I’ll start with this.
Trump gets massive cheers at the Super Bowl while Taylor Swift gets booed. –
The world is healing! ?? pic.twitter.com/JXAGmTMoiC
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 10, 2025
The world may be healing, but is it too late?
I don’t generally watch football. I got tired of the Antic Stupid™ which has animated it for so long.
I tuned in to see some of the game. The Chiefs were being slaughtered in the first half (UPDATE: and then in the second). There was the half time show. I don’t believe I understood 10 words of the “lyrics”, a most inapt descriptor in this case. Lyric? THAT is “music”, as in something that relates to the “muses”? I was not amused.
The commercials are of great interest to many, and sometimes for good reason. I saw a few commercials early on which greatly exalted the values of parenthood. That surprised me. Maybe the world is healing. Too late? Hey, it’s a win and I’ll take it.
There was a commercial after the half time show in which the NFL promoted flag football for girls in high school. All the bad was white male and the intelligent and with it was black female. It was a bad commercial well made for an okay game. Nothing wrong with flag football. I guess. It isn’t exactly real football. Is it the Novus Ordo of football?
I am not a huge fan of football, but there is no question that countless young men have benefited from the experience of discipline, training, coaching, teamwork and desire. It corresponds to what men are hardwired to do… except perhaps for the perpetual committee meetings. That’s why it is so disgusting when players are prime donne.
Just this morning I read a piece at The Catholic Thing by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. It is entitled: “Football and the ‘Aura around Divinity’” Engaging. From the onset he recounts the war on football by the woke. The ball snap of it was this. Football isn’t going to go away, but it might not make it in the rarified form it is today. Consider that it football is driven out of high schools, there will not be feeders for colleges and then the pros.
Frankly, I suspect that the NFL would create junior leagues or some such. There’s too much money at stake in bread and circuses. Ironically, there was commercial which suggested with more than tongue in cheek that football was originally invented in order to sell the sort of food people today eat when they watch football. Football’s causa finalis is Buffalo chicken wings. Panem et circenses…. a sort of hunger games for the masses. Get it?
Novus Ordo football for the masses and Novus Ordo Masses. Real football to be suppressed like the TLM? Small games of contact ball in odd locations and odd times.
Back to the Super Bowl NFL’s commercial about Novus Ordo football. The NFL knows what’s up and they are positioning themselves to run the option play.
A couple more thoughts.
The evolution of football has been such that maybe it has to topple, like the top heavy Tower of Babel. The TV commentators of the game remarked that the Philly (I think) front line was the heaviest in total weight in history. Then they compared it to the total weight of the front line in the 1st Super Bowl: something like 100 pounds per player, if I remember correctly what they said.
Physics and basic biology don’t lie. Force equals mass times (not “Mass times”) acceleration. Human bones and flesh are only so resistant, flexible and resilient. Get hit hard enough and, even if you are the same size as the hitter, stuff will break. Except in movies.
I redirect your attention back to efforts to wipe out high school football.
(No more uplifting high school football movies? Really?)
The problem may ultimately rest in the exaltation of sport, and the passing (see what I did there?) over spiritual values. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of excellence. However, even the pursuit of excellent has to be in moderation. Too much of a good thing is too much. Gotta WIN! Do ANYTHING! Gotta be a STAR! I like the kicker for the Chiefs, by the way.
Even the TV coverage of sports is a symptom of what’s wrong. In the technical advancements which permit ultra-slow replays which allow you to see the stitches on the ball and specks of dirt, there is no mystery remaining. That’s what they tried to do to the Mass in the Novus Ordo, with versus populum and vernacular: diminution of mystery. In order to unveil something, it has to be veiled first. (Cf. marriage)
A return to basics seems to be in order.
In the Italian novel by the relative of St. Giuseppe Maria Tomasi di Lampedusa (that abused island, that intake of woes), about the changes to Sicily wrought by the forced unification of Italy by Garibaldi, the old Duke’s son nephew Tancredi utters prophetic words:
“Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com’è, bisogna che tutto cambi.
… If we want everything to remain as it is, then everything needs to change.”
Football will survive I suppose, perhaps in the Novus Ordo form of flag football. The Church will survive too, though it didn’t in Turkey and North Africa. There are no promises for these USA, either, or Europe, which is worse by far.
I have an idea about what would help to revitalize Christianity in society, but we will have to wait a while before we might get some with the courage to try. I’ll bet you know what I’m thinking.
Am I wrong?
In any event, we are seeing some wins right now. No men in women’s sports. That’s a win.
UPDATE:
I just learned that, now, you can’t onside kick except if you are behind in the 4th quarter. WHAT?!? And there’s a designate hitter in the National League, too.
It may be too late, but I did like that Christ was praised at the end by the winning coach.
Loading ...
I didn’t watch it.
I have one Grandson who play College football. We always used to watch the Superbowl as a family.
Every year I would give the statistics of how many concvicted Felons in the NFL.
This year 781. Many assaults on their Spouses, drug charges, drug charges drug charges, weapons charges etc.
We have come a long way from Roger Staubach, who had it in his Contract that he had to be housed within walking distance of Daily Mass.
Watched the game with my wife, daughter and the 3 sons still at home… none of us are huge football fans and our already lukewarm interest has been further dampened by all the wokeness… but we all had the same reaction about the stupid onside kick rule… “HUH?”
Maybe the way to “save” football is to outlaw equipment other than a leather helmet and require players to play both ways for a certain % of downs!
As for the DH, I have always been fundamentally against it but I think the “Ohtani Revisions” are over the top! When he pitches, let him hit as the pitcher but they must eschew the DH. There’s nothing to stop him from DH’ing the next day or playing e.g. RF the day after. I like some of the recent suggestions that the DH should be tied to the starting pitcher i.e. when he leaves the DH either goes too or takes a position in the field and the relief pitcher bats in the vacated spot.
197o-73… what a debacle… the NO, the DH, polyester uniforms and vestments… unleaded gas mandated… etc.
While I’m at it, couldn’t we fix the N.O. by simply outlawing Ordinary-Extra Ministers and Girl Altar Boys, requiring Communion kneeling and on the tongue, and making the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the traditional Offertory prayers and the 1962 Calendar optional? Easy, right? (Yeah i know it’s not, I’ve been at this for many years… but I didn’t want to leave a sports-only post!)
Pingback: MONDAY MID-DAY EDITION – BIG PULPIT
(*polite cough*) Tancredi is Don Fabrizio’s nephew, not his son.
I’m an agnostic on the DH. Connie Mack first proposed it in the AL in 1906. He didn’t want his pitchers to get injured at the plate or running the bases.
No, get rid of the pitch clock. The fans don’t care about game length. Only reporters, podcasters and similar parasites do. And get rid of Communion in the hand. Do we believe in the Real Presence or don’t we? How are the congregants going to perform ablutions?
What is a Super Bowl and what is this NFL football of which you speak?
I think the coming decades will see a significant diminishment in the stature of pro sports in the US. I can’t be alone in having stopped watching and caring about them. Corporatized product + pushing things like Pride Night + spoiled players = no interest.
Also, Father Z, the MLB rule changes don’t just add a DH to the NL. I don’t know all of them as (as I mentioned) I’ve stopped caring about pro sports, but there are a limited number of throws from the pitcher allowed to first, and a runner starts on second in some situations (extra innings). As someone who has appreciated things like a pitchers’ duel in the past and who likes small ball more than just a bunch of homers, the catering to “Murica’s short-attention span” would just make the product less interesting to me.
Indeed, I wonder quite a bit lately about “too late”. Those wins we seem to be getting will be tied up with the acceptance of a fully digital financial system. It has already been built out, decades in the making. We are at the implementation stage. I have been paying close attention to that space. Trump was selected to bring it to fruition. He has said it plainly for everyone to hear and understand since before the election. The sleight of hand is something to behold, left and right working together. Not CBDCs (financial theatre), look out for stablecoins (asset-backed digital tokens). This was THE consequential issue that most voters completely ignored. Men in women’s sports? That was a creation to fool us into thinking we actually won something when it gets squashed, like so many issues today, political theatre. Built up only to watch it fall, these issues are another type of bread and circuses. We must be able to discern a distraction from a real issue. The new system will be palatable at first and have the illusion of being very benign since it will seem to solve a crisis, another created problem. With all the unveiling of USAID, plus more to come, will the populace beg for digital, trackable, transparent transactions? Will they beg for a digital I.D. to eliminate border crossings? Problem-Reaction-Solution. What will your freedoms look like under such a system? I’ve been thinking a bit recently about the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What cataclysm will we have to face to bring about what Our Lady promised? Was that promise conditional upon man’s repentance? Will we now only have punishment to face? Many people seem to see cause for optimism while I see us barreling toward disaster.
I love football. It’s been great for our family.
I loved football as a kid. Not organized, just backyard football, no equipment at all except a ball. We knew enough not to hit kids in the head, or with our heads. Played for hours a day in the fall.
I watched the game: KC stunk and Phil. did a very creditable job containing Mahomes. But the game was underwhelming: I think that at this point professional football is a scam and a moral hazard. It is impossible to play at that level without grave risk of permanent injury, and it is impossible to keep out of the sport at that level the dirty tactics and dirty playing that strives for damaging other players so you can win. It is, I believe, nearly as immoral as professional boxing, which has been condemned by the Church. (It is not technically the object to damage the other player, but the sport cannot preclude players who have that objective.) Can one morally accept repeated high risk of grave injury – partly intended – as a game? Why do we repudiate the gladiator ring? Are they really demonstrating courage by taking those risks merely for money (and glory)?
I would be fine with scholastic football – if it wasn’t the farm system for the pros, and if the ball players were also scholars. How about an Olympics where the athletes have to compete at academic tests as well as athletics? How about a reasonable balance between bodily improvement, intellectual development, and moral growth?
The money from the TV rights and the pros has infected the college (and high school) environment. What is the real economic value in having grown men who PLAY GAMES for a living, paid 10s of millions to do so? Grown men should be doing grown up things for a living, not playing like kids, not making play into a job: it’s meant for recreation. If we were properly formed, we would not pay millions to watch other people having recreation, we would be engaged in it ourselves. Games are meant for recreation, for recharging your system: they cannot do so vicariously, by someone else doing it for their system. We should be more prepared to pay a salary of a $million to that rare, fantastic teacher who is beloved by all the kids she teaches and highly effective in teaching them, than a person who plays a particular game really well.
Apparently my paternal grandfather was a Philadelphia A’s fan and would visit Connie Mack when in Philadelphia on business. So I was always very fond of him until a few minutes ago when I read Greg’s comment that he proposed the DH in 1906. So another A’s owner, Charley Finley, I think who pushed the DH rule.
I think the DH rule ruined baseball and caused the typical manager’s approach to pitching to change, which in turn made the games longer. It is my understanding that the desire to shorten the game was the motivation for the recent rule changes. It was always my favorite sport. Emphasis on “was”.
Since I taught for 36 years at U of Alabama, I was very happy for Jalen Hurts and Devonta Smith. The first year I watched televised NFL games was 1960 when the Eagles defeated the Pack.
There is an interesting article today in Juicy Ecumenism https://juicyecumenism.com/2025/02/10/americas-1950s-religious-boom/
on the source of the decline in American Protestant belief. It appears to have been caused by liberal theology dominating seminaries beginning in the early 20th century.
DeeEmm,
I have been waiting for this. President Trump (Not a Catholic), has surrounded himself with Catholics. Is he perfect? No none of us are. The majority of the Country voted for him and that was with voter fraud trying to stop him.
There have been Catholic Kings, even some Saints and they were not perfect.
Digital Currency works. I would never use it, I don’t think digital coins are going to find their way into the St. Vincent D’Paul box. Digital has it’s place.
President Trump has laid out a plan. He stopped the targeting of Traditional Catholics and many things Catholics find repulsive. Pray for Him please.
Haven’t watched the Super Bowl in years. Instead watched KNUTE ROCKE, ALL-AMERICAN, starring Pat O’Brien as the Notre Dame football coach and Ronald Reagan as the Gipper. A thousand times more entertaining and inspiring than whatever happened Sunday night.
Dear TonyO,
maybe some real comment later, but in the meantime:
professional boxing, which has been condemned by the Church
– Has it? I mean, I have no horse in the race; in fact, to the question whether to consent to being punched unto knockout (but not death, except for accidents that are actually rare and actually not intended) is morally possible without mortal sin is one of the (I fear rather few) questions where my answer is genuinely “I do not know”. Still, it might be interesting when which Church authority with how much of emphasis pronounced on the matter.
În any case, there really is a difference between accepting risk of injury and accepting risk of death (or sin).
Why do we repudiate the gladiator ring?
Because the intended purpose (!) of gladiatorial combat is the killing of the opponent. – The Church back in the day, as far as I know, never pronounced against the actual circenses, that is, chariot races, and some of the racers were Christians. Those were highly dangerous too. It is, at least chiefly, important what the intent is, not what the outcome is. The intent of a chariot race is being faster than the other, which is rather different from killing the other, and that is why the Church opposed munera while being silent about circenses .
As I said, I do not know whether boxing passes the line – precisely because the intent is to hurt the other (though not kill, other than with gladiators). In American football, the intent of a tackle is to stop the others movement and thus get the ball (if I am rightly informed). Intents are important.
To one thing that you said I do object, and that is the emphasis on “as a game”, in Italics. With possible exceptions in actually life-threatening (e. g. starvation) situations, why would it be immoral to do something as a game what is moral to do while what the philistines call being an economically productive member of society? And that is even setting aside that, well, they do their sport for their living.
Generally, but also starting from a statement by the dear TonyO,
what is the real economic value in having grown men who play games for a living, paid 10s of millions to do so? Grown men should be doing grown up things for a living, not playing like kids, not making play into a job: it’s meant for recreation.
That is the interesting question, isn’t it. We can of course all agree in a heartbeat that their salaries ought to be more in the real of 200 times that of a skilled labourer – millions – rather than 2000 and yet more times – tens of millions -; but these are, the way you ask the question, which is I believe the right way of looking at things, details. Setting them aside, what is the purpose of having grown up people paid a fortune for doing fun things?
I am (as I said, while of course agreeing on the detail that a tenth of the present amount or so would suffice) actually rather convinced that there is one. An interesting question to ponder (later).
“in the real”: “in the realm”. Sorry.
In the meantime, where is the positive value of booing people that happen to be well-known because their political opinion differs from one’s own, and positively gloating in one’s own camp being unforgiving? That was a vice last time I looked.
And no, that the others would do the same does not justify that sort of thing.
Tangentially, I really enjoyed and would recommend A History of Football from the Beginnings to 1871 (1938) by Tolkien’s American friendly correspondent, fellow scholar, and fellow veteran of the First World War, Francis Peabody Magoun. I cannot find a scan online to recommend, but maybe I missed it, and the WorldCat may point you to an accessible copy… I also enjoyed the attention to Tolkien as rugby player in John Garth’s Tolkien and the Great War (2003).
Now for that interesting question : What is the sense (the dear TonyO wrote “economic value”, I come to that in a moment) in having adults do fun things as a job and pay them riches for it?
– I don’t know much about American football, so I will have actual football, played with one’s feet… which you Americans call soccer… in my mind. I think it is for a couple of reasons a better game, including because it is a manly sport while not being having violence as a positive element, and because it is a lot like life, but that’s probably not important here. –
So, as for “economic value”, the libertarian simple-answer is that, well, that’s what the market pays them, and those who pay make a profit: people buy tickets, there are advertisements, etc. In itself that doesn’t say much about whether that’s a just state of affairs; but it is one aspect to keep in mind.
More important is that while we all have a feeling what these fun things that some people say are not real work are, it is rather difficult to give a coherent definition. There’s production for the strict need, such as to keep out of starvation, but in our countries that is only a fraction of the whole economy. People do want nice things, refined things, entertainment, etc. Even considered only as recreation in order to be fit again for another work-day (which would be wrong, I’ll come to that), that is an actual value, and where do you draw the line and say that this is now what we’ll call mere-fun-without-value?
Also, it is a good thing that there are rich people. Some people say that we need the riches to bribe people to become entrepreneurs; I think they’re wrong, if anything it’s the other way round and the desire (in itself legitimate if not resorting to illegitimate means) to get rich justifies the entrepreneurship; but even if that were not so: We need a balance in our rich people. It’s one of the good things about inherited wealth that it does not come with the idea that “I deserve every penny of that because I worked sooo hard”. But only inherited wealth wouldn’t do it either; we do need some people who become rich. We need a good mixture of people who inherited their riches, of self-made men, of lottery winners and of people who just have had luck in their profession. And highly-paid professional athletes cannot, and as a rule do not, think their profession justifies their money. They feel no shame in having so much, but still have a bit of an itch – more, at least naturally, than with a self-made man, to (also) do good with it because their job is less important than a nurse. Speaking of that, though, and while it is probably true that nurses should be paid a good deal better than they are now… we wouldn’t want people to become nurses to get riches, do we? And they wouldn’t want to themselves. “I couldn’t do your job for a million dollars”, said someone to St. Theresa of Calcutta, and her well-known reply was “neither could I”.
Also, about people who do the thing as a recreation after work: Those who actually do the think do not, as a rule, begrudge the professionals. I played a very tiny but of soccer, not in a club, not even in childhood, but at school (which usually does not count): even that makes me respect the quality of soccer players. I am a very tiny (but quite more than soccer) bit of an amateur (or dilettante) musician (largely in my room and by congregational singing in Church, but I did learn an instrument in childhood), and played theater at school: That makes me value professional musicians more, not less. And there really is such a thing as musical quality, or soccer-playing quality, or certainly American-football-playing quality, and you do have to take your time to achieve that.
(That’s actually my usual argument why we, if we are in our right minds, celebrate the saints rather than being ashamed by their betterness. What young soccer player envies Harry Kane for being a better attacker? They rather buy a jersey with his name on it to celebrate…)
But most important, the thing is that making a job of what you like is actually the real direction of things (which is why to speak of economic value is misleading). There is this quote from “The Dead Poets Society” about noble pursuits necessary to sustain life, and things we live for. It is quite accurate. Of course, one might think about degrees of nobleness and say that art might be on a higher level than football; others might disagree and call that a matter of taste; but they are in this obviously somewhat on the same page, and anyway a lower level does not mean “bad”.
And in fact, even people will usually become better lawyers, system administrators, scientists, craftsmen, farmers etc. if that’s what they actually like to do for a living. That fact that work is sometimes toilsome (as it sure is for athletes coincidentally) is an accident; it wasn’t like that in paradise. And it is not forbidden to try to get rid of post-Fall curses; St. Thomas I believe says somewhere that some people even now just have a hand with animals as explanation of the beasts’ obedience to Man in the blessed state (I might add here that a real lot of people have obedient dogs, but I digress).
And they might thus, actually, start to teach us that man does not live by bread alone. Of course without any doubt the “religious activity”, which from a purely economic standpoint might look like (it is of course not; but it might look like) a “fun pursuit to be done in one’s free time” as well (do we not know our irreligious neighbors reproach is in such a manner…) is of (immensely) higher value; but it is not the usual operation of grace (at least in layfolk, and I guess diocesan clergy) to replace nature, or the less-material parts of nature. It ennobles them by enjoying legitimate things with thanksgiving.
So, that is why, yes, I think there should be some happy few who get paid, and a lot (but perhaps not quite as much as they are now), to practice sport-games on a professional level.
As a nod, I think I was echoing (as usual) the sentiments of G. K. Chesterton, originally defending drinking:
Employers are willing that workmen should have exercise, as it may help them to do more work. They are even willing that workmen should have leisure; for the more intelligent capitalists can see that this also really means that they can do more work. But they are not in any way willing that workmen should have fun; for fun only increases the happiness and not the utility of the worker. Fun is freedom; and in that sense is an end in itself. It concerns the man not as a worker but as a citizen, or even as a soul; and the soul in that sense is an end in itself. That a man shall have a reasonable amount of comedy and poetry and even fantasy in his life is part of his spiritual health, which is for the service of God; and not merely for his mechanical health, which is now bound to the service of man. (What I saw in America, cpt 9)
Part of that fun may, I think, the cheering of favored teams. I would probably put it, generally, on a lower level that poetry; I also would generally put a cheeseburger on a lower level than a Christmas dinner of roast goose, red cabbage and home-made potato dumplings accompanied by green salad; but both feed, and sometimes you choose the easier thing; and anyway it‘s sort of the point of fun that you can choose freely and it can be for anything (downright sins, but only them, excepted).
Thank you, Imrahil, for your intelligent and very polite engagement with my concerns with pro football. I will try to reply in kind.
As to pro boxing: I myself was raised with all sports on TV, and never knew there was a moral objection to boxing. I only discovered as an adult that there were Church objections. I cannot now locate specific cites, but my memory is that it was in catechisms as well as numerous theologian’s list of moral wrongs – but ALWAYS distinguished it from amateur boxing. I think it was the “doing it for PAY” that was the kicker, but I surmised that the explicit intention of knocking someone out was considered, per se, a grave kind of injury as a matter of principle. The way I made sense out of their comments was: One could always see that it makes the victim (for a short while at least) insensible and therefore having a lack of reason, which is unfitting for human beings; nowadays we also know that tons of brain damage occurs, even when the bout ends without a knockout.
