[mrdct]

From reading the "suit up" discussion on bridgewinners, it seems that the WBF are having another push at getting wider recognition of bridge as a sport. It was interesting to note quite a few of the superstars that posted to the discussion saying that bridge is a game, not a sport, which got me thinking about whether or not anyone really should care about how bridge is perceived by the general population.

I can think of a number of advantages for bridge to be treated as a sport, not the least of which is better access to government funding which is most definately the case in my country. But there are also some downsides such as drug testing (although some may argue that's an upside) and expensive uniform requirements for small NBOs and self-funded representative players.

What do people think?

[the hog]

It is not a sport, Dave, regardless of the funding advantages of being declared as such.

[blackshoe]

Read the first paragraph of this.

[1eyedjack]

Language evolves. Not so long ago there were only three sports: hunting, shooting and fishing. It seems archaic that financial breaks should hinge on whether physical activity is involved when that is the only distinguishing feature between activities which otherwise have in common far more significant characteristics that motivate the participants (and the flow of funds resulting) such as organised competition. Walk into a dedicate bridge club house and it will look not dissimilar to a golf club house; Silver trophies adorning cabinets, grand veneered plaques on the walls with the names of champions dating back over the decades and so on. Are we to assume that nanny state has our cardiovascular interests at heart in deciding to bestow its largesse on one activity but not the other?

The UK government has accepted that competitive flying of model aeroplanes is a "sport". Apparently, twiddling joysticks with your thumbs is a physical activity requiring the exercise of skill. Darts is also a sport, although one wonders whether the health benefits of exercising one arm in jettisoning a projectle weighing a few grams more than compensates for the quantity of alcohol consumed in the process.

If the general population is truly aligned with governments concerning the definition of "sport", then perhaps the legislation should not refer to "sport" but come up (if necessary) with some other term to embrace activities which are properly deserving of similar fiscal treatment in their relationship with taxing and subsidising authorities. As it stands are laws require senior judges to spend their time deciding whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit, on which decision rests the fate of millions of pounds, only to find that the issue hinges on whether the item goes hard or soft if you leave it out in the open overnight.

The reality is that governments have a budget. They recognise that at one extreme there are activities which are clearly sports. At the other extreme there are activities which clearly are not. They desire that sports be afforded a particular status in their dealings with the Exchequer, as distinct from other, non-sport activities. In recognition that there are some activities which might fall on the borderline, depending on subjective criteria, they need an objective set of rules to decide the issue, and have hit upon the arbitrary requirement of physicical activity, however minute, as one such rule. They could just as easily have decided otherwise, but a decision was required and Bridge is one casualty of that decision.

In my locality, a bridge club was economically barred from changing premises so as to make it accessible to the elderly and disabled, essentially because it would have been blocked from recovering the VAT that would have been charged on the new premises. Sensible?

[semeai]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-18, 22:35, said:

If the general population is truly aligned with governments concerning the definition of "sport", then perhaps the legislation should not refer to "sport" but come up (if necessary) with some other term to embrace activities which are properly deserving of similar fiscal treatment in their relationship with taxing and subsidising authorities.

Civil recreations?

[mtvesuvius]

I suppose the definition of a sport might be: "An activity whose primary players' average age is under 55"

[Antrax]

https://secure.wikim...a/en/wiki/Bowls

[1eyedjack]

Activities recognised in the UK (governed by EU) as sports are listed here
http://customs.hmrc....cument#P84_8496
at para 3.2
I see that shooting and fishing are still in there, but hunting is not. Perhaps it is because it has been made illegal. Although, since Hungerford, shooting is effectively illegal but I guess it is still out there somewhere. I wonder if grouse shooting counts.

Chess is not listed. Boxing is.
It doesn't mention Chess-Boxing, but I would expect that to be covered on application.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Chess_boxing

[mrdct]

Sadly, bridge has little or no chance of recognition as a sport in Australia which applies the following definition:

'A human activity capable of achieving a result requiring physical exertion and/or physical skill which, by its nature and organisation, is competitive and is generally accepted as being a sport'.

It's unfortunate for bridge as we miss out on our share of the $2+ billion of government funding for sport in this country.

[mgoetze]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-19, 00:27, said:

Chess is not listed.

Chess is recognized as a sport in Germany.

[Cyberyeti]

The old soviet system treated chess as a sport, and look at the results they got. There are points both ways.

One layman's definition is that it's a sport if you don't standardly do it in normal (not training) shoes which holds for most cases.

