The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

NonCommercial Sports organizations who dont pay all players 2 be banned as they are creating slaves

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,002 times Debate No: 26892
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I think the way non-commercial sports organizations generally operate, creates unpaid SLAVES who are only used to further the interest of:

a)the organization
b)top few players at the expense of thousands of other players
b)the top layer officials
c)create a competing environment without any financial benefit to the members who participate like the Slaves were made to fight like animals in earlier years

My def.of non-commercial sports organization is:
One which pays hundreds of thousands to top players AND
doesn't pay its players at all levels.

For a comparison people go as apprentice in any other profession with a view to get a job and pay, if it is not immediate, then at least in future, they get it.

But sports organizations with the tag of hobby or passion draws millions in to membership with almost for a no chance of making any money at all, just because their structure wants to reward only the top few at the expense of all others creating the same kind of SLAVERY that rich people did when they bought a slave and perpetuated slavery.
Lotto is far better because
it is equal to everybody
it doesnt take your productive time that could be used for income generating vocation.

The prizes for winning at lower,middle,lower top levels are just trophies,etc. and not cash payment rewards for the time spent even for the winners. In a world where everything is paid for, this structure sucks the time of the competitors without any real hope of getting anything in return.

The media is directly and indirectly benefiting from this and they are party to this slave-making.

The whole organizational structure makes the member players feel in-adequate in their talent in one way or the other forever, psyched out thereby relegated to sub serve the organizational goal even if they stick for long time all without any financial benefit to them personally. This is the way Slaves were made not long ago.

Voluntary help/service organizations atleast create a pride and satisfaction in the minds of volunteers of participation as mostly they help others.

Non-commercial sports organizations on the other hand perpetuate hero worship at the expense of all other member-players. They come initially with a hope of representing at the top level earning millions of dollars, brought in by media and former club members but wither out after few years understanding it not possible for millions to go into the top few places. For a lotto it is legally necessary to tell the buyers the odds of winning is 1:several millions. In Sports there is nothing like that. Organizations take advantage of this system.

So the best way forward in my opinion is to ban non-commercial sports organizations unless they agree to treat the player-mmbers as beneficiary-workers and work towards initiating acceptable financial rewards to each player as a work-right. OTHERWISE Sportsworld will remain as it is WITH SLAVES to Sports Bodies perpetually.

I am reflecting the plight of players at the lower,middle level.



I want to thank the Pro for the debate, and I look forward to a positive and healthy discussion.

I will be arguing the Con for this debate, which to the best of my understanding is this:
Non-commercial sports organizations who don't pay all players should not be banned as they are not creating slaves.

Since the wording of the title is relatively unclear, I take it to mean that the organizations [are] to be banned, or that they [should] be banned.

I think it is important to first define the word slave. Here is one definition I will use, since Pro didn't choose one:
Slave: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another.

Contention 1:

Since the players are not being forced to play the sports in question (whether or not they are paid), they are not slaves of the organizations.

This is important, since if a player isn't under any forced obligation to play a sport for a sports organization, it is his choice to stay and continue to play or to leave and pursue another goal.

Contention 2:

Participating in something without compensation is not inherently a bad thing.

If these sports players were being tied down in a chair for hours with no interaction whatsoever with anyone else or any objects like computers or television, I would agree that they were gaining nothing of value for their unpaid actions.

However, playing sports without compensation is similar to working as an unpaid intern. There are other benefits involved beyond money alone, such as experience (which could lead to a future job), productive use of one's time, and getting mental and/or physical activity.

Pro has argued that these are comparable, but the difference being that people who are apprentices in "any other profession" have a view of getting a paid job, and will get one in the future, if not immediately. However, no source has been provided to back up such claim, since there is no guarantee that that is the case even for traditional apprenticeships.

"The whole organizational structure makes the member players feel inadequate in their talent in one way or the other, psyched out thereby relegated to sub serve the organizational goal even if they stick for long time all without any financial benefit to them personally. This is the way slaves were made not long ago."

While the organizational structure may make players feel inadequate, we won't get into the reasons. For instance, some players are simply not as talented, and thus may always feel inadequate compared to the superstars. However, this does not give reason to the following statement, which is that they are relegated to subserve the organizational goal. Pro provides no sources to give credit to the notion that they are somehow forced to remain in the organization. Due to these differences, there is a huge difference between these players and slaves.

Due to these reasons, the non commercial sports organizations should not be banned.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for accepting and placing good arguments.
I add the following definition for slave to that provided by Con
"One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence".

