POSITORY (HIR) - Holmesglen Institutional Repository
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
POSITORY (HIR)
Duncan, S. K., (2021). The spirit of play: fun and freedom in the professional age of sport.
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2021.1929430
CRICOS Provider Code: 00012G. RTO: 416
B2130518 Document Repository CovAbstract: In Johan Huizinga’s most prolific study of play, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture he states that for play to be considered authentic, genuine and real it must be fun, free, spontaneous and creative. Huizinga believed that play ought to be separate from ordinary and real life with the outcomes of play baring little to no consequences beyond the play contest (1950, 7-13). While Huizinga acknowledged that play could be utterly absorbing it should only be serious within the contest itself and not thereafter. Yet given the serious, structured, commercialised nature of the professional sports industry how can Huizinga’s discussion of play be useful today? This paper will highlight that even in the professional world of sport, Huizinga’s play characteristics still have an important role to play in ensuring professional athletes and teams can reach their full potential. Indeed, the confrontation between Huizinga and professional sport leads us to re-think Huizinga’s account of play. Using the Richmond Football Club in the Australian Football League (AFL) as a case study, this paper will highlight how making the club environment and playing the game as fun and free as possible assisted the Tigers in winning their first AFL Premiership for 37 years in 2017. Key Words: Huizinga, play, fun, freedom, spirit of play, sport, community. Word Count (excluding references): 9,770
The Spirit of Play: Fun and Freedom in the Professional Age of Sport
Introduction:
In Johan Huizinga’s most prolific study of play, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element
in Culture he states that for play to be considered authentic, genuine and real it must be fun,
free, spontaneous and creative. Huizinga believed that play ought to be separate from
ordinary and real life with the outcomes of play baring little to no consequences beyond the
play contest (1950, 7-13). While Huizinga acknowledged that play could be utterly absorbing
it should only be serious within the contest itself and not thereafter.
Yet in today’s professional era of sport, playing games has never been more serious. Play
characteristics such as fun, freedom and spontaneity now seem redundant with athletes more
inclined to focus on process, meticulous training schedules and the ruthless execution of their
coach’s instructions, game plans, tactics and set-plays. While athletes may enjoy, or even
love their craft, they are also paid to perform – often to the tune of tens of millions of dollars
a year. Winning and losing has consequences that extend beyond the field of play. For an
individual, winning can consolidate their place in the team, lead to bigger, longer and
financially lucrative contracts, higher sums of prize money and rich endorsement and
sponsorship deals. For professional sporting organisations, winning increases the bottom line,
with clubs profiting from revenues generated by increased gate receipts, memberships,
merchandise sales and sponsorships (Duncan 2016).
By contrast, losing can be detrimental to both the player and the organisation they play for.
So often in the ruthless business of sport, losing equates to failure. It means players are less
certain of their futures, or for some, where their next pay-cheque is coming from. It also
significantly reduces an athlete’s ability to attract sponsors and for sports organisations,
losing more often than winning will lead to drastically reduced crowd attendances,
1merchandise sales and memberships. It will also make the task of attracting and maintaining
sponsors more difficult. Ultimately, losing will more often than not generally lead to reduced
revenues and profits, or increased financial losses (Bradbury 2016).
For team sports this has seen an explosion of coaching and the analysis of play. Because the
outcomes of sporting matches now have such drastic financial consequences, ‘play’ is now
scrutinised and examined more than at any other time in history. Coaches of sporting teams
have multiplied in numbers to prepare and train athletes and devise rigid team structures,
tactics, game plans and set plays designed to provide their team with the best possible chance
of winning (Duncan 2016). Players are expected to carry out their coach’s instructions or risk
being punished or omitted from the team.
Thus, the problem with modern sport is that while play can indeed be serious, structured and
disciplined it has become so serious, structured and disciplined that it has corrupted notions
of fun, freedom, flair, spontaneity and creativity. While play can be utterly absorbing and
serious within the play contest, it is now overtly serious and more so, the seriousness of sport
now seems to freely extend beyond the play contest into ordinary and real life. Therefore, in
the commercial world of professional sport, Huizinga’s play element appears to be all but
lost. Play is corrupted and manipulated. Notions of fun and freedom have been significantly
compromised – there are too many instructions and tactics for it to be truly free and the fact
athletes are playing to earn money further diminishes the idea that play is ‘voluntary’ or
‘free’ (Duncan 2016). Likewise, the seriousness of sport and the consequences of winning or
losing means that the idea that ‘we’re only playing’ has also been significantly marginalised.
