Behind the scenes of sport-entertainment

The controversy triggered by the statements of some Italian gymnasts on the abuses to which they were allegedly subjected during the relaxation throw a light – albeit tenuous – on the “behind the scenes” of the world of sport. I will not go into the merits of the specific question concerning gymnastics; there are investigations underway at the end of which facts and, if there are any, responsibilities will be ascertained. In more general terms, however, it is worthwhile to reflect on what sport has become today and how the world of entertainment, including online, is profoundly changing the role of the athlete.

It is an indisputable fact of experience – I speak about it with good reason, having direct experience as an athlete, coach and as a university teacher – that Italian youth sport is supported by a huge number of people who, out of pure passion, dedicate time and resources to making the guys from the best people. Many of these coaches will remain complete strangers, if not for those who have had the opportunity to learn from them, and who – decades later – still speak of them with affection and gratitude. This does not mean that they are less good or important in the sports system than those who “make a career”. Some of them are lucky enough to meet the talented athlete to whom to apply their training method and rise in the federal ranks, or have the ability to build a “school” where they can best practice a certain discipline and become a reference point for anyone who wants to practice it (it is no coincidence that many talented fencers come from the Marche). It is the start of a path that, sooner or later, leads to the need to push athletes to their physical, psychological and emotional limits. We should therefore ask ourselves if there are and what are the safeguard mechanisms for those embarking on an exciting but also dangerous journey.

Let’s start from a factual consideration: the world of sport protects itself and its existence. The Code of Sports Justice, the one that applies transversally to all national sports federations that are part of CONI, sanctions the behavior of athletes, technicians, sports doctors and managers who compromise the regular conduct of sporting events and, indirectly, everything that revolves around the world of the Five Circles. Article 4 of the CONI Sports Justice Code, in fact, clearly states that the judicial bodies decide on “the observance and application of the regulatory, organizational and statutory rules of the sports system in order to ensure the proper conduct of sports activities”. Everything else is secondary.

The case of Caster Semenya, too soon forgotten, is the archetype of the hierarchy of priorities that characterize the sector. Thanks to an unusual genetic makeup (Hyperandrogenism), the South African athlete was able to produce a higher amount of testosterone than is normally the case in women. In addition to allowing her exceptional sports performance, Hyperandrogenism had also conditioned her physical appearance by giving her masculine traits. Some sports executives even questioned the fact that she was a woman and she, as soon as she came of age, made herself available to show them her genitals. In addition to the insult, in 2019 came an incredible decision by the World Athletics Federation (confirmed by the Arbitration Court of Sport and then, in 2020, also on appeal) which, in the name of “fair play”, imposed on athletes “affected” by Hyperandrogenia from taking hormone therapies to reduce levels naturally produced of testosterone. In other words, in order to maintain the “fairness” of the competition among women, the international leaders of sports justice decided that particularly gifted athletes should undergo medical treatments not dependent on a pathological state. The athletes had to be “cured” because they were “freaks” —of phenomena. Yet, no one has ever asked a basketball player who is too tall to wipe off his legs, or a boxer who hits too hard to break his “right” before stepping into the ring. Curiously, incidentally, the various “anti-discrimination” movements so attentive to the genres of words, did not deal in a particular way with this affair which also, some international echo has had, relating to the life and dignity of a real person and not a a post on a social network.

Be that as it may, the reason for the incredible verdict – completely equivalent to having ordered a chemical castration – is precisely the need to ensure that the competitions are “fought” and not practically predictable due to the presence of the monstrum.

Considering, however, that the importance of explaining to (young) athletes that competition is with themselves and not “against” someone else is emphasized from the very first levels of training for sports instructors and then coaches, the choice of international bodies of sports justice can be explained more as the need to guarantee uncertainty, that is, “spectacle” for the public. No sponsor would invest significant sums on events that do not attract spectators and do not produce “stories”, races won or lost at the last second, dramas from “throwing the heart over the obstacle” and so on.

