There's not much Competition without Collaboration
Most schools appear to have a substantial programme of competition. Fixtures against other schools, local and national tournaments, house matches: competition appears to be at the heart of much school sport.
Closer consideration, however, reveals that most of what appears to be competition between schools is actually a collaboration between teachers to create the best experience for pupils. Certainly, there are some contests which are about raw competition - the later rounds of national championships, and the games between the highest performing schools. But these are a minority. The aim of most contests is competitiveness, rather than competition. And there is a considerable difference between these.
Most schools, and most teachers, recognise the bigger picture of sport in education. In an environment where team sports are under threat, there is - more than ever before - a wide recognition that the quality of the experience is important in retaining pupil engagement and enthusiasm. At least as important as the “result”.
Creative collaborations begin with the arrangement of the fixture list, with considerable thought given to achieving comparable standard, and thus an evenly matched game. Negotiation in the week of the match refines this to even out temporary departures from the average standard of each school. Within the game, substitutions are often aimed at maintaining evenness, with a close eye on the quality of the experience for all involved. One sided games - the enemy of pre-maturation sport particularly - are also dealt with creatively. The referee is empowered to discreetly favour the weaker team, and more draconian measures to restrict the dominant team are usually sympathetically received. Even National Governing Bodies join this covert collaboration, by introducing maximum score differentials or other conditions. Mostly, this is well received.
Professional sport is about unbridled competition. At its heart is self interest and economic forces. But even there is a recognition that a loss of competitiveness dilutes the attraction of sport. Coaches and spectators pursue the holy grail of the “great game”. Uncertainty of outcome is a prominent characteristic of this; the one sided rout is its opposite. Even American Football structures its Draft to give the bottom team the first pick the following year, with the aim of levelling the playing field. Salary caps seek the same.
Every school circuit has a rogue member that does not confirm to the collaborative norm. They are well known, and frequently discussed. Their teams often win, but they get little credit for this. No one likes playing them. There is a misconception that winning contributes to the marketing power of a school. It is never as important as how winning is achieved. Games played in a sour atmosphere, questionable partiality on the behalf of the home referees and excessive scores are the worst publicity. Reputation is a more sophisticated concept than who finishes with more goals.
Much school sport, especially at lower age and ability levels, exists beneath a veneer of competition. At its best, the players - and even parents - are unaware. A high quality experience for all results from the creative and collaborative efforts of those behind the scenes. Their triumph is to achieve competitiveness, served with a minimum amount of winning. This is the skill of the competition architect in school sport. The genuine competition between evenly matched teams in a national competition is the exception, not the rule.
It's partly a question of Maths: competition is a zero sum game. There is only one winner. Collaboration can be a positive sum game in which all participants can learn. Team games in schools, especially at weekends, are under pressure. They depend for their future on the success of this approach