The serious, structured, commercialised nature of the professional sports industry almost
instantly dismisses Huizinga’s rather simplistic approach to defining play as redundant and
totally inadequate to understand the play element in professional sporting competitions. If
2Huizinga argues that sport must be fun and not serious; free with no financial reward;
creative and spontaneous with few constraints or restrictions; and separate to real and
ordinary life where the play battle has no significant consequences beyond the contest itself,
how can Huizinga’s discussion of play be useful today?
This paper will highlight that even in the professional world of sport, Huizinga’s play
characteristics of fun and freedom still have an important role to play in ensuring professional
athletes and teams can reach their full potential. Encouraging the spirit of play within a team
allows professional players to be more creative and to express and enjoy themselves more,
which adds a second, and equally important outcome of upholding the spirit of play – that it
connects individual players and binds the team into a community.
Indeed, the confrontation between Huizinga and professional sport leads us to re-think
Huizinga’s account of play. Using the Richmond Football Club in the Australian Football
League (AFL) as a case study, this paper will highlight how making the club environment
and playing the game as fun and free as possible assisted the Tigers in winning their first
AFL Premiership for 37 years in 2017, followed by back to back premierships in 2019 and
2020. However, before we can understand how upholding the spirit of play can stimulate
success in professional sport it is first necessary to understand what exactly is meant by the
notion of play.
Rethinking Huizinga:
For Huizinga play was essentially fun, free, voluntary, spontaneous and separate from the
ordinary and real. In Homo Ludens, Huizinga listed the four key characteristics of play as
(1950, 7-13):
‘Play is free; in fact, it is freedom.’
3For Huizinga, ‘Play is free; in fact, it is freedom.’ This relates to Huizinga’s initial
assumption that a player feels free when they are playing and they are bound by no restriction
other than, perhaps, a player’s ability to carry out a skill or level of fitness to play at a certain,
desired level of intensity. Play is a voluntary action; one that a player should not feel obliged
or forced to partake in and, according to Huizinga, it should also be free of cost and financial
reward. Huizinga states in his study of the play element that citizens should never play for a
wage, nor should it cost them anything to play. Play, he states, is free.
‘Play is not ordinary or real.’
Play, according to Huizinga, is distinctly different from and separate to ‘real life’. For
Huizinga, play was inferior to real life, thus, while play could be serious, it should only be so
during the play contest. No matter how intense, passionate or serious a battle when playing,
its importance in real life was minimal as the players were ‘only playing.’
In the first chapter of his book, Huizinga writes that “the contest is largely devoid of purpose
– that the action begins and ends in itself and the outcome does not contribute to the
necessary life processes of the group (1950, 49).” Fundamental to this characteristic is the
assumption that play was autonomous from the rest of society and that players were acting
autonomously from the roles, responsibilities or power he or she may have in other parts of
their life.
‘Play is secluded and limited.’
In extending his second characteristic of play, Huizinga argued that play was separate to real
or ordinary life as it was limited in its locality and duration. Play, especially within games,
could not go on forever, nor could they be played wherever. Games, such as Australian
Football are played on a particular type of field for a particular length of time. Thus, these
restrictions of locality actually enhance the distinction between play and real or ordinary life.
4Furthermore, because play was limited in its duration and locality, it created a sense of
certainty – not of what was going to happen when play commenced, for that was based on
spontaneity and creativity – but of ‘when’ one could play and ‘where.’
It was this sense of certainty that underlines Huizinga’s fourth characteristic of play.
‘Play creates order, is order.’
According to Huizinga, the play element and its secluded, limited environment created order
within the play contest. Again, while ‘play’ was seen by Huizinga as being spontaneous and
free, the knowledge of how to play and what one was playing brought a sense of order – in
fact Huizinga stated it ‘was order’. For example, the rules of a game, the playing area on
which it is played and the duration of play meant that while much could not be predicted of
the play element, much could.
