sports has become an area
where some feel that the violent acts such as the hitting and fighting that
occurs should be eliminated.
You can not change something that has been around for so long because it
would change the aspect of the
game to something completely different. The elimination of violence should
not be done in sport because
the violence is a part of the game which would only hurt its popularity.
The reasons that the violence is occurring in sport is due to six
theories according to John
Schneider. "The violence in sport mirrors the violence found in society,
violence as the result of
economic incentives, the influence of crowd behavior on player violence,
genetic causation for player
aggression, learning theory and player aggression, and psychological stress
and player violence"
The theories of sport mirroring society, violence as a result of
economic incentive, and the
influence of the crowd behavior are the theories that I feel are responsible
for the increasing violence
in sports. Most people when involved in a highly stressful situation where
violence is around would
probably resort to a fight to resolve their differences. In sport, why
should we expect any difference.
In events such as hockey games, where people are expected to hit and make
body contact, sooner or later a
fight will break out and the fans will yell and scream for their favorite
player involved. Like
anything, if people around us are applauding us for a certain act we have
done, we will try to do it over
so that we will continue to be praised. In sports, there are some players
whose only role on the team is
to protect and enforce the unwritten rules of the game such as in hockey
where it is not right to fight
or hit a Wayne Gretezy or Mario Lemieux type of star player!
. His economic incentive is to protect the team and if he does not, a new
line of work might be in the
future. All three of those theories relate closely to the role of the
fighter in sport and why it is
that he does commit the acts of violence.
When leagues such as the National Football League (NFL) or the
National Hockey League (NHL) are
asked to try and remove the violence from their sport, they are hesitant
because it is not what the fans
want. "Bryant and Zillman report that television viewers enjoy NFL plays
more when they are rough and
violent" (McPherson 294).
Why should these leagues remove the violence that is occurring if
they are making money and
keeping people employed. The fans of the games want to see these situations
and eliminating the fighting
aspect would hurt the support. When I watch a hockey game or any other
sporting event with contact,
there is nothing better than seeing a good fight take place. "One of the
best-selling videos in parts of
the Northeastern United States has been a collection of the best fights in
the NHL" (McPherson 294).
Even former NHL president Clarence Campbell felt that the violence
taking place in his sport was
called for and was reluctant to remove the fighting and the body contact
because he knew that it is what
the majority of hockey fans want.
Fighting is a well-established safety valve for players. If violence ceases
to exist, it will not be
the same game. Insofar as fighting is part of the show, we certainly sell
it. We do not promote it.
We tolerate it and we bring it under disciplinary control which we believe
satisfies the public (Snyder
Its better that the violence take place between two willing
combatants such as in sports than in
a situation involving spousal abuse...