Law on Violence in Sports: Advantages & Disadvantages

On September 15, 1997, Nick Kypreos sustained life-altering injuries after his opponent, Ryan VandenBussche, struck him in the face during a fight mid-hockey game. Not only did Kypreos suffer from post-concussion syndrome for years afterward, but his career was effectively cut short as a result of his injuries. If this had occurred off the ice it would have been considered assault. Yet, despite the severity of his actions, VandenBussche continued to play hockey and enjoyed a full and prosperous career. This situation exemplifies the degree of erroneous violence that has become increasingly prevalent in professional sports. This level of violent conduct greatly exceeds the necessary level inherently associated with contact sports. Violence in sports has become a societal problem and needs to be more strictly regulated with laws that properly enforce penalties for violent acts.

Issues surrounding the prosecution of violence carried out during sports have existed for a long time. The main issue is differentiating between “lawful” and “unlawful” behavior. Currently, most incidences that occur in a sports arena are considered lawful and, therefore, noncriminal. In 1980, The Sports Violence Act was introduced as a proposed federal regulation toward violence in sports. This bill failed to pass due to its ambiguity in defining what constitutes excessive violence. Specifically, the bill failed to clearly outline what level of violence would be acceptable without compromising the competitive goals of sports. Despite this bill being unsuccessful, it was not the only attempt at regulating violence in sports through legislation. In 1983, another bill was created named The Sports Violence Arbitration Act that proposed implementing an arbitration board to deal with violent conduct. This bill was also unsuccessful because it required self-regulation of conduct amongst players and sports leagues. Considering the unsuccessful attempts at regulating violence through federal legislation, very few athletes have been prosecuted for their violent actions during competition and the current disciplinary guidelines that major sporting leagues follow are not severe enough to significantly curb violence.

Understanding the role of various professions involved when dealing with prosecuting violence in sports is key to understanding where discrepancies in policing violence lie. Michael D. Bayles discusses the concept of essence and claim. In this regard, every profession considers itself the proper body to set the rules governing issues that arise within their respective profession. In this case, professional sports leagues, such as the NHL, have established a set of internal rules that dictate disciplinary procedures towards their athletes. These rules, however, have not been proven to be adequate in controlling violence among players due to the inherent fact that sporting leagues encourage violence amongst their players. It could be argued that no sporting league should be the sole disciplinary body for the policing of violence. If an athlete is reprimanded by their respective sporting league, this should not preclude them from receiving additional criminal sanctions.

One author, Daniel R. Karon, delves into the issues surrounding violence in sports and states that the current level of egregious violence is intolerable. In Karon’s view, violence in sport is no longer confined to the arena and has effects which are proving to be detrimental to society. The author argues that a workable federal standard is required in order to eliminate ubiquitous violence in sports. The proposed solution is a federal statute that implements criminal penalties for athletes engaging in such brutality, both at the professional and amateur levels. In the proposed statute, key terms are defined in order to remedy the ambiguity that caused previous Acts to fail. The regulations would break the intent requirement into two components. The first intent requirement would differentiate between intentional and unintentional contact. In this proposal, any accidental contact would be defined as “contact that is the result of a player’s inability to stop his own momentum and that forces him into the contacted player”. Violent actions that meet the definition of the first intent requirement would not result in criminal liability. The second intent requirement would include only contact in which there was a clear intention of causing physical harm or injury. This excludes contact that is within the rules of the game. According to the author, there needs to be a criminal penalty for athletes that commit a violent act under the second intent requirement to ensure that change towards less violence in sports occurs. The author believes that this proposed action would preserve the integrity of the game across different sports while eliminating unnecessary violence.

I strongly support the solution that the author proposed as a means of eradicating the type of violence that has become so destructive to our society. Sporting competitions are viewed worldwide and, as a result, the events which transpire during them should be recognized as influential to spectators and society as a whole. Considering their platform and prominence in society, professional athletes often serve as role models for children who in turn seek to emulate their favorite players. If professional athletes encourage and participate in violent acts, it is undeniable that young athletes will engage in violence at a non-professional level. Furthermore, the level of violence that is currently tolerated during competition proposes significant physical harm to the athletes. This harm can cause debilitating injuries, such as brain damage, and can lead to a reduction in lifespan as a result. This level of harm far exceeds the danger that is inherently associated with sports. Excessive violence in sports not only causes physical harm but can contribute to psychological harm towards the athletes as well. Their career demonstrates that violence is acceptable and there have been several cases in which this violent attitude is displayed outside of the arena. Implementing criminal sanctions for acts of excessive and futile violence would send the message to athletes and society alike that this type of behavior is unacceptable.

Considering the prominence of sports in society, it could be argued that eliminating violence would negatively impact fan attendance and viewership. It is not uncommon for fans to be seen encouraging fights during games and demonstrating an aggressive demeanor towards each other in support of such behavior. Congruent with this view, the NHL has stated that they fear taking action against violence would cause fans to be less inclined to view competitions. Furthermore, it could be argued that policing violence would be exceptionally difficult since violence has long since been an integral aspect of sporting games. Additionally, the criminal law is intended to protect the public and one could argue that this should not be applied to sports because acts of violence within the arena do not cause harm to the general population. From this perspective, it could be argued that professional athletes should be governed by different criminal law regulations when participating in a sporting competition than they would otherwise be subject to the outside of the arena.

In response to the hesitation and reluctance from various parties to take action against violence in sport, it could be countered that sports, and by association athletes themselves, should emulate sportsmanship, as opposed to encouraging violence in hopes of attracting large audiences. While some fans might display an interest in witnessing violence during competitions, many fans do not watch sports solely for the brutality and instead have a passion for the game. When viewing violence in sports from this perspective, the assumed loss in viewership as a result of a reduction in violence in sports could be said to be overblown. A reduction in violence could further be viewed as an opportunity, even, to garner new and renewed interest in sporting events from those who are displeased at the levels of violence currently observed in sports.

While it will undoubtedly take time to break out of the deep-rooted, violent mindset that has long since been encouraged in sports, doing so would greatly benefit athletes and society going forward. Although allowing violence does not physically harm the general public, it results in psychological harm. By subjecting viewers to watch erroneous violent acts between two human beings, it challenges their ordinary morality and ethical standards. Furthermore, violence in the sporting arena has led to violent acts from fans who are fueled by the recklessness they see from athletes. Fan violence has led to injuries and in extreme cases, it has even resulted in death. In order to reduce these negative societal impacts and dangers linked to the normalization of violence in sports, violence should not be considered an enhanced form of entertainment.

A viable defense that athletes and sporting leagues often administer to the support of violence in the arena is that the victim of the assault consented to the violent act. Upon signing a contract with a major sporting league, it is understood that the athlete is implicitly consenting to the possibility of physical harm. While this applies to the potential harm that may arise from contact within the boundaries of the rules of respective sports, it should not be used as an excuse for excessive violence. Athletes cannot always anticipate violent conduct from opponents and, therefore, cannot give true informed consent to being physically harmed. Due to the ambiguity of the concept of informed consent within the sporting world, many athletes refrain from seeking criminal prosecution. They support the “unwritten code” that violence is acceptable within competition and may fear that coaches will not want to associate with an athlete that does not support this mindset.

Given the ways in which violence is engrained in sports, including through sport’s competitive nature, ambiguity preventing prosecution, spectator expectations, and the desire amongst leagues to maintain viewership, Karon’s proposal to implement a federal statute that increases criminal sanctions is unlikely to be effective in significantly reducing violence in sports on its own. However, there are many reasons why reducing violence in sports would be beneficial not only for athletes but to society as a whole. These include decreasing the physical and psychological harm towards athletes, reducing fan aggressiveness, subjecting viewers to a less violent nature, and creating healthier role models for young athletes. In order to realize these societal benefits, it is evident that individual sporting leagues should not be the only governing body for violence-related penalties, and should be supported by additional regulatory measures such as the introduction and strict regulation of criminal sanctions. While winning may be the ultimate goal for the majority of sporting competitions, violence does not need to be the means to achieve that end. Despite the normalcy of violence in sport and the history of reluctance towards reducing it, there is a strong case for the sporting community to revert back to the true essence of sport – passion, and love for the game.