I agree that it doesn’t apply directly to football, where hurting the other person is NOT (officially) the object. But if you read any of the exposes by former players, you find that the amount of money in the sport (and the fame for winners, but that also translates to more money) attracts and aggravates the temptation for teams to knowingly hire, with intent, vicious players who will tackle so as to sometimes injure, and even when some coach or GM doesn’t like that aspect of the game, they feel pressured into it because they have to defend themselves from other teams who do it. The average career is about 3 years, and this is “due to the high risk of injury” says AI. That implies that the combination of pushing yourself beyond human limits in order to best others doing exactly that while taking drugs to hide the effects, plus damage taken from being targeted, is worse than ever. (And, indeed, the new evidence of concussions and their long term effects on mental health is very significant.) I agree that it’s a matter of degree, but I think that because so many other aspects of the game are gravely degenerate (the drugs, other forms of immorality, the insane betting), we can with some confidence judge the degree here is excessive also.
As to fun: I agree that people ought to have fun. That’s what recreation is supposed to be, for fun. It is a matter of “recharging” the person. And for joy in your fellow man. The following is based on what I have read in various theological and religious documents: In the ideal, society as a whole AND each person will have a healthy regard for a balance, in which spiritual good comes first, intellectual development has the next place, work is performed for the good of all, and participation in recreation – these are the categories of the goods of human activity, and in the proper hierarchy. Not every person is called to participate in those goods in the same way: priests and religious are supposed to highlight their spiritual development in a special way; academics are allowed to spend more of their time on books and less on physical labor because intellectual goods are higher goods than physical goods, and so on. Nobody should be denied recreation, because we all need recharging and fun, and we need to take joy in others. But it’s at the bottom of the line. We should all play games, and as youth we should all be in sports to some degree (as possible). And because excellence even at lesser things like games is still excellence, we should enjoy watching others play games extremely well. But that need is well met with amateur sports: people playing well because they enjoy the game and their excellence in it, and enjoy pitting themselves against the best. (AND cheering for people you know.) Not because they are paid to do it – if they are paid to devote their main waking hours on lifting weights and running and conditioning and practicing, where’s the fun in that? It’s no longer recharging themselves, indeed they need relief and relaxation FROM their “regular work” of the sport.
I get the point about other kinds of professionals whose job is to produce “fun” or “enjoyment”, and this includes not only musicians but also actors and comedians. I am part of an (amateur) theater group that does musicals, so I get that. There are three points here: First, their product – e.g. the music itself – is inherently worthwhile in a way that a game is not (because the game is an inherently arbitrary rule-set to constitute what “winning” is, whereas the music conforms to a natural scale that is built-in to man’s soul). Music is considered part of leisure, which is above recreation in the scale of goods. (Study and science are also part of leisure.) Second, they don’t harm themselves and others to produce their “product”.
And thirdly: I know several musicians at the modest levels (playing for modest pay irregularly), and more than a few of them look at the kinds of commercialization that occurs at the highest levels (not just the big-name rock bands but also shows on Broadway, and operas) as potentially being “too far”: they certainly showcase excellence (though there is always an extremely subjective aspect about what constitutes “excellence” in the arts, and it isn’t always sound, e.g. rap) but the money, fame, etc. involved at that level of commercialization almost always is dehumanizing to the artist and often to those around them. The pressure toward pride, vanity, and many other sins is practically impossible to bear. Also (as they report), the LEVEL of excellence seen in massively expensive productions (like major motion pictures) is so far beyond the reach of ordinary folk, that there is some temptation to never imagine that you yourself might have enough talent to just enjoy playing that guitar or piano for yourself and your family. (Some people prefer not to have recordings in the house for that reason.) Doing these activities is a good that is, in a sense, more excellent FOR YOU than watching it be done excellently by someone else. Sure, a balance is needed, but that’s what I mean: the very scale of modern pro sports, music, and movies, discourages some from enjoying a more normal scale of achievement.
So, while watching others achieve at a high level is worthwhile and of social value, the question is, where is the right balance? Given what we have seen with about 1.5 centuries of paid sports in the modern era, it seems like the pay for play, while it encourages a higher level of excellence, always brings with it some social deformities (like gambling to excess). Perhaps the social good even so can accept that, when the sport is kept local, i.e. where the players know their actual fan base to a real degree. But national-level (and then international level) leagues, with TV, with even unimportant games where the audience is 10M, much less big games where the audience is measured in the hundreds of millions, is too estranged from the more wholesome social sphere to be healthy. Perhaps.