The meaning of sport

A few readers have written to me in response to my comments about close racing - why its not the answer.

I love close racing as much as the next man. How dull would last years MotoGP have been without the super close dice between Rossi and Stoner at Laguna. A scrap that ultimately decided the world championship.

My argument is based primarily on the observation that the decision makers in MotoGP seem to think that's why we love MotoGP, and whats needed to build the audience, bring in the advertisers and sponsors, and make it all commercially more successful.

Which brings us to the blue sky meaning of sport question.

On this point I found myself agreeing with Simon Barnes, the chief sportswriter for the times and his book of the same name.

Sport is theatre, its entertainment. And the reason it's entertaining is because it matters, not because its close, nip n tuck, result unknown til the final turn. When that happens its an added bonus.

Take F1 as an example. Often cited as boring, it remains one of the biggest draws with fans, and therefore advertisers and sponsors, the world over. Simply because its really important who wins. The 2008 championship couldnt have been closer, going down to the last lap and the last corner. But its the result that matters, not the manner of it.

We all "know", or at least most people would regard, the F1 champion as the best driver in the world bar none. An icon of greatness up there with the heavyweight boxing champ and the Olympic 100m winner.

Examples are everywhere - and not always at the pinnacle of a particular sport. The Ashes in Cricket for example. Its not the World Cup, it's often been totally one sided, but its the biggest thing in Cricket because its the series that matters most. Somehow we instinctively know (or because the players tell us) that for players involved it is the one they want to win most. It defines careers, it's the motivation behind the endless training and practice. The big one. And that makes it matter. That makes it entertaining.

If we think about it - is this not the same reason we all often end up rooting for the underdog? It seems to matter more to them than the favourite. Is that not why fans seemed to love Schwantz more then Rainey? The wild celebrations, standing on the footpegs waving his arms like crazy being evidence for those who didn't know better that it meant more to him than Mr Cool??



So in simple terms, the adverts for MotoGP, the selling point, is not "close racing guaranteed or we change the rules" it is the fact that it's the most important race in the world.

This is my worry. Continually focusing on tweaking rules, moving further away from the historic and established purpose of pure prototype grand prix bike racing is slowly eroding the reasons why MotoGP matters.

And we will be left with the cricket equivalent of 20-20. Closely fought out slugfests. Boring because the results don't really matter or mean anything. Cricket for people that don't actually like Cricket.