“Fair play”and competition

The principle of “fair play” reflects fairness as the philosophical foundation of sport. Competition is not just a set of physical activities; to fulfil its true mission it must be based on fair and respectful rivalry (Loland 2023, p. 66). In jurisprudence, there is a category of rights known as natural rights, which every human being possesses independently of any written enshrinement in law. The natural right of sport is ‘fair play’, which covers a wide range of rights and obligations and is superior to written law. Section 3(2) of the Sports Act provides general guidance on the principle of fair play, stating that sport governance must be guided by Olympic ideals and ethical principles. The principle of fair play is therefore directly applicable to any sport. The Olympic Movement is fundamentally based on ‘fair play’ (Paiken 2019, p. 36). Sport ethics perceives Olympic ideals and fair play as synonymous – encompassing tolerance, generosity, solidarity, respect, friendship and the pursuit of excellence (Dragnea, Theodorescu 2002, p. 61). Consequently, fair play is the foundation of an athlete’s moral competence, behaviour and attitude (Popescu, Masari 2011, p. 25). Nowadays, fair play is mainly associated with the observance of standards of equal opportunities, moral and respectful conduct during sport competitions. It is argued that sports games are unthinkable without an understanding of equality of opportunity (Loland 2015, p. 334).

Inequalities between individuals are permissible in circumstances beyond their control. For example, inequalities in external conditions may arise because of the weather, where wind may help a long jumper to gain the centimetres needed to win. However, these conditions create inequalities that are beyond the control and influence of the individual, so the competition can still be considered fair (Loland 2015, p. 338). As long as the violation is unintentional, the rule breaker cannot be blamed. However, the problem arises when an advantage is created unfairly through the use of prohibited means. In such situations, cheaters are known as free riders, who deprive others of the joy of the game and the right to honestly deserved success by appropriating it for themselves (Loland, 2015, p. 343). Classic examples are doping and favouritism. Fair play is closely linked to the integrity of athletes as well as sports officials. Integrity in turn means uncompromising adherence to ethical and moral standards. In their role as sports officials, managers not only have a professional responsibility towards their organisation or club, but also a personal responsibility towards society as a whole (Kihl 2020, pp. 337-338). The national sports policy, which includes the category ‘sport for all’, is based on the idea of equal opportunities for all citizens to participate in sporting activities. In high-performance sport, equal treatment means providing all competitors with a level playing field to fight for victory.

India’s Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, has pointed out that inequality in income distribution reflects and contributes to the misallocation of capital. If the political elite support controlled companies and their friends, they simultaneously rob resources from other efficient companies and productive investment targets (Jaitley 2015, Sharma 2022, p. 45.) To address this problem, for example, the Financial Fair Play regulation was introduced in football to limit financial inequalities between clubs and promote sustainable and fair competition. This regulation has helped European club football to become more profitable, from a loss of €1.7 billion in 2010 to a profit of €600 million in 2017 (Caglioa et.al., 2023, pp. 1-4).

Competition Competition acts as a balancing tool, motivating new entrants and eliminating the risks of monopolistic systems (Boehm 1961, p. 22, Hayek 2007, p. 166). Monopolistic systems that reinforce inequalities are not consistent with the ideals of sport (Loland, 2015, pp. 337- 339). In a monopolistic situation, the leading player occupies a dominant position while the others teeter on the brink of bankruptcy (Downward, Dawson, Dejonghe 2009, p. 86). Fair competition reduces bureaucracy and favouritism, giving everyone an equal chance to win (Bockel 2014, pp. 70-71). It can be reasonably argued that elite sport without competition loses its meaning (Gaffney 2007, p. 116.) If there is no opponent, it is impossible to win. But in a fair competition, all athletes are on a level playing field, new talent can enter the sport, and the leaders have a constant motivation to maintain and improve their sporting level in order to maintain their position. Competition in sport can only ensure fairness if it creates an environment where outcomes are unpredictable (Bockel 2014, p. 81). Fair competition is based on the norm of equal opportunities. A competition where the outcome is predictable is not binding on the spectators or the participants themselves. Competition is seen as a progressive form of cooperation in which individuals do their best to outdo each other in a respectful and fair fight (McNamee 2010, Loland, 2015, p. 340). When players compete with unequal opponents, their motivation is lost; they no longer perform at their best. In such a situation, athletic performance declines (Bockel 2014, p. 82.). In elite sport, winning is very difficult – only one can become the winner. The fierce competition can lead to cheating or opportunistic behaviour (Boxill 2003, p. 115, Bockel 2014, p. 19.). Opportunism is defined as “the effort to gain short-term self-gain by deceit through trust” (Williamson 1973, p. 317, Suchanek 2012, p. 3, Bockel 2013, p. 21). Opportunistic actions can damage both the own and other stakeholders’ chances of long-term gain (Bockel 2013, p. 23), and have negative long-term consequences. For example, cheating by athletes can damage the motivation of honest participants to continue playing sport.

Winning, becoming champions is very difficult and very few succeed. If many were famous, powerful and rich, these attributes would lose their value (Covington, 2009, p. 151). Thus, both functionaries and athletes use sport as a means to obtain these coveted values, or to help those close to them obtain them. In the struggle for these scarce resources, claimants often engage in activities that sociologists refer to as innovative deviance: the desire to achieve a goal is so great, but resources are so limited, that participants begin to break the rules and use unethical means (Bockel 2014, p. 58). Consequently, honest players lose faith that the game will be fair and that sporting performance will be the only thing that determines the winner (Bockel, 2014, p. 119). Thus, honest players lose motivation when playing against players who cheat and start cheating themselves to keep up. Players who do not want to cheat, on the other hand, quit the game when they feel powerless (Bockel, 2014, pp. 88-89). The key to improving competition is consistency in the understanding of the game itself by the whole society, which is in line with the golden rule of sport ethics – the pursuit of total excellence, which is only possible with fair competition as a form of cooperation (Bockel 2014, p. 93). Taking a long-term perspective means understanding that a victory achieved today at any cost is not worth the damage it does to the environment in the long term. Winning at all costs in parallel means creating unfavourable conditions for future cooperation, which inevitably leads to scenarios of missed opportunities, both in the careers of players and in the growth and development of sports organisations (Suchanek 2007 p. 7, Bockel 2014, p. 180). Exactly as in economics, the golden rule in sport states that society collectively creates the conditions for a fair environment that enables mutual benefit for all in the long run, and the creation of such an environment is the responsibility of society as a whole (Bockel 2014, pp. 177-178).

As Aaron Smith and Tony Stewart (2010, p. 11) have pointed out, managers of sports organisations often manage to escape liability for competition law infringements, while in other sectors managers of companies are prosecuted for similar actions (De Waegeneer, Devisch, Willem 2016, p. 3). In Latvia, there is no criminal liability for competition law infringements, but the Competition Council has imposed severe fines on large companies. However, there is no known precedent where the Competition Council has dealt with an infringement of competition law in sport. The adoption of legislation regulating the sport sector tends to be linked not only to sport as such, but also to the actual business practices of sports organisations, and the rules on financial reporting, competition law, corporate governance are the same for all companies, whether they are active in sport or in any other field (Andreff, Szymanski 2006, p. 258). Nowadays, it is difficult to create a system that fully ensures fair competition, and sport is certainly no exception (Bockel, 2013, p. 31).