The Non-paying Sports Bodies treat a Player as subservient and influence everything he does in the sports but still doesn't reward him anything.This totally fits with the definition. The definition set by Con also fits; as far as the particular Sports is concerned he is treated like a property wholly subject to the desires of the Sports body rules and regulations, as far as duties are concerned, but about the rights there are almost none.

In Cricket when my friend played a reverse sweep over a decade ago,he was banned for 4 matches, but I was thinking that was an innovative shot. Now I am proved right that all twenty20 games appreciate the reverse sweep. So here he had duties and his duties could be faulted and he could be punished, but the sports body has no obligation for any reward - its the one way rule, that decries any social justice or equality.

Contention 1 defended: True Players are not forced to play, but the organizations use their system to addict Players. Forcing is physical or verbal. But the worst than forcing is Addicting by psychological means. New unsuspecting players who come in the hope of becoming a Star player are addicted to that game/sports. The most productive period in ones life that of teens and twenties is being pursued without realizable goal.

When working for a Company, if it says to the employees, it is your choice whether you stay or leave, we wont pay you, will the Government treat that as fair or invoke employment laws? That perfectly fits into the Slave definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence". Here the employer has employment but he uses to create abject subservient person by that influence.

Contention 2: I would somehow reluctantly agree that Participation without compensation is not inherently bad, if totally there are no paid players in the system, no organisational or media beneficiaries. Can Con say a player comes without any hope of representing, this or that at least in future? But the system makes it a lottery, only 1:10M could win it. But everybody spends their time. If it is only money we can say the system just uses the players' greed. But this is physical and productive time that is silently grabbed to advance the interest of the organisation and few players at the top. In apprentice system it doesnt make them work for many many years like what the sports system does. If workers are not talented what would a company do?In contrast if the players are not talented and playing for long periods what would sports bodies do? In the 1st case the no talent will affect the company- But in the 2nd case the untalented players is advantageous to Orgnz- these are fans, these are future low level player families to sustain the top cream. Slaves paying but without reward for generations.



I would like to thank Pro once again for starting and continuing the debate. Although the last round shouldn't be the place to introduce additional definitions, I don't think including the new one will hurt my case.

For reference, here are the two definitions being used for slave [1]:
1. A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

It seems Pro is attempting to argue that anyone who has a job they don't like who makes less money than they want could be considered a slave. That person may be miserable, is certainly subservient to his/her bosses, and probably feels treated like property or like a number. However, this overlooks the fact that people choose to put themselves in this position in the first place, meaning it's not an abject situation.

I'm afraid I don't know much about Cricket and cannot understand the third paragraph of Pro's 2nd round argument, so I can't touch on that since there are no remaining rounds to clear things up.

Contention 1 defended:

Pro has attempted to refute my first contention by stating that players are psychologically forced to play the sports in question, and these new, young players' hopes and dreams of making it big are too strong a lure to resist, thus making them waste away their most productive years for the sport with no real chances of achieving the success they all want.

First of all, I'd like to point out that there are no studies suggesting that young sports players are psychologically brainwashed to the point of losing the ability to quit the sport, so I will counterargue this point.

While it's true that most of these young players will not become superstars, Pro's claim that "The most productive period in ones life that of teens and twenties is being pursued without realizable goal" is surely false, since there are, in fact, some players that do make it big and become stars. These stars had to start somewhere, and through a combination of their hard work, skill, etc. it paid off. They had no guarantee of success, but that's how the system works.

Pro asks "When working for a Company, if it says to the employees, it is your choice whether you stay or leave, we wont pay you, will the Government treat that as fair or invoke employment laws?" There are lots of people, such as interns and volunteers, that get asked this same question, so it's clearly not slavery.

Contention 2 defended

In attempting to refute my second contention, Pro writes "But the system makes it a lottery, only 1:10M could win it. But everybody spends their time."

I would like to point out that these organizations are not lotteries, which are "any scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance. [2] Athletes are not chosen by chance; instead they are chosen based on skill and a few other factors.

I'm out of space, so vote con!

Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by natarajan.subramanian 5 years ago
Now definition doesn't include those teams and clubs- thanks for enlightening.
Posted by angrymen 5 years ago
You might want to rethink your definitions because apparently you want to ban my tee ball team.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It is unfortunate that "slave" was not defined at the very beginning. S/G to Con because of many spelling and grammar mistakes by Pro. Arguments to Con because whether paid or not, people enter these sports voluntarily and can quit whenever they want. Pro's claim that "addiction" amounts to slavery was unsubstantiated. Sources to Con because Con is the only one who used sources.