The world of soccer has been shocked and rocked this week by the announcement of the proposed European Super League in which twelve self-proclaimed elite clubs would have automatic playing status every year in a league of their own making which would have no promotion or relegation. Within forty-eight hours, following mass protests by fans of clubs, including those of clubs who were included in the new league, as well as threats from governing bodies and indeed governments, the nine of the clubs withdrew from the League – as if anyone who follows soccer did not know!
On the surface it would appear that the uproar had its roots in the very concept of competition. On the one side, those wealthy soccer clubs that had met for a long time to plan their own super league did so out of a financially competitive edge, to earn more money than others. It was the chairmen and owners who had the discussions, not the managers, the players or the fans; it was the people who ran the clubs as businesses who were driving the plan, not even consulting those who would be affected by their decisions. It was for their own self-interest; they wanted to make money. In other words, they wanted to beat their opposition by becoming richer. They certainly showed their competitive spirit.
Interestingly, though, they did not want the league to be competitive, in that they would not be relegated, so that they could all continue to plunder the riches presumably to be found in global television rights. The same clubs would play each other every season, without any fear of missing out in the future. It would not matter whether the teams finished first or last, their future position at the perceived top table would be guaranteed. Whatever the results, they would all still benefit.
On the other side of the coin were the players, managers and fans who recognised that what really motivated the players, what really kept the interest of people in the leagues, what really inspired everyone to survive and to thrive was the need for competition. There had to be promotion and relegation to and from leagues; even those who are about to be relegated saw the value, need and desire for that. It was felt that such competitive instincts were what are required for players to develop, for teams to succeed, for managers to grow. They had their competitive instincts.
Yet, interestingly too, this group of people also showed they did not want there to be competition; they did not want a super league to rival the existing leagues. This new proposed super league was introduced as a competitor to the existing structures but the fans wanted the status quo to remain.
When others came in and tried to beat them with a new idea, they cried foul, they complained bitterly – they seemed to be against the very thing they liked, that being competition.
Of course, there will be others who will argue that this whole scenario actually has little to do with competition but much more about money and control; people did not like the plans being made by the existing rule-makers so they wanted to bring their own one in which would enable them to profit much more. The fact is, though, that both competition and control are about self-interest. To be competitive, people will argue, a player must be selfish, self-centred.
So what has this to do with school sport? On one level, it has nothing to do with school sport. Yes, youngsters learn to play inter-school and inter-house fixtures to help them learn how to be competitive; the world is competitive and people need to know how to handle that. That is agreed. However, school sport is not about money, about financial gain. The purpose of school sport is not actually the winning but the learning (it is school sport and school is all about learning; so is sport). Furthermore, the personnel in school sport changes every year or two so it is not about training up a winning team that will be around for years. Pupils come and go. Lastly, the whole point of school sport is to find opposition that will create suitable learning opportunities for the pupils. There is no need for leagues in schools; children can learn to be competitive by playing a match at a time.
Above all, the whole incident should remind us that competition is good, there is a place for it, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all; we need to teach children to be other-centred, not self-centred. That way they will win – and do will sport.
