Today, June, pps. 35-36, 38, 80.

Gallwey, T. (1974). The inner game of tennis. New York: Random House.

Gilbert, B. (1975). Play. Sports Illustrated, Sept. 13, 86-87, 89-90, 92, 94, 96, 98.

Guttmann, A. (1978). From ritual to record. NY: Columbia University Press. pps. 1-14.

Harris, J. (1980). Play: A Definition and implied interrelationships with culture and sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 46-61.

Herrigel, Eugen. (1953). Zen in the art of archery. NY: Vintage Books.

Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon.

Jackson, Susan A., & Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1999). Flow in sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Keating, J. (1964). Sportsmanship as a moral category. Ethics, LXXV, 1:25-35.

Laughlin, N. (1974). Existentialism, education and sport. In G. McGlynn (Ed.), Issues in physical education and sports. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, pps. 169-180.

Leonard, G. (1975). The ultimate athlete. NY: Viking.

Loy, J. (1968). The nature of sport: a definitional effort. Quest, X, 1-15.

Marano, Hara (1999, August 1). The Power of Play. Psychology Today, 32, 36-40,68.

Michener, J. (1976). Sports in America. Greenwich, CN: Fawcett Crest.

Sallis, J., & McKenzie, T. (1991). Physical education's role in public health. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62 (2), 124-137.

Schiller, F. (1875). Essays, aesthetical and philosophical. London: Bell & Sons.

Schmidtz, K. (1979). Sport and play: suspension of the ordinary. In E. Gerber and W. Morgan (Eds.), Sport and the body. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Scott, J. (1974). Sport and the radical ethic. In G. McGlynn (Ed.), Issues in physical education and sports. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, pps. 155-162.

Smith, A. (1985). Sport is a western Yoga. In D. Vanderwerken and S.Wertz . Sport inside and out. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, pps. 63-78.

Roberts, Paul. (1995, July 17). Goofing off. Psychology Today, 28, pp. 34(8).

Stone, G. (1972). Games, sport & power. NJ: TransAction Books.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1968-May). Games-play-daydreams. Quest, X, 49-50.

Terr, Lenore. (1999). Beyond love and work : why adults need to play. New York, NY : Scribner.

Underwood, J. (1981, February). A game plan for America. Sports Illustrated, 64-80.

Underwood, J. (1975, November). Taking the fun out of a game. Sports Illustrated, 87-90, 92, 95-96, 98.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1997 (112^th Edition). Washington, DC.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1997 (117th Edition). Washington, DC.

Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Intrinsic Motivation in sport. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 15, 389-425.

Vanderzwaag, H. (1972). Toward a philosophy of sport. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Weiss, P. (1969). Sport: a philosophic inquiry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.

Wideman, John Edgar. (2001). Hoop roots. NY: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Wenz, P. (1985). Human equality in sports. In D. Vanderwerken & S. Wertz (Eds), Sport inside out. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, pps. 208- 221.

Will, G. (1990). Men at work. NY: HarperCollins, Publishers.