Abstract

The landscape of sport shows conspicuous discursive and material disparities between the responses to openly violent on-field transgressors and the responses to other kinds of transgressor, most notably drug-users. The former gets off significantly lighter in terms of ideological framing and formal punishment. The latter – and drug-users in particular – are typically demonised and heavily punished, whilst the former are regularly lionised, dramatized, celebrated and punished less severely.
The preceding disparities cannot be upheld from the standpoint of morality in general or from that of a Broad Internalist sport ethic. Consideration of the consequences, actions, motives and vices involved in the respective categories fails to support them. Nor is support provided by the notion that sports are tests of the physical skills and virtues that the obstacles presented are designed to foster and promote, and behaviour that threatens the opportunity to exercise those excellences or have competitions determined by them should be the subject of critical moral scrutiny. Openly violent on-field transgression does not fare at all well by the yardstick of Broad Internalism. Robust investigation of and ultimate change in the values underpinning the disparities is warranted.