Games vs. Sports

GAMES

Forms of competitive or non-competitive (single player) physical or non-physical activities, allowing casual or organized participation, aimed to utilize, maintain, or improve physical abilities and skills while providing enjoyment to participants or entertainment for spectators.

SPORTS

Forms of competitive physical or non-physical activities, allowing casual or organized participation, aimed to utilize, maintain, or improve physical abilities and skills, incorporating aspects of offense and defense while providing enjoyment to participants entertainment for spectators.

*     *     *

To stave off the career athletes who golf or bowl or any other type of leisure activity of the sort, let me preface my explanation with this note: in not one way do I consider a "sport" harder or better or more challenging or any other modifier one may think than a "game." Golf, especially, is an extremely strenuous game but it lacks two major aspects which force me label it a game: offense and defense.

On any given day, while playing a sport, an individual or team has the opportunity to "stop" the other individual or team from performing his/her/its best. In a game, an individual or team only has the opportunity to simply "perform better" than the other individual or team. Basically, in a game a person or team is responsible for how he/she/it performs; whereas in a sport, an opponent might decide how a person or team performs.

Believe it or not, this issue has been debated for some time, and an international definition weakly exists at best, provided by the SportAccord. This organization's definition of a sport is as follows:

• The sport proposed should include an element of competition.
• The sport should not rely on any element of “luck” specifically integrated into the sport.
• The sport should not be judged to pose an undue risk to the health and safety of its athletes or participants.
• The sport proposed should in not any way be harmful to any living creature.
• The sport should not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier.

The SportAccord also has five categories when allowing participation into their organization (many sports fall into more than one category):

• Primarily physical (e.g. rugby or football)
• Primarily mind (e.g. chess)
• Primarily motorized (e.g. Nascar)
• Primarily coordination (e.g. billiards)
• Primarily animal-supported (e.g. equestrianism)

And yes, billiards, chess, and Nascar provide opportunities for offense and defense.

Okay, here's an example: Everyone would agree basketball is a sport; however, if you play "HORSE," just because you are using a basketball to play, does it still make it a sport? If someone is a better shooter, this person will reign victorious 99% of the time. Only one aspect is involved in the game of "HORSE": shooting. Now, if the participants were allowed to, let us say, attempt to distract the other shooter during a turn, this "distraction" would qualify the game of "HORSE" as a sport.

This distinction will never occur because businesses, marketers, and the heads of the sports/games organizations would stand to lose large chunks of revenue if their activity ever earned the label of "game." I do not agree with this negative connotation, but the public opinion is undeniable.  I simply choose to form this distinction for personal preference; others assuredly are either shaking their heads or vocally disapproving, but you have to admit...I make a sound argument for this distinction to become internationally accepted.