Football is about fraternity
Pope Benedict told us. And he is right. But it's not just that. If we're honest, it's also about competition. Big-time.
The current trend to attempt to remove all forms of rivalry and competition from the lives of our children is highly irresponsible and smacks of 'hippy gone wrong'.
The trend doesn't just apply to football, of course, although the Pope's latest missive inspired me to finally tackle the topic. Children nowadays are being taught – at schools, playgrounds, nursery clubs and everywhere – that competition is an evil thing.
We are all winners, children are blightly taught. Erm. No we are most certainly not. And if you're going to teach your kids that no matter what the standard of their performance – whether related to sport or academia - they're winners, well all I can say is that you're setting them up for a very bad fall indeed.
Reality is that life is based on competition. Charles Darwin didn't coin the term 'survival of the fittest' on a whim. He coined it because only the thicker-skinned of whichever species go far in life. The rest, if they're not on top of the food-chain, go extinct.
Humans don't go extinct (as yet) so they'll simply fall by the wayside to lead a mundane life – or a struggling existence if they're unlucky.
Of course, in no way am I advocating the kind of ruthless competition that overrides all common sense and civilised behaviour. The term 'healthy competition' might be a cliché, but it works well to illustrate my point.
When you have teachers and parents encouraging the idea that it's irrelevant how well or otherwise you do in a particular game, sport of subject, as long as you 'do your best', the message that children take is one: I don't really need to make much of an effort.
Which leads us neatly to the "anything goes" attitude which is bred of the "taking part is more important than winning" philosophy. Seriously, whoever came up with this last phrase deserves a good slapping.
Of course winning is important.
But no. Today we have school-kids getting gold stars, medals, awards and praise for having simply "taken part". Just wait until they implement this attitude at future job interviews, academic exams and the like.
No gold stars for guessing that they'll be rather teed off at all those who misled them into thinking a poor performance is okay too.
"There is no second place. There are only winners and losers."
I have no clue who came up with this one, but they definitely get the gold star from me.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Carmel Vella
Jun 19th 2012, 04:25
Once football is played past secondary school , it's no longer a sport, it's all about money, advertising etc. The only pure in sports are the children playing locally with a makeshift goal post, and wearing cheap sports shoes, outside schools. The children know who wins and who LOSES, and they are all well known to each other. They are local friends.
That's sports, that then makes you want to be better next time, so you YOU can WIN.
Hugh O Neill
Jun 12th 2012, 01:51
Competition in football for young kids becomes absurd. They should be developing skills and not competing against each other in leagues until 11or12. I think this is becoming clear in the UK at long last. I used to coach minor soccer in North America.Many of the kids among the Peewees and Sqirts would barely see the ball for the duration of the game. It would have been more beneficial had they played in small groups eg 5 a side until 11 or 12 years old.
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jun 10th 2012, 22:35
The communist mentality in Europe took over. No wonder the Chinese are taking over all over the world. They use common sense. Few will actually be successful in life. Others will just get a decent job and a good number of others will fail.
Daniel Buttigieg
Jun 8th 2012, 19:43
agree 100% ... unfortunately that kind of thinking is what is leading to a mediocre generation, who believe that everything should be handed down to them.
Patrik Larsson
Jun 8th 2012, 16:35
"Reality is that life is based on competition. Charles Darwin didn't coin the term 'survival of the fittest' on a whim. He coined it because only the thicker-skinned of whichever species go far in life. The rest, if they're not on top of the food-chain, go extinct."
To be precise, he didn't coin it at all. Herbert Spencer did.
Also, a very poor example of natural selection. "Fittest" does not mean strongest, toughest or fiercest - it simply means best adapted to its environment.
I suppose it's not exactly the centre of your argument, but worth pointing out.
Albert Farrugia
Jun 8th 2012, 16:15
By your reasoning Malta should just as well abandon taking part in any competition because we are never victorious. Yes, we are not all born with the same abilities, and circumstance. Based on good or bad luck some people are born in advantageous positions, while others have had many disadvantages because of which they could not advance. Education should be about bringing the best out of kids, according to their ability, and giving them the chance to find where their chance of fulfilment lies. And teaching them to be good losers when that moment comes.
Victor Rodenas
Jun 8th 2012, 11:54
In a race there is only one winner,...if you come second,....you are the first of the losers.The only people who say that taking part is enough are the losers.Big countries like the USA etc go to the Olympics to win the highest amount of medals possible,some even try to cheat to do so.Look at football and see what happens....many times matches are fixed and still they rejoice because they `won`,.....imsieken.It is very easy to bury your head in the sand and see nothing,.....`we won`,...........sounds good,but many times it stinks.
Please choose the reason of your report below: