Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 Title: 2 The problem of “losing games on purpose”: With reference to discussions 3 concerning “failed athletic contests” 4 5 Short Title: 6 The problem of “losing games on purpose” 7 8 Author: 9 Mitsuharu Omine 10 11 Affiliation: 12 Faculty of Human Health Sciences, Meio University 13 14 Address: 15 1220-1, Biimata, Nago, Okinawa 905-8585 16 17 E-mail: 18 [email protected] 19 20 *Original article published in J. Phys. Educ. Hlth. Sport Sci. 63 (2): 21 539-546, 2018 (in Japanese) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 Abstract: 2 The purpose of this study was to present a new perspective on the problem of 3 attempting to lose a game on purpose through a consideration of whether doing so 4 threatens the existence of sport. We began by hypothesizing the concept of “failed 5 athletic contests”, which has been discussed in the field of sport philosophy, as 6 jeopardizing the existence of this activity. We then examined the concept of “losing 7 games on purpose” with reference to the “failed athletic contests” theory of Kawatani 8 (2013). We examined 2 broad categories of “losing games on purpose”: one where defeat 9 is clearly the goal, and the other where players deceive referees and spectators by 10 behaving as though they want to win, while in fact actually trying to lose. 11 Kawatani claims that games where an ethos (internal purpose) is not achieved, even 12 though the contest is based on athletes playing according to the rules, constitute “failed 13 athletic contests”. He found that player commitment to winning is necessary as a 14 condition in achieving the ethos of the game, suggesting that “losing games on purpose” 15 in either category constitutes a “failed athletic contest” in that athletes are not 16 committed to victory and the ethos is not established. On the other hand, it was also 17 clarified that there is a dilemma for players in athletic meets when a commitment to 18 winning is called for, but when this is occasionally in conflict with the ethos of 19 individual games. 20 For the second category, it was also revealed that referees and spectators were not 21 aware of the nature of such a defeat when it was concealed. This suggests that the 22 second category of “losing games on purpose” is more problematic than the first. 23 24 Keywords: excellence; ethos; judging error; ; sport ethics 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 1. Introduction 2 Reika Takahashi and , who won the gold medal in the badminton 3 women’s doubles at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics, also won the Asian 4 Championship held before the Olympics (Sankei Shinbun, 2016). The final of the Asian 5 Championship was a game against and in Japan, and 6 if Reika Takahashi and Misaki Matsutomo were defeated, they would acquire the right 7 to participate in the Rio de Janeiro Olympics*1. Reika Takahashi and Misaki 8 Matsutomo had the right to participate in the Olympics. 9 Coach Nakajima in the Japanese team said that he wanted the two teams to go to 10 the Olympics, but he could not break the sportsmanship (Sankei Shinbun, 2016). The 11 winner, Takahashi, said it was difficult to play, but he had no choice but to play. In 12 response to a question at the press conference, “Did you not think about losing on 13 purpose?”, Matsutomo replied: “We are fighting for the gold medal at the Olympics. No 14 one should lose intentionally as that is not good sportsmanship” (Asahi Shimbun, 2016). 15 This game was similar to “losing games on purpose,” which was the case with the 16 badminton women's doubles at the 2012 London Olympics. 17 Women’s badminton games at the London Olympics were divided into pool play and 18 final tournament (Ikarugi, 2015, p.19). In doubles, A, B, C, and D, each consisting of 4 19 pairs, fought in pool play, and 1st and 2nd were able to advance to the final tournament. 20 The final tournament combinations were pre-determined according to the group of pool 21 play and their ranking. The starting point of the “losing games on purpose” was the 22 defeat of the world’s second-ranked Chinese pair to the fifth-ranked Danish pair in pool 23 play group D. In the subsequent pool play group A, the game between the world’s first- 24 ranked Chinese pair and the eighth-ranked Korean pair was one in which both sides 25 were unwilling to win (Ikarugi, 2015, p.19-21). As a result, the world’s first-ranked 26 Chinese pair was defeated. If the world’s first-ranked Chinese pair passed the pool play 27 group A in the first place, it was influenced by the semifinal rather than the final 28 tournament with the world’s second-ranked Chinese pair. The world’s eighth-ranked 29 Korean pair also wanted to avoid the world’s second-ranked Chinese pair. In pool play 30 Group C, both the world’s third-ranked Korean pair and the world’s twelfth-ranked 31 Indonesian pair played a game in which they were unwilling to win, and they were 32 warned by the referee. After passing pool play group C in the first place, it was decide d 33 to play against the second place of group A, and these actions were carried out to avoid 34 a game with the world’s first-ranked Chinese pair. The audience booed the game 35 between the Chinese and Korean pairs, and the game between the Korean and Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 Indonesian pairs (Yomiuri Shimbun, 2012). The Badminton World Federation 2 disqualified the four pairs. 3 In the final of the Asian Championship, coach Nakajima and Takahashi / Matsutomo 4 team did not choose deliberate defeat to join the two teams from Japan in the Rio de 5 Janeiro Olympics. 6 Aiming for a defeat in sport is not an action that occurs only in badminton and top 7 athlete games. In pool play for the junior high school student futsal championship held 8 in Niigata in 2009, the team coach directed the players to their own goal to avoid a 9 game against a strong school in the final tournament (Asahi Shimbun, 2009a). The 10 team went from kickoff to its own goal six times and lost 0-7. In the game, the referee 11 paid attention to the team, and the opponent team requested a forfeited game. However, 12 the game was continued because there was no provision (Yomiuri Shimbun, 2009). The 13 coach was the second master of the school where the team players attended. The Japan 14 Football Association decided that the act was significantly different from the spirit of 15 fair play, and the coach was suspended for 12 months related to soccer activities. In 16 addition, the Niigata Prefectural Board of Education decided to impose disciplinary 17 action against the coach in terms of a wage reduction for a month as the coach's act 18 conflicted with the Local Public Service Act (Asahi Shimbun, 2009b). The Act aimed at 19 defeat in sport has provisions for sanctions such as suspension of activities and wage 20 reduction. 21 Critics were given to saying that women’s badminton players who were “losing games 22 on purpose” in the London Olympics had no respect for their opponents and their 23 surroundings and hurt all players (Mainichi Newspapers, 2012b). “Losing games on 24 purpose” was condemned as a foolish act that aroused spectators and viewers, and that 25 hurt the dignity of sport (Asahi Shimbun, 2012). In addition, critics felt that “losing 26 games on purpose” could shake the existence of sport (Sankei Shimbun, 2012). Some 27 believe that “losing games on purpose” exists in competitions other than badminton 28 (Yomiuri Shimbun, 2012), and that it is different from a fixed game (Mainichi 29 Newspapers, 2012a). Furthermore, some believe that it is a battle to preserve power 30 for the next game, and to choose a defeat makes the combination advantageous. It is 31 crucial, therefore, to discuss whether “losing games on purpose” shakes the very 32 existence of sport. 33 The problem of “losing games on purpose” is less discussed in the academic world 34 than in the journalistic world. As far as narrow insights are concerned, only Ikarugi 35 (2015). Ikarugi described the details of how the “losing games on purpose” of women’s Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 badminton occurred, and pointed out the strictness of the rule that ruled “losing games 2 on purpose”. On the other hand, as mentioned above, “losing games on purpose” is not 3 a phenomenon that can only occur in women’s badminton. A further point to be 4 discussed is the problem of “losing games on purpose” that can occur in sport. 5 The purpose of this study is to examine whether “losing games on purpose” is an 6 action that shakes the existence of sport, and to present a new perspective on the 7 problem of aiming for defeat in the game. However, there are conflicting views on the 8 nature of the acts that shake the existence of sport. In addition, it is not clear whether 9 the existence of sport fluctuates when “losing games on purpose” occurs with different 10 games and competitions. In this study, I will assume that the existence of sport 11 fluctuates, assuming “failed athletic contests,” as discussed in the fie ld of sport 12 philosophy. Conversely, the situation that the existence of sport does not fluctuate is 13 not assumed to be in sync with “failed athletic contests”. In the field of sport philosophy, 14 there is a significant volume of research that has been conducted on “failed athletic 15 contests,” and all the studies have revealed that “failed athletic contests” lead to 16 undesirable results. Interestingly, in the field of sport philosophy, scholars have 17 different views on “failed athletic contests.” The next section provides an overview of 18 the discussion on “failed athletic contests” in the field of sport philosophy. Based on 19 this, the analysis viewpoint of this research is set. 20 In addition, since the term “failed athletic contests” is an ambiguous concept, it 21 can be interpreted as a game in which players do not do their best while aiming for 22 victory. However, this study does not interpret “losing games on purpose” as players 23 not doing their best. In this study, the expression is limited to games in which the 24 player loses deliberately. Therefore, in competitions where games are played 25 continually, a game in which a player does not make every effort to reduce fatigue is 26 not considered “losing games on purpose” in this study. Given the risk of losing the 27 game, the act of aiming for a draw instead of a victory as a tactical choice is also not 28 included in the risk of “losing games on purpose.” Furthermore, in a game with a large 29 score difference, the act of cutting corners to avoid embarrassing the opponent, or the 30 act of not attempting an aggressive attack to end the game early is not included in 31 “losing games on purpose”. 32 33 2. The discussion on “failed athletic contests” in the field of sport philosophy 34 In the field of sport philosophy, research on “failed athletic contests” has been 35 conducted, centering on The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, and the journal of The Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (Dixon, 1999; Hämäläinen, 2014; 2 Kawatani, 2012, 2013; Kreider，2011; Pakaslahti，2016). Omine (2015) clarified the 3 point that trash talk creates “failed athletic contests” by referring to Kawatani (2012, 4 2013) as a viewpoint to analyze the game where trash talk occurred in a soccer game. 5 Omine compared studies on “failed athletic contests” by Dixon (1999), Hämäl äinen 6 (2014), Kawatani (2012, 2013), and Kreider (2011), and gave an advantage to 7 Kawatani’s argument. Later, Pakaslahti (2016) published a study on “failed athletic 8 contests” in The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport. However, the argument by 9 Pakaslahti is logically invalid. In this section, I first review Pakaslahti’s argument 10 about “failed athletic contests”, and state that there is a problem as a viewpoint for 11 analyzing “losing games on purpose” Next, I provide an overview of Kawatani’s 12 argument regarding “failed athletic contests”. 13 14 2.1. Pakaslahti’s argument about “failed athletic contests” 15 Pakaslahti first mentions the built-in ideals and central goals of sport when 16 considering “failed athletic contests” (Pakaslahti, 2016, p.281). They are to produc e an 17 official result that accurately reflects the “betterness” shown by the athletes and the 18 teams in the game. Pakaslahti refers to these built-in ideals in sport as “the Athletic 19 Superiority Ideal”. Pakaslahti also argues that the essential ideal that differs from “the 20 Athletic Superiority Ideal” is that the game produces an official result that is just or 21 fair (Pakaslahti, 2016, p.282). Pakaslahti calls this ideal “the Just Results Ideal”. 22 Based on the above assumptions, Pakaslahti provides examples in which “best” 23 athletes and teams*3 fail to win the game (Pakaslahti, 2016, p.284). One example is a 24 boxing match between Riddick Bowe and Andrew Golota in 1996. In the match, Golota 25 violated the rules by head-and-head and a low blow and lost by committing the foul. 26 Golota had taken down Bowe twice until disqualified, and Golota was leading in scoring. 27 Pakaslahti argues that Golota showed more athletic superiority than Bowe until 28 disqualification, and it is not enough to make Golota an inferior boxer because of the 29 violation by low blow (Pakaslahti，2016，p.284). According to Pakaslahti, the decision 30 that Golota was disqualified is not wrong, but the better boxer disappeared in this 31 match. Pakaslahti concludes that the match failed in terms of “the Athletic Superiority 32 Ideal,” but did not fail in terms of “the Just Results Ideal” (Pakaslahti, 2016, p.285)*4. 33 Pakaslahti also gives an example of a virtual football game that fails in terms of 34 “the Just Results Ideal” without failing in terms of “the Athletic Superiority Ideal” 35 (Pakaslahti, 2016, p.287). In that game, a ball shot by a team A player hit the crossb ar, Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 bounced off, and fell on the goal line. The assistant referee was determined that the 2 ball was completely over the goal line, but the ball actually only partially crossed the 3 goal line. Since the referee was poorly positioned, he relied on the assistant referee and 4 recognized Team A’s goal. As a result, Team A won 1-0. 5 Pakaslahti considered that Team A was better than Team B (Pakaslahti，2016，p.287). 6 According to Pakaslahti, team A’s superiority is evident from the shots that almost 7 cross the goal line. On the other hand, Pakaslahti points out that Team A did not 8 deserve victory because the goal should not have been recognized (Pakaslahti, 2016, 9 p.288). Therefore, it is claimed that the game did not fail in terms of “the Athletic 10 Superiority Ideal” but failed in terms of “the Just Results Ideal.” 11 The above-mentioned claims by Pakaslahti have the following problems. First, 12 Pakaslahti does not elaborate on concepts such as just or fair. What is just or fair is 13 arbitrary, and it unclear what reasoning was used to derive the “the Just Results Ideal.” 14 There is also a problem in the logic of the argument that the boxing match between 15 Bowe and Golota failed in terms of “the Athletic Superiority Ideal.” Even though Golota 16 had shown athletic superiority in the match until he was disqualified by a low blow, it 17 does not necessarily mean that superiority was inaccurately determined by the results 18 of the match. There is a possibility that Golota’s stamina had run out, and that Bowe’s 19 skillful tactics forced him to commit a low blow. In a boxing match, the goal is to 20 determine athletic superiority, including the existence of violations. 21 In the football case, Pakaslahti’s claim that team superiority was only demonstrated 22 by shots that almost crossed the goal line would be problematic. In football, the 23 superiority of the game is determined by the team that gets more points. In scoring, 24 whether a shot is more brutal or not is unimportant. If Pakaslahti’s assertion is adopted, 25 it is necessary to consider the criterion of whether the ball is almost crossing the goal 26 line, how many shots hit the posts and bars, how many shots are taken, and the ball 27 possession rate. 28 From the above points, there is a problem in using Pakaslahti’s argument about 29 “failed athletic contests”as a viewpoint for analyzing “losing games on purpose.” 30 In this study, based on Omine (2015) among the studies on “failed athletic contests,” 31 I give an advantage to Kawatani’s argument and discuss “losing games on purpose.” 32 The next section provides an overview of Kawatani’s argument. 33 34 2.2. Kawatani’s argument about “failed athletic contests” 35 Kawatani (2013) also discusses the purpose of sport in considering “failed athletic Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 contests.” Kawatani argues that the purpose of sport is to determine excellence, or 2 who excels in each game (Kawatani, 2013, p.35). This point is similar to Pakaslahti ’s 3 built-in ideals and central goals of sport, in which excellence is determined by the 4 outcome of the game. Kawatani calls such an intrinsic purpose in sport as an ethos in 5 sport*6. 6 Kawatani argues that a player’s foul will not destroy the game, but the misjudgment 7 of a referee who misses the foul or makes a mistake will jeopardize the institutional 8 identity of the game (Kawatani, 2013, p.36). On the other hand, minor misjudgment 9 can be considered as not affecting the institutional identity of the game, but if there is 10 a definitive misjudgment that reverses the win or loss, the institutional identity of the 11 game is suspect (Kawatani, 2013, p.41). According to Kawatani, a misjudgment that 12 would reverse the win or loss would result in “failed athletic contests.” 13 In addition, Kawatani mentions that “failed athletic contests” occur from the 14 perspective of ethos in sport (Kawatani, 2013, p.37-38). According to Kawatani, even if 15 there is no misjudgment by the referee, and the game is established by the player 16 playing according to the rules, the game where the ethos was not achieved i s a “failed 17 athletic contest” (Kawatani, 2013, p.37)*7. For a match to be truly a match, it is 18 important that the player is committed to the rules, and that the rules are functioning 19 effectively (Kawatani, 2013, p.38). However, Kawatani states that to achieve the ethos, 20 the player must be committed to victory. 21 In the next section, I will consider the loss of games on purpose with reference to 22 Kawatani’s argument. 23 24 3. Consideration of “losing games on purpose” 25 3.1. The confrontation between the game ethos and the competition ethos 26 In this section, “ losing games on purpose” is divided into two categories and 27 examined. Each of the broadly divided categories of “losing games on purpose” has 28 different ethical evaluations. In one category of “losing games on purpose,” players 29 explicitly seek defeat, as in the case of the women’s badminton games at the London 30 Olympics, and the junior high school student futsal championship. The other category 31 of “losing games on purpose” is one in which the player seeks defeat and tries to deceive 32 referees and spectators by pretending to win. This “losing games on purpose” is not 33 only for the competitive advantage with the opponent, but it may also be prevalent in 34 spot-fixing as seen in “losing sumo on purpose.” 35 Kawatani pointed out that a game in which ethos was not achieved is a “failed Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 athletic contests” even if the game was completed by playing according to the rules. 2 In addition, to achieve the ethos of the game, it is a necessary condition that the player 3 is committed to victory. Both categories of “losing games on purpose” are “failed athletic 4 contests,” in which the players are not committed to victory, and the ethos is not 5 achieved. Women’s badminton games at the London Olympics and the junior high school 6 student futsal championship were also “failed athletic contests,” in which players did 7 not commit to victory and the ethos was not achieved. On the other hand, in the case 8 of women’s badminton, the player’s commitment to “winning in competitions” was 9 stronger than winning one game, such as winning medals at the Olympics. Even in the 10 case of the futsal championship, coaches and players were more committed to winning 11 the championship than to winning one game. 12 Not only the game’s ethos, but also the game’s “ethos of competitions” is an issue in 13 discussing “losing games on purpose.” Kawatani said that the purpose of sport was to 14 determine who is superior in each game, and such an intrinsic purpose of sport was 15 called sport ethos. With reference to Kawatani’s comments, the purpose of competition 16 is to determine excellence, or who is superior in the competition. 17 Kawatani pointed out that a player ’ s commitment to victory was necessary to 18 achieve sport ethos. However, Kawatani’s point is only for the ethos in one game, not 19 for the “ethos of competitions.” The “ethos of competitions” is achieved by the 20 player committing to victory in the competition. First, there is no need to hold a 21 competition if the player is only interested in winning one game. Competition is an 22 attempt to determine which player or team is excellent, and, accordingly, the order of 23 excellence among the players and the teams is determined. The spirit of competition is 24 established by players and teams aiming for victory and commitment to the top, else 25 the games can be regarded as “failed athletic contests.” 26 The women’s badminton games at the London Olympics and the junior high school 27 student futsal championship occurred because they were too faithful to the “ethos of 28 competitions.” If a player becomes loyal to ethos in one game and wins, then it is 29 inevitable that they will play against a team that is expected to be superior, and this 30 will be an obstacle to winning medals and advancement in competition. The women’s 31 badminton games at the London Olympics and the junior high school student futsal 32 championship are examples that highlight the point at which ethos in one game and 33 “ethos of competitions” sometimes conflict. The conflict between the two ethos creates 34 a dilemma of whether the player seeks victory in one game. 35 Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 3.2. “Losing games on purpose” category in which “failed athletic contests” is hidden 2 In the second category of “losing games on purpose,” it is often difficult for a referee 3 to determine the act of trying to lose. This applies not only to interactive spor ting 4 competitions such as soccer, tennis, and basketball, but also to parallel sporting 5 competitions such as athletics, archery, and golf *8. Players do not always play their 6 best in any game. Even if players have a strong will to win, there are cases in w hich 7 their mental condition is bad, and normal performance cannot be demonstrated. It is 8 extremely difficult to discriminate between such cases and the act of defeating by 9 pretending to win. The intention to lose in the second category of “losing games on 10 purpose” is likely to be hidden from referees and spectators. It is possible that the 11 games will be considered as a pursuit of excellence with all efforts. The second category 12 of “losing games on purpose” is the act of creating a referee’s misjudgment. 13 On the other hand, the fact that the referee did not see the act that the player tried 14 to lose was not a decisive misjudgment that would reverse the victory or defeat. 15 Therefore, the game is not regarded as “failed athletic contests” from the viewpoint of 16 misjudgment. The game is not considered “failed athletic contests” by referees or 17 spectators in the form, even though it is actually “failed athletic contests.” 18 In the first category of “losing games on purpose,” the player’s attempt at defeat is 19 recognized by referees and spectators. Referees may be embarrassed and angry with 20 the player trying to lose, but they can also declare warnings and disqualifications based 21 on official rules. In other words, misjudgment is not induced. In addition, it is not 22 formally regarded as a “failed athletic contest” by referees and spectators, and a “failed 23 athletic contest” is not concealed. 24 In the women’s badminton games at the London Olympics and the junior high school 25 student futsal championship, players were not only accused but also sanctioned. 26 However, the second category of “losing games on purpose” is even more problematic 27 based on the above points. This is because the second category creates “failed athletic 28 contests” without achieving the game’s ethos, but induces a misjudgment regarding 29 that point and hides the “failed athletic contest.” 30 31 4. Conclusion 32 The purpose of this study is to present a new perspective on the problem of 33 attempting to lose a game on purpose through consideration of whether doing so 34 threatens the existence of sport. We proceeded with study by hypothesizing “failed 35 athletic contests”, which is discussed in the field of sport philosophy, as jeopardizing Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 the existence of this sport. Then, I analyzed “losing games on purpose”referencing 2 “failed athletic contests” theory of Kawatani. This study was conducted using the 3 two broad categories of “losing games on purpose”where defeat is clearly the goal 4 and “ losing games on purpose ” where players deceive referees and spectators in 5 behaving as if they want to win while they are actually trying to lose. 6 Kawatani claims that games where an ethos (internal purpose) was not achieved even 7 though the contest was based upon athletes playing according to the rules are“failed 8 athletic contests” . He found that player commitment to winning is necessary as a 9 condition in achieving the ethos of the game, which suggests that“losing games on 10 purpose”in either category are“failed athletic contests”in which the athletes are not 11 committed to victory and the ethos is not established. On the other hand, it also became 12 clear that there is a dilemma for players in athletic meets in that an ethos of such 13 contests where there is a commitment to winning is called for, and this is occasionally 14 in conflict with the ethos of individual games. 15 For the second category of “losing games on purpose”, it was also revealed that 16 referees and spectators were not aware of such nature of the defeat as it was concealed. 17 This suggests that the second category is of a more problematic nature than the first 18 category of “losing games on purpose”. 19 In terms of limitations of this study, the problem of “losing games on purpose” was 20 discussed, but the act of not doing everything in the game and the act of cutting corners 21 were not discussed. For example, in a game with a large score difference, it is the act 22 of cutting corners that is resorted to in order to avoid embarrassing the opponent. Pros 23 and cons are often found in such actions. Discussion on these issues is a topic for future 24 studies. 25 26 Notes 27 *1 Participation in the Rio de Janeiro Olympics is determined by a world ranking based 28 on the results of the international competition (Asahi Shimbun, 2016). 2016). The 29 Asian Championship was the last tournament that required Olympic participation. 30 In doubles, where 16 teams can participate, up to 2 teams will be given to countries 31 that have more than 2 teams in the 8th place. The 9th place Naoko Fukuman and 32 Kurumi Yonao could reverse the 8th place Korean pair if they won the Asian 33 Championship. 34 *2 Trash talking is player’s verbal barbs directed at opponents to gain a competitive 35 edge (Dixon, 2007, p.96). Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 *3 Pakaslahti uses the term “best” when either athlete or team is better than the other 2 athlete or team (Pakaslahti, 2016, p.291). 3 *4 Pakaslahti also shows an example of virtual tennis that failed in “the Athletic 4 Superiority Ideal” but did not fail in “the Just Results Ideal” (Pakaslahti，2016， 5 p.286). It is a single match between player A and player B. Player A has earned 190 6 points in the entire game, and Player B has earned 145 points. On the other hand, 7 the result is a setting in which player A is lost in 6-7, 6-0, 6-7, 6-0, 6-8. Pakaslahti 8 believes that it is plausible to believe that player A was the best player because 9 player A gained 45 points more than Player B. Pakaslahti concluded that the game 10 failed in terms of “the Athletic Superiority Ideal” but did not result in injustice. 11 *5 Kawatani’s argument has been reviewed in Omine (2015), but in this study as well. 12 *6 There are various definitions of ethos in sport by researchers other than Kawatani 13 (D’ Agostino, 1981; Kondo, 2011; Loland, 2002; Tamburrini, 2010). This is an 14 ambiguous concept. In this study“losing games on purpose” is discussed from the 15 viewpoint of Kawatani, which is the limitation of this research. 16 *7 A fixed game is listed as an example of a game in which ethos is not achieved despite 17 the fact that the game has been completed by playing according to the rules without 18 any misjudgment (Kawatani, 2013, p.37). 19 *8 I refer to Hardman et al. (1996) for the classification of interactive and parallel 20 sporting competitions. 21 22 References 23 Asahi Shimbun (2009a) Wazato oungorru 6 renpatu Niigata no tyuugaku, kyougou 24 sakeru tame sizisita kyoutou ni katudouteisisyobun [Deliberately 6 own goals 25 Niigata junior high school, to avoid the powerful team suspension of activity at the 26 vice president]. April 10 p.18. (in Japanese). 27 Asahi Shimbun (2009b) “Oungorru” sizi de genkyu Niigata, tyuutoukyouikugakkou no 28 kyoutou [Wage cuts according to “own goal” instructions Niigata, The vice president 29 of junior high school]. April 23 p.37. (in Japanese). 30 Asahi Shimbun (2012) “Kisya yuuron” London gorin mukiryoku to senryaku no hazama 31 de Inagaki Kousuke [“Kisya yuuron” London Olympic between lethargy and strategy 32 Inagaki Kousuke]. August 14 p.9. (in Japanese). 33 Asahi Shimbun (2016) Shinken syoubu no sue, Rio hitowaku ni badominton [The end 34 of a serious game, in one frame of the Rio olympics badminton], May 3 p.19. (in 35 Japanese). Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 D’Agostino, F. (1981) The ethos of games. Journal of the philosophy of sport, 8: 7-18. 2 Dixon, N. (1999) On winning and athletic superiority. Journal of the philosophy of sport, 3 26: 10-26. 4 Dixon, N. (2007) Trash talking, respect for opponents and good competition. Sport, 5 ethics and philosophy, 1 (1): 96-106. 6 Hämäläinen, M. (2014) Three standards of athletic superiority. Journal of the 7 philosophy of sport, 41(3): 289-302. 8 Hardman, A., Fox, L., Mclaughlin, D., and Zimmerman, K. (1996) On sportsmanship 9 and ‘running up the score’: Issues of incompetence and humiliation. Journal of the 10 philosophy of sport, 23: 58-69. 11 Ikarugi, C. (2015). “Mukiryokuziai” wo “mondai” to suru mondai [The problem of “losing 12 games on purpose” as problem]. Inoue, K., Matsunami, M., Takemura, M., and 13 Tkimoto, M, (Eds.). Suportugaku no syatei: “Shintai” no riarithihe [Range of sport 14 studies: To the reality of “body”]. Keisoshobo, p.18-28. (in Japanese). 15 Kawatani, S. (2012) Suportsu no ertos saiko: “Kettei” ni tuite [Rethinking ethos in 16 sport: “Decision”. Contemporary and applied philosophy, 4: 65-78. (in Japanese). 17 Kawatani, S. (2013) The identity and the end of games: A reconsideration of “the logical 18 incompatibility thesis”. Journal of the philosophy of sport and physical education, 35 19 (1): 31-43. (in Japanese). 20 Kondo, Y. (2011) Intentional rules violations in competitive sport. Journal of the 21 philosophy of sport and physical education, 33 (1): 1-11. (in Japanese). 22 Kreider, A. J. (2011) Game-playing without rule-following. Journal of the philosophy of 23 sport, 38: 55-73. 24 Loland, S. (2002) Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Routledge. 25 Mainichi Newspapers (2012a) London gorin: Badominton 4 pea sikkaku rirgusei no 26 hukusayou mukiryokuziai, kenkai wakare [London Olympics: Badminton 4 pair 27 disqualification side effects of the league system losing games on purpose, separation 28 of opinions]. August 2 p.17. (in Japanese). 29 Mainichi Newspapers (2012b) Thirtaimu: London gorin aite, syuui heno keii [Teatime: 30 London Olympics opponent, respect for the surroundings]. August 6 p.23. (in 31 Japanese). 32 Omine, M. (2015) Ethics of trash talk in soccer. Jpn. J. Phys. Educ. Health. Sport Sci, 33 60:489-498. (in Japanese). 34 Pakaslahti, A. (2016) Betterness, injustice and failed athletic contestants. Journal of 35 the philosophy of sport, 43 (2): 281-293. Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 Sankei Shimbun (2012) London gorin oiegei “hukkatsu” to “zanpai” [London Olympic 2 “resurrection” and “disaster” of specialty]. August 14 p.14. (in Japanese). 3 Sankei Shimbun (2016) “Badominton” azia sensyuken Hukuman・Yonao gumi, gorin 4 nogasu [“Badminton” the Asian Championship Hukuman and Yonao, miss olympic]. 5 May 2 p.15. (in Japanese). 6 Tamburrini, C. (2010) The “Hand of God”?. In: McNamee, M. (Ed.) The ethics of sport. 7 Routledge, p.132-144. 8 Yomiuri Shimbun (2009) Kyoutou ga “makeyo” 6 oungorru tyuugakusei futtosaru taikai 9 de [The vice president said “lose” 6 own goals at a futsal tournament for junior hig h 10 school students]. April 10 p.37. (in Japanese). 11 Yomiuri Shimbun (2012) London gorin “wazato make” no hamon badominton 4 kumi 12 sikkaku [London Olympics ripple of “intentional loss” 4 groups disqualified in 13 badminton]. August 3 p.39. (in Japanese). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Advance Publication by J-STAGE Published online December 22, 2020

1 Name:

2 Mitsuharu Omine 3 4 Affiliation: 5 Faculty of Human Health Sciences, Meio University 6 7 Address: 8 1220-1, Biimata, Nago, Okinawa 905-8585, Japan 9 10 Brief Biographical History: 11 2011-2014 Doctoral program in Graduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda 12 University 13 2013-2014 Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 14 2015-2017 Research associate, Faculty of Human Health Sciences, Meio 15 University 16 2017-Associate professor, Faculty of Human Health Sciences, Meio 17 University 18 19 Main works: 20 Mitsuharu, O. (2016) Problems related to student acceptance of corporal 21 punishment during extracurricular sports activities: With reference to Erich 22 Fromm's authority theory. Japan Journal of Physical Education, Health and 23 Sport Sciences, 61 (2), 629-637. 24 25 Membership in Learned Societies: 26 Japan Society of Physical Education 27 Japanese Society of Sport Education 28 Japan Society for the Philosophy of Sport and Physical Education