Thus, while one may not be able to provide a second-by-second prediction of how a game of
football might unfold, the rules of the game, the size of the oval, the number of players on a
team and the duration of the match means that the game will be played with some sense of
order.
Therefore, it was not Huizinga’s contention that play cannot be at all serious or disciplined,
for he believes play, within the contest itself can be very serious. It is also not true that
Huizinga believes games should be without rules, for one of the key characteristics that he
outlines in his play definition is that play is order and that it creates order. However, he does
believe that within the rules and boundaries of the play contest, players should still be able to
play with freedom, flair and spontaneity and that when the play battle is won or lost, the
consequences should be marginal, meaning the seriousness of play starts and ends in the
contest itself and is not taken forward into the next day, or week or month or year. The
professional age of sport has reduced notions of freedom and fun within the play contest and,
5further, in the lead up to, and aftermath of the play contest. This form of seriousness must be
rebelled against for clubs and individuals to reach their full potential.
While many modern play theorists would proclaim Huizinga’s definition of play as outdated
and therefore, inappropriate and inadequate to use as a tool to understand professional sport,
the confrontation between his cultural observations of play and professional sport forces us to
rethink his account of play. Huizinga was a cultural historian, who believed society, its
processes and institutions were a manifestation of the culture of the people (1950, 17). Given
the emphasis he placed on culture as the driving force of society, his study of play is
particularly important for he believed play created culture and further, that play is
foundational to community. This alone makes Huizinga’s study of play relevant to sports
teams as their processes and actions are often focused on building culture and emotional ties
between team members.
To fully understand how upholding play characteristics can assist professional sports teams
reach their full potential, it is necessary to understand Huizinga’s account of play’s role in
shaping human behaviour and developing community and culture. Of fundamental
importance to this is the role of Huizinga as a cultural historian. As a cultural historian,
Huizinga believed that the study of culture, and within culture, play like phenomena,
provided the best and most accurate account of history.
Huizinga had been most interested in the arts, literature, rituals, manners and morals and
other play like phenomena, arguing that as humans we were invented to live in play forms.
He was particularly partial to Plato’s view that man was created as God’s ‘play thing’ and as
a result believed we should live as God intended us to live – in play forms (Plato 1926, Book
7, Section 803).
6Importantly, Huizinga argued that it was when we played that humans were able to be their
whole self, which was essential for individuals to reach their full potential. In developing his
view of play and indeed the world, Huizinga also drew upon a passage in Schiller’s Aesthetic
Education of Man:
“Man plays only when he is in the full sense of the word man, and he is only wholly
man when he plays” (Schiller 1909, 47).
Yet, to truly understand Huizinga’s view of the importance of play in understanding history
and society, it is also necessary to understand Huizinga’s account of what was formed from
play. For Huizinga, play not only enabled citizens to express themselves and be their full
self, it also stimulated culture and community. This understanding was based on the notion
that when we play in a free and uninhibited form, we are able to connect with others; to work
with them to achieve shared and common goals and noble outcomes; and, given this, to
advance both individually and collectively.
For Huizinga, society is a manifestation of its culture, which is formed in the communities
that spawn from play. When we play, we are unguarded and unrestrained and it is in this
state that we are able to reveal our true selves. If we are in an environment where others are
also able to play and thus express their true and real selves, emotional connections can be
formed built on transparency and trust, which then forms the basis for community and
culture.
This idea can be enriched through the work of paediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald
Winnicott (1971) who argued that a patient cannot be truly open or their whole self if they are
not able to play. In his book Playing and Reality, Winnicott states, “It is in playing, and only
playing, that the individual child or adult is able to be creative and use the whole personality
(1971, 54).” Winnicott also argued that when play is autonomous and separate to the ordinary
7and real, a patient could get to know his or her environment, trust the environment and trust
others within the environment, which enabled them to let down their guard and share their
whole personality with their doctor. Winnicott believed there was a “direct development from
transitional phenomena to playing; and from playing to shared playing; and from this to
cultural experience” (1971, 75).
It is only when we are free to play and be our whole selves that we can form true
relationships, communities and ultimately, culture. Thus, the power of being free to have fun
and play with spontaneity and creativity in an autonomous environment should not be
understated when considering the foundations of community and culture.
