An Anti-Purist Manifesto

This blog should really be sub-titled ‘The Anti-Purist’. Over the last few years, having observed debates about unlimited interchange in the AFL and NRL, about the rise of such formats as rugby sevens and T20 cricket, about the entry of the Red Bull-backed club RB Leipzig into the Bundesliga, and about doping and sports science, I have come to realise the limitations of the ‘purist’ view of sport.

When I speak of ‘purism’, I have four things in mind. First, the purist believes that his sport is – or should be – dominated by players and teams with better ‘skills’ than their opponents. The AFL purist bemoans the recruitment of “athletes over footballers”; the rugby union purist disparages modern players as “gym junkies”. Tactics, training, and sports science are anathema to the purist.

Second, the purist is generally opposed to technological innovation in his chosen sport. This can include players’ equipment (such as meatier cricket bats, graphite tennis racquets, or lacrosse sticks with pinched heads), the playing arena itself (in the case of artificial turf or better-prepared cricket pitches), or the use of video referees.

Third, the purist is nationalistic about his sport, crying foul at innovations that appear to make it more like another sport. Examples: the cricket purist thinks T20 is too much like baseball; the rugby purist thinks any lessening of the contest for possession makes union more like league; the netball purist opposes two-point goals as making the game too much like basketball; the soccer purist opposes anything they see as pandering to American TV dollars, i.e. pretty much any change to their sport.

Fourth, the purist is the defender of the interests of the ‘fans’, a term usually referring only to those who watch the game in the stands. Night-time or day-night matches, sponsor-named stadia and trophies, technicolour uniforms, relocation, expansion, and innovative competition formats are all opposed and taken as evidence that the relevant league or governing body is conspiring against the ‘fans’.

In contrast, I intend to use this blog as a platform to present what I call the ‘modernist’ view of sport. The modernist welcomes the deployment of tactics, training methods, and sports science – some, including this blog, would legalise doping as merely another frontier of sports science. The modernist sees the positive effects of technology and hails the cross-pollination of ideas and personnel between sports. The modernist also takes a multi-stakeholder view of sport, realising that players, sponsors, broadcasters, betting companies, and equipment and apparel manufacturers have legitimate interests in the governance of sport, as opposed to the fan-centric stance of the purist.

Where the purist is antediluvian, the modernist is Whiggish: better-conditioned players, more even playing surfaces, better equipment, warmer temperatures, new revenue streams, and a global market for players’ services have produced the best sport ever played. And things will only get better.

These ideas will be fleshed out further and will, hopefully, form a coherent worldview for this blog.