Nostr Web Client

Calling it a sport is disrespectful to the consensual nature of sports. Sports don’t tax you to run their businesses or force you to engage with them.

But I get your point.

Coach Z 5mo ago 💬 1

imo there is a clear distinction between a sport and the sport business.

sports we play for the sake of playing are what you are referring to. sports for the love of the game!

sports played competitively to make a living DO tax you to run their business and force you to engage with them.

novak djokovic wasn’t allowed to play in the Australian Open because he refused to take the jab 4 years ago.

do you think NFL QBs are freedom maximalists or do you think they must adhere to whatever the team owners and by proxy NFL execs require to adhere to? 😂

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

MAHDOOD 5mo ago 💬 1

They have to follow the rules of the contract they signed but they’re not forced to sign that contract

Coach Z 5mo ago 💬 1

Sorry man, I didn’t mean to spark up a debate. My intention was to add more perspective to your conversation using an analogy (imperfect yes, but still accurate). It seems like you’re looking to discredit the analogy.

And by the way, in sports the consensus rules are the rules of the game (field size, ball size, penalties, scoring system)…

The contract you sign when you join a league or a team within a league is more policy rules than consensus. example: what to say and not to say at a press conference…

MAHDOOD 5mo ago

Don’t apologize. We’ve both been respectful it’s all good haha

You’re completely right about everything. I’m just trying to emphasize the one difference is that you’re not forced to play in the NFL for example. You can play in the XFL. Or you can play a different sport. The government forces you to play whatever bs games and follow their retarded rules. You get me?

Nic ⛄ 5mo ago 💬 1

I'm with you when it comes to professional sports teams forcing public engagement, especially when they take government funding to build new stadiums.

By accepting taxpayer money, they’re effectively taxing the population without consent, which amounts to coercing us into supporting them (forced engagement).

However, I think I see the last point differently. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who works for someone else is unfree because they have to follow their employer’s rules. But doesn’t that overlook the employee’s choice in the matter? If someone voluntarily chooses to work for an employer and accepts the terms, isn’t that an exercise of freedom?

No one is forcing the quarterback to play in the league or for the team they signed with.

Novak Djokovic wasn’t forced to compete in the tournament, he simply said no, exercising his freedom to choose.

Coach Z 5mo ago 💬 1

i hear you!

think the whole point of the sports analogy is that: the leaders of the “show” do whatever suits them at the end, doesnt really matter who you and I cheer for - at the end of the day the time we spent trying to convince each other which side is the better side, the owners enjoy the profits of the show (politics & nations at war, sports & rivalries)

MAHDOOD 5mo ago

All good points. I will add that the players have power in the dynamic though. It’s not just the owners with power. This is why the league continues to change. For example, the NFL has made a large effort to reduce the number of head injuries in the sport. This is better for the players and the league in general. The incentives align. So although it isn’t perfect, the league typically tends to improve for everyone involved.