Thus, it was through play and play like phenomena that human behavioural characteristics
were created, which underpinned the culture of community, or more broadly, society.
Huizinga elevated culture above other powerful components of society, including politics and
the economy, believing it should be the culture of a society that guided political and
economic processes and norms, not the other way around.
In fact, Huizinga was hostile to the idea of politics or economic ideals shaping culture, which
he believed was ruining the life processes of American society post World War I. In his
second work on American society, Life and Thought in America, published in 1926, Huizinga
argued that the commercialisation and trivialisation of culture, the vulgar materialism and the
anti-intellectualism of society had corrupted culture and transformed it into a product of the
economy, not the people (Huizinga, 1972). This, according to Huizinga, suffocated the
creativity of citizens and supressed their active participation in creating culture. Instead,
citizens became passive consumers of culture and political ideology. This meant citizens had
essentially lost control and ownership of shaping society’s culture and community – instead
8these important life processes were shaped by the market. For Huizinga, the rise of
commercialism repressed cultural practices born from play.
Importantly, Huizinga’s study of play as a cultural historian extended well beyond games and
sport. Huizinga saw a sense of play as underpinning a vast range of human activities,
including language, art, poetry, law and even war. While Huizinga believed play is
fundamentally fun and free, he was also able to recognise that play can be utterly absorbing
within the contest. As Huizinga notes in Homo Ludens, the functions of play can largely be
seen as “a contest for something or a representation of something” (1950, 13) and that the
essential feature of it “lies in the parading of something out of the ordinary and calculated to
arouse admiration” (1950, 13). This highlights the antagonistic nature of play: a play contest
is underpinned by the will of competitors to win and to prove their superiority in exchange
for acclaim, satisfaction, honour, prestige, admiration and esteem. This extends to the most
serious aspects of life, including war, which starkly illustrates “the desire to excel others, to
be first and to be honoured for that” (Huizinga 1950, 50).
Furthermore, war zones can also take on characteristics of play. As Huizinga notes, “the spot
where the duel is fought bears all the marks of a play-ground; the weapons have to be exactly
alike as in certain games; there is a signal from the start to the finish, and the number of shots
is prescribed. When blood flows, honour is vindicated and restored” (Huizinga 1950, 95).
Huizinga was able to apply notions of play and culture to war as a means of understanding
how noble ideas of satisfaction, honour, esteem and prestige shaped war battles. It was his
belief that the idea of providing one’s superiority and excellence above others outweighed, at
least in the beginning, notions of power. It was a gladiator’s desire to win in the pursuit of
honour and admiration that spurred them to ‘draw blood,’ more so than the want to gain
control or power.
9In his analysis, Huizinga used ancient war battles to link play to war and notes the ways in
which many ancient war battles had stringent rules that required both discipline and a sense
of play. Thus, if play can be used to understand notions of war, it is not too much of a stretch
to apply Huizinga’s play concept to professional sport.
Of particular importance to this study is Huizinga’s primary idea that to enrich communities,
including sporting organisations, the community and its culture needs to be stimulated,
shaped and developed by the players. Further, the players must be afforded the opportunity to
be free, to have fun, to be their full and whole selves and thus, to reach their full potential.
The importance of play in developing community is clear in Huizinga’s definition of play and
what is created from play in Homo Ludens. In summing up his main characteristics of the
play element, Huizinga defines the play element as:
A free activity standing quite outside the consciousness of ordinary life, as being ‘not
serious’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an
activity connected with no material interest and no profit can be gained from it. It
proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space and according to fixed
rules and in an orderly manner. It creates the formation of social groupings, which
tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the
common world by disguise or other means (1950, 13).
For Huizinga, the social groupings which he described in his definition of play are in fact,
what we would describe as sporting clubs today. Huizinga writes that play communities
develop from and by play and further, they “tend to become permanent even after the game is
over” (1950, 12). Huizinga notes that while “not every game of marbles or every bridge party
leads to the founding of the club” the idea of “sharing something important, of mutually
withdrawing from the rest of the world and rejecting the usual norms, retains its magic
10beyond the duration of the individual game” (1950, 12). Thus communities, often in the form
of clubs, are formed from play.
