Add new comment

Problems with competitive sport as inegalitarian: I can see this being an issue for collectivist/idpol anarchists who overdo the "informal hierarchy" idea. Though I'd add these were often the people misusing the Bakunin doctors quote to justify lockdown. I think for autonomy-focused anarchists, as long as it's voluntary it's OK. Of course without money, advertising, professionalism etc there would also be a much less steep ability curve.

The difficulties for post-left, eco and similar are more to do with the logistics of organising something on such a scale, with low-tech or convivial tech, and without central bodies setting the rules of the game or deciding which teams get included. Also there's the problem that sport has become part of the Spectacle and in some ways is an alienated form of physical activity done for life-purposes and/or carnival-like activities. I think this problem pretty much guarantees that sport in a bolo-like world would be mostly more localised or organised by special hobby clusters/bolos rather than general as it is today. The biggest clubs would be on the scale of the English non-league rather than professional superclubs. Probably it would be easier to organise knockout tournaments like the old European Cup, or challenge matches like in boxing, than it would be to set up big events like the Olympics.

There are indigenous cultures with extremely restrictive attitudes towards competition. People will downplay their achievements so as not to seem arrogant, ego-challenge others, or admit differences in eg. how much each hunter is catching. This can extend to sport: for example, I've heard cricket has spread to rural Papua New Guinea but the expectation is that hosts let visitors win. In this way, sport is incorporated into the standard potlatch-style gift-exchange cycles. There's also others where certain kinds of competition are encouraged (Guarani men according to Clastres, workrate of Ilongot women, potlatch itself, etc).

Before colonisation, there was a much greater diversity of local sports and games; it's only since the 1960s or so that there have been "global" sports (even now there's a lot of diversity by country). And there's been entire histories written of how sport is tied-in with "civilising mission" or beating the coloniser at their own game. When sports are played by small voluntary groups - for example, kids in the street playing soccer - there's often very loose rules, no referee/umpire, negotiation of what they are and how they apply, and significant deviation from the formal rules of the game. You'll also see kids innovating a lot in new variants of standard games like chasing each other, and lots of regional variants.

One of the big things in western sport (cf. Boal's critique of western theatre) is the overemphasis on spectatorship over participation. Sport in anarchic societies is much more participatory. For example, football in medieval England consisted of mass brawls between entire villages. Sports fan culture tends to restore a participatory element, supplementing spectatorship with chants, brawls, banners, pitch invasions, flares on the pitch, etc. Europe has anarchist ultras as well as far-right ones, though the latter are more common; the fanaticism of ultras has a lot in common with hunter-gatherer warrior bands. I'd also expect that we'd see a return to local allegiance in sports. Historically sports-watching has related closely to group camaraderie among workers in the same town or factory; this is no doubt how it would work in systems like anarcho-syndicalism. In Eastern Europe a lot of the big clubs were connected to factories or worker sectors in the Soviet era - hence why there's all these clubs called Lokomotiv, Shakhtar (miner), Metalurg and so on. Same thing in Asia and Africa to some degree. Even America has its Steelers and Packers.