The subordination of sporting events to their capacity to be entertainment (hence the complex issue of sports audiovisual rights and their exploitation on new platforms, such as those based on the metaverse) has a direct reflection on the life of the athlete. Excluding the “pure” amateurs, who are “satisfied” with competing also at the national level but without being able to aspire to top positions or entry into the teams that compete in the European, World Championships and Olympics, the “amateurs-professionals”, like members of military sports groups, they have only one goal: the medal. Of course, the target may not always be reached but the athlete must do everything to try. In other words, he has to train hard to overcome his limits. But, and let’s get to the point, who decides what these limits are, how to overcome them but above all, at what cost?

Training a top athlete is extremely difficult. On the one hand, it is necessary to understand how to improve his performance also by pushing him to get rid of psychological limitations and character habits; on the other hand, one must always keep oneself in an area of ​​respect to avoid damaging his psyche even before his body. With an adult and mature athlete certain choices in terms of “Rocky” sacrifices can be shared and consciously assumed, but with regard to children and adolescents, the situation is totally different.

The relationship between coach and young athlete is highly unbalanced and families should be not only informed, but an active part of their children’s sports career. This does not mean transforming mothers and fathers into “assistant coaches” (even if in several cases parents become one) but making them aware of which training methods will be used on children and the consequences of this choice. It is true that a coach can apply particularly intense systems that could even come to be perceived as cruel. But, this, not to the point of exempting from parental authority and therefore from the power / duty to say “no”.

Hence the questions: is the decision of a twelve-year-old to live in environmental conditions reminiscent of those of the special forces of the armed forces really “free” and “aware”? What happened to the principles of protection of the psychophysical integrity of the minor and respect for the person? Am I “only” the coach – or the federation – pushing a kid to sacrifice a fundamental part of life in a gym?

It is not possible to give a general answer to these questions because each case is a story in itself. There may be frustrated, incompetent or, worse, criminal coaches, who do not care about “breaking” the athletes entrusted to them or abusing them in order to make a career and families who, counting on the “child prodigy” to solve their survival problems or of social climbing, they “pretend nothing has happened” in the face of situations that would require immediate intervention. You can meet athletes who are sincerely motivated to overcome their limits and willing to train of unusual hardness, and others who, aware of not succeeding, discharge blame and responsibility (sometimes infamous) on the technicians to whom they have turned. The hunger for success or money can lead to under-the-table deals, sports fraud, and unspeakable actions such as taking drugs or combine to profit on bets. Only efficient sports justice could work, preventing and, when appropriate, harshly sanctioning actions that harm athletes. In fact, even before the ordinary judiciary, the investigators and sports decision-makers are the ones who first come into contact with the “dark side” of sport.

However, as mentioned, the primary goal of sports justice is to protect the “big game”, not the individual athlete. Furthermore, in the “internal justice” of sport, investigators and decision-makers are not magistrates even if they are called “prosecutors” and “judges” and are chosen directly by the individual federations. It would be as if the “real” judiciary, instead of being independent, were appointed by Parliament or by the Prime Minister and therefore subject to controls by the subjects it must control. This does not necessarily mean that sports justice is unreliable or that investigators and decision-makers commit to them time abuse. However, the guarantee of seriousness of the single procedures and of the choice to start them or not depend more on the skills of the individual professionals involved than on the way in which the system architecture was designed.

The spectacle of sport is reaching new levels due to the progressive confusion between the physical event and its gamification and consequently the pressure will increase to create new “gladiators” who compete in the arena to entertain the crowds in the most extreme ways, as already anticipated. in 1975 the dystopian James Caan of Rollerball. In this scenario, protecting athletes in a phase of their life in which they are less structured to understand what is happening to them should be a priority for the International Olympic Committee, CONI and national sports federations. The institution of “guarantors” and other supervisory roles should be accompanied by a profound reform of the sports justice system which, in addition to “fair play”, attributes a central role to protecting the psycho-physical integrity of the athlete also to the detriment of the competing result.

On the other hand, the important thing is not to win, but to participate.

Or not?