Oh and to 1eyedjack, in darts and snooker, in many countries you're now no longer allowed to drink (or smoke) and play at the pro events.

[hotShot]

To be good at <SPORT> you need:

-physical fitness
-regular training
-the ability to keep focused during the competition

Depending on the <SPORT> the peak performance is reached in the age range of 14-40. (In gymnastics and some freeclimbing competitions the peak is very young.)

This seems to apply to bridge in a similar way.

[1eyedjack]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-19, 02:21, said:

Chess is recognized as a sport in Germany.

That is quite interesting. I wonder if its recognition as a sport is restricted in any way depending on context (ie VAT)? Because Germany and UK are both (last time I checked) in the EU and ultimately governed by EU law. In matters of this nature there is *supposed* to be cross-border harmony, so that no country can provide "state aid" that is not available throuhout Europe and so provide a distorted market.

[paulg]

There are always problems in the UK with bridge and chess at university level. WBF events are run by FISU (http://www.fisu.net) who recognises both bridge and chess. However their UK member, British Universities and Colleges Sport, recognises neither. As, officially, teams are supposed to be in good standing with the local FISU member this always causes an administrative headache.

[billw55]

This same discussion has come up for chess, and even Go. My reply to those applies equally to bridge: LOL

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the "Bridge is a Sport" movement is driven by three primary goals

1. Trying to qualify for federal funds that various countries reserve for sports

2. Sucking at the Olympic teat

(a) Selling Olympic medals to well heeled clients
(b) Participating in the widespread graft and corruption that is the Olympics

3. Allowing bridge players to compete in the Olympics

Personally, I think that the costs far outweigh the gains.

I understand why people who are anxious to promote bridge want to compete for Federal funds that are allocated for sports. However, at the end of the day the whole thing feels kind of sleezy. I know what a sport is and bridge isn't one of them. Lying about what you are for money feels wrong to me.

I think that allowing clients of any kind to compete in the Olympics is a grave disservice to what the Olympics stand for. (If/When the WBF ever re-petitions the IOC I intend to send in a strongly worded letter to that effect)

Personally, I think the costs of competing in the Olympics (random drug testing, uniforms, standards of deportment, yada yada yada) far outweighs the benefits. Regardless, I won't be effected. However, I know where my sympathies lie.

Some might argue that joining the Olympic games would be valuable in and of itself for promotion. Me, I don't expect to see much positive publicity from this. (How many people here have actually waatched Olympic badmitton?).

To the extent that we get any publicity, I suspect that it will largely consist of folks mocking us...

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-19, 06:49, said:

From my perspective, the "Bridge is a Sport" movement is driven by three primary goals

1. Trying to qualify for federal funds that various countries reserve for sports

2. Sucking at the Olympic teat

(a) Selling Olympic medals to well heeled clients
(b) Participating in the widespread graft and corruption that is the Olympics

3. Allowing bridge players to compete in the Olympics

I'm with you in terms of getting bridge into the Olympic Games being a silly objective, but I think it's manisfestly unfair that a passtime like archery, which has a way lower participation rate than bridge, gets hundreds of thousands of dollars thrown at it when bridge gets nothing.

[billw55]

mrdct, on 2011-July-19, 07:21, said:

... I think it's manisfestly unfair that a passtime like archery, which has a way lower participation rate than bridge, gets hundreds of thousands of dollars thrown at it when bridge gets nothing.

Agree, and:

hrothgar, on 2011-July-19, 06:49, said:

I know what a sport is and bridge isn't one of them. Lying about what you are for money feels wrong to me.

Agree.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2011-July-19, 06:21, said:

There are always problems in the UK with bridge and chess at university level. WBF events are run by FISU (http://www.fisu.net) who recognises both bridge and chess. However their UK member, British Universities and Colleges Sport, recognises neither. As, officially, teams are supposed to be in good standing with the local FISU member this always causes an administrative headache.

When I was at Cambridge, Oxford awarded a half blue for bridge but not chess, Cambridge did the reverse, not sure if this is still the case.

[Gerben42]

Bridge is not a sport, it's a mind sport, just like Bridge and Go. Of course, both "sport" and "mind sport" is difficult to define. When is a skill game a sport or mind sport? Does it count that there are world championships in Monopoly or Settlers of Catan? For physical sports, what about a world championship in sauna or toilet seat throwing?

Unlike other mind sports, Bridge has a huge image problem which hinders its recognition. The image of old ladies playing cards. In this sense, low-level chess is completely different from low-level bridge. But why should it be?