Sports

Working in a betting exchange means that I'm more exposed to sports then I have been in the past. Since giving up on my childhood dream of becoming a professional table tennis player I really havn't paid much attention to sports at all, though I will, given the opportunity, sit down and watch the best of any sport just to see what its like at the highest level.

Living in London, and I dare say anywhere in Europe right now, it's particularly hard not to notice the fact that the world cup is being played. The world cup involves, what most australians would call, soccer. Now I'm reliably told that the world cup is the single largest sporting event anywhere in the world and so you can imagine my surprise when after a bit of investigation I found some an amazing thing out, they don't use technology.

Imagine, in an age where IT is making inroads almost everywhere, in the largest sporting event in the world, there is nothing remotely technologically related. No 3rd umpire, no chips embedded into the balls, no video simulations, absolutely nothing. Now I'm sure the purists would say to me "that's the way it's meant to be Ben, real football", but it's these same purists that are screaming hatred and issuing death threats to the referees that make a bad call during the game causing their favourite team to be knocked out. Now given the seeming importance that soccer has you'd think that people would be using every possible thing that they could to ensure that the winner of the game was the team that played the best soccer rather then some random bad decision made by a single person (yeah and some touch line judges), but that seems to not be the case, in fact, it was suggested by Benjamin Waters that the reason that soccer is so popular is that there is a certain amount of "assyness" about it. I mean let's face it, any sport that decides the "champions" based off one game is more then a little suspect.

Actually where things get interesting is watching the way different sports approach this problem. Soccer, as mentioned, doesn't appear to be doing anything, and while I'm sure I'll get in trouble for saying it, soccer appears to be mostly a south american and european phenomenon, bear that in mind. Now compared to say soccer, we have cricket a typically colonial sport, originally introduced from England to all of its colonies and now generally one of the most popular sports in each of the colonies. Cricket has had a technological revolution in the last 15 years, led mainly out of Australia. New things brought into the game include the "third umpire", video recreations, microphones, additional cameras and sensors. All of these things have substantially, though admitedly not completely, reduced the likliehood of the outcome of a game depending on a decision of a fallible human. In fact Australia has led the way introducing technology to a number of sports, especially tennis. America as well has introduced a lot of technology into their sports, and it could be argued, have a more substantial reason to believe that the champions of their sport are in fact the best team due to often having a series of playoffs rather then it all being decided in one game. Now where this gets interesting is that in my experience if you look at the average level of seriousness in approach to sports Australia and America seem to be well beyond that of say south america and europe. By that I mean simply that the culture / society in Australia and America have less tolerance of losing anything and an expectation that they will win (rightly or wrongly). Thus it's my conclusion that it's likely to be true that most europeans don't want technology in their sports, not because it wouldn't be better but because it would take away a lot of the element of chance and consequently the best chance that most teams have of winning.