The so called spot fixing scandals becoming breaking news each day in all news channels are appalling to many, but whenever I think about the fundamental basis on which an action like fixing of a spot in a match or a session or a complete match is considered wrong, I find that it is hardly a strong one to justify putting someone behind bars or banning to play for life. If you look at it in many logical and practical ways, it is not even wrong, and takes place in many other professional and personal contexts where we don't complain and consider it totally fine. Here are a few arguments to substantiate my point.
Does one always play to win? - Consider this: The underlying assumption in every sports-viewer's mind is that each of the players in both teams is giving his/her best in all ways possible to make his/her team win. I find it absurd that one must consider this implicit even in the conventionally cleanest of the games. While drawing from what Adam Smith said long back, if each player plays best for himself/herself, the team as a whole does best, with survival of the fittest players in the team. However, the best of the players individually may not be good team-players, for example mutual rivalry between some can harm the team and even lead to losing overall. But again applying the Adam Smith logic to teams, the teams that would survive, will be those that have the best combination of talented players, individual efforts, team efforts and whatever it takes for a team to win or survive in a competitive environment where limited resources will allow only a certain number of teams to exist and participate in the show. The simple postulate of modern economics and the science of evolution leads to unimaginable complexity as it applies to each level and layer, of which I mentioned only 2. But there is a basic flaw in the way we would ideally apply it to sports in the contemporary world and therefore assuming that each player up there is doing what is in the best interests of his/her career, his/her team and the sport he/she's part of. The flaw is in our understanding of the ultimate goal of the entire system. Sports at professional levels are not played for self-actualization or pleasure. They are played to make money. And if winning or playing well does not necessarily make as much money, then although the postulate of economics and evolution stands true, the operating model at each layer to reach the actual eventual goal is different from what we assume it to be. Now let us apply the postulate to the revised goal - a player who does his/her best in earning money through ways and means available to him/her (which may also include playing well) and also does things collectively with other players in the team, which help the team stay in a competitive position vis-a-vis other teams, such player succeeds. Now with the revision of the ultimate goal, it is impossible that players in a match are all playing to make their team win. Overall, they may be boosting the earnings of their team in the process of boosting their own. But with externalities like fixing money on offer very easily, the players do not necessarily earn best if the team goes on winning. And since the matches don't happen on another planet, externalities will come into play in whatever manner possible, coz they have their incentives too.
Then why do we blame these players for indulging in something that is in line with their professional goals? Just coz it is not in line with our foolish assumptions, which interestingly are so sticky, that I find it amusing how irrational we are in our thought processes. And this is true especially of sports, coz somehow we are not able to digest that this could be so rampant, while the same sort of fixing happens in the so called Reality Shows, and we don't complain, although it is much more understood there to all of us, and we even enjoy the spice that it adds.
One can argue that Fixing of matches is illegal, and therefore it is wrong. But again, legality of an action is based on where it stands vis-a-vis expected and accepted behavior. But if our expectations are foolish, why should law not be fixed by some wise individuals, who are supposed to have better understanding of right and wrong. But then, we are democratic on the surface and hard nuts on the inside - in other words screwed at both levels, coz we are eventually humans - and we are like that only :). An amazing fact is that we can fool ourselves by feeling real emotions by watching movies where people pretend and lie, i.e., act, and create situations that don't exist and may never possibly exist. Can we sue an Ekta Kapoor for bombarding a considerable chunk of educated Indian population with unrealistic family dramas full of lies, politics, murders, and also love and beauty, in the name Indian culture by manipulating the minds of innocent individuals in the way they perceive the world? Or should we sue Steven Spielberg for making a movie with Dinosaurs! We don't - coz we enjoy fiction and wild imagination. That's human. But we do try to draw a line by calling something too outrageous even for us to see, coz we do acknowledge that our minds are vulnerable.
But the case with sports is different. And I am surprised it is not the same with Reality Shows. We get entertained by matches because of the uncertainty of the outcome and the inherent action during the course of the match. The reason we are put off by fixing is that it sucks to know that the outcome of the match and even some of the events during the match we saw had been decided beforehand by someone, the element of reality in the action that stunned and inspired us may have been enacted, and it was all possibly a drama. We do enjoy movies, though, especially when we don't know the outcome. But with sports, our expectations are different. We expect universal uncertainty and genuine human effort, coz finally those are the very entertaining elements of sports. While for movies, it is much wider - the experience of emotions, the small bits that we relate to, the artistic appreciation, sexual appeal and the climax, which does not have to be uncertain to be likeable, but should rather appeal to our dreams or desires or sense of right-wrong or hormones or something else, coz there are many movies we can watch hundreds of times and like every time. I guess that's why they make reality shows so bitchy and sexy, so that we don't complain of fixing and just enjoy the show. In many ways IPL has tried to become like that and is becoming better at it. But it needs more masala to be a hit reality show, for people to look at it like one and also enjoy it like that. In parallel, views need to change, law needs to fix itself, some cleanup definitely needs to happen, and Arnab Goswami needs to calm down :). But then, he works for money too, and this is what earns him best these days! Consider this - when corruption is a hot topic, news channels gain if more and more leaders are corrupt and if they are able to break bigger and bigger scandals. Possibly some of them fix people too - reminds me of Zee News vs Naveen Jindal case.
