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 Japan 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; badminton; 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 Misaki Matsutomo, 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 Naoko Fukuman and Kurumi Yonao 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.