We a kewl bunch of fewls!!!
Does one always play to win? - Consider this: The underlying assumption in every sports-viewer's mind is that each of the players in both teams is giving his/her best in all ways possible to make his/her team win. I find it absurd that one must consider this implicit even in the conventionally cleanest of the games. While drawing from what Adam Smith said long back, if each player plays best for himself/herself, the team as a whole does best, with survival of the fittest players in the team. However, the best of the players individually may not be good team-players, for example mutual rivalry between some can harm the team and even lead to losing overall. But again applying the Adam Smith logic to teams, the teams that would survive, will be those that have the best combination of talented players, individual efforts, team efforts and whatever it takes for a team to win or survive in a competitive environment where limited resources will allow only a certain number of teams to exist and participate in the show. The simple postulate of modern economics and the science of evolution leads to unimaginable complexity as it applies to each level and layer, of which I mentioned only 2. But there is a basic flaw in the way we would ideally apply it to sports in the contemporary world and therefore assuming that each player up there is doing what is in the best interests of his/her career, his/her team and the sport he/she's part of. The flaw is in our understanding of the ultimate goal of the entire system. Sports at professional levels are not played for self-actualization or pleasure. They are played to make money. And if winning or playing well does not necessarily make as much money, then although the postulate of economics and evolution stands true, the operating model at each layer to reach the actual eventual goal is different from what we assume it to be. Now let us apply the postulate to the revised goal - a player who does his/her best in earning money through ways and means available to him/her (which may also include playing well) and also does things collectively with other players in the team, which help the team stay in a competitive position vis-a-vis other teams, such player succeeds. Now with the revision of the ultimate goal, it is impossible that players in a match are all playing to make their team win. Overall, they may be boosting the earnings of their team in the process of boosting their own. But with externalities like fixing money on offer very easily, the players do not necessarily earn best if the team goes on winning. And since the matches don't happen on another planet, externalities will come into play in whatever manner possible, coz they have their incentives too.
Then why do we blame these players for indulging in something that is in line with their professional goals? Just coz it is not in line with our foolish assumptions, which interestingly are so sticky, that I find it amusing how irrational we are in our thought processes. And this is true especially of sports, coz somehow we are not able to digest that this could be so rampant, while the same sort of fixing happens in the so called Reality Shows, and we don't complain, although it is much more understood there to all of us, and we even enjoy the spice that it adds.
One can argue that Fixing of matches is illegal, and therefore it is wrong. But again, legality of an action is based on where it stands vis-a-vis expected and accepted behavior. But if our expectations are foolish, why should law not be fixed by some wise individuals, who are supposed to have better understanding of right and wrong. But then, we are democratic on the surface and hard nuts on the inside - in other words screwed at both levels, coz we are eventually humans - and we are like that only :). An amazing fact is that we can fool ourselves by feeling real emotions by watching movies where people pretend and lie, i.e., act, and create situations that don't exist and may never possibly exist. Can we sue an Ekta Kapoor for bombarding a considerable chunk of educated Indian population with unrealistic family dramas full of lies, politics, murders, and also love and beauty, in the name Indian culture by manipulating the minds of innocent individuals in the way they perceive the world? Or should we sue Steven Spielberg for making a movie with Dinosaurs! We don't - coz we enjoy fiction and wild imagination. That's human. But we do try to draw a line by calling something too outrageous even for us to see, coz we do acknowledge that our minds are vulnerable.
But the case with sports is different. And I am surprised it is not the same with Reality Shows. We get entertained by matches because of the uncertainty of the outcome and the inherent action during the course of the match. The reason we are put off by fixing is that it sucks to know that the outcome of the match and even some of the events during the match we saw had been decided beforehand by someone, the element of reality in the action that stunned and inspired us may have been enacted, and it was all possibly a drama. We do enjoy movies, though, especially when we don't know the outcome. But with sports, our expectations are different. We expect universal uncertainty and genuine human effort, coz finally those are the very entertaining elements of sports. While for movies, it is much wider - the experience of emotions, the small bits that we relate to, the artistic appreciation, sexual appeal and the climax, which does not have to be uncertain to be likeable, but should rather appeal to our dreams or desires or sense of right-wrong or hormones or something else, coz there are many movies we can watch hundreds of times and like every time. I guess that's why they make reality shows so bitchy and sexy, so that we don't complain of fixing and just enjoy the show. In many ways IPL has tried to become like that and is becoming better at it. But it needs more masala to be a hit reality show, for people to look at it like one and also enjoy it like that. In parallel, views need to change, law needs to fix itself, some cleanup definitely needs to happen, and Arnab Goswami needs to calm down :). But then, he works for money too, and this is what earns him best these days! Consider this - when corruption is a hot topic, news channels gain if more and more leaders are corrupt and if they are able to break bigger and bigger scandals. Possibly some of them fix people too - reminds me of Zee News vs Naveen Jindal case.
We a kewl bunch of fewls!!!