Underlying the ability of play to stimulate community is the idea that play is separate to the
ordinary and real. This provides players with a sense that their club and community, and the
norms and practices within it, are ‘for “us”, not for the “others”’ (1950, 12). Inside the club,
the established societal norms, laws and customs, no longer count. This sense of ‘secrecy’
and ‘separation from ordinary and real’ helps strengthen the community as it enables play
members to be themselves, to feel a sense of ownership of the group and the pursuit of their
common goals, to connect to others within the group and to support them to reach their
potential and, in turn, to feel encouraged to reach their own goals. But importantly,
according to Huizinga this sense of connection and community is only possible through play
and by upholding play characteristics (Huizinga, 12-13).
There is little doubt, however, that some of Huizinga’s key characteristics of play may appear
somewhat outdated. For example, while Huizinga believed play could be serious within the
confines of the play contest, he argued the that at its core, play should be fun with the player
enjoying the contest, and once the play contest is over, the consequences of play should be
marginal. According to Huizinga, play was “a discharge of superabundant energy to seek the
satisfaction of some imitative instinct” (1950, 12). Yet, it is hard to ignore the overt
seriousness of professional sport today. As highlighted above, Huizinga lamented society’s
increasingly serious tone in the 1920’s and 1930’s, bemoaning that “ever since the last
quarter of the nineteenth century, games, in the guise of sport, have been taken more and
more seriously (1950, 196).” Further, in the final chapter of Homo Ludens, Huizinga
concludes that never, to that point in history, had an age taken itself with more seriousness
(1950, 206).
11Huizinga also claimed that play ought to be free. Not only did Huizinga believe play should
be without constraint where players were uninhibited in the way they played, he also believed
there should be no financial gain from playing. It is indisputable that play in professional
sport is no longer completely free for players are now restricted by team rules, tactics, set
plays and structures. Huizinga saw these restrictions emerging in the early 1900’s, lamenting
that “The spirit of the professional is no longer the true play spirit; it is lacking its spontaneity
and carelessness (1950, 204).” It is also undeniable that many athletes are some of the
wealthiest and recognisable celebrities in the world – their fame and fortune a result of them
earning money from playing sport.
For Huizinga, play should be separate from ordinary and real life where players were ‘only
playing’. However, play is now undoubtedly part of the entertainment industry, merged with
other fields of society including the media and economic fields.
The most common criticisms of Huizinga’s cultural observations of play are that his
characteristics and definition of play are too simplistic and that he was romanticising about
what he wanted the play element to be, rather than what it realistically was or could be. Yet
many theorists and scholars who have studied play theory appear united that play should be
characterised by notions of freedom, fun and spontaneity.1 For psychologist, Susanna Miller
(1968, 21), play is an “attitude of throwing off constraint” of “real and ordinary work” to
become truly “spontaneous, instinctive, and, importantly, free.” Spolin (1963, 10) agrees,
stating play is “personal freedom.”
1
For a more in‐depth analysis of play theorists and their critique of Huizinga see:
Caillois, Richard., The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games, in The Game Design Reader: A Rules of
Play Anthology, Salen, K., and Zimmerman, E., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, 2006
Sutton‐Smith, Brian., The ambiguity of play, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1997
Hans, James. S., The play of the world, University of Massachusetts Press, Boston, 1981
12Further, the notions of fun, freedom, spontaneity and the idea that play was separate to the
ordinary and real was largely embraced by French writer and philosopher, Roger Caillois. In
Man, Play and Games, Caillois expanded on Huizinga’s characteristics of play to discuss a
range of play forms, including agon (competition); alea (chance); mimicry (role playing) and
ilinx (the sense of altering perceptions) (1961, 131-133). Caillois (1961) believed Huizinga’s
account of play was too simplistic and overlooked important complexities relating to the
evolution of play and games. Of particular relevance to this study is Caillois’ discussion of
agon which he defined as competitive games played in real conditions where the battle is
based on qualities including speed, endurance, strength, memory, skill and ingenuity within
the defined limits of the play environment. The winner is the player with superiority in one or
more of the exploits, which requires training, application and a desire to win. Just as
described by Huizinga when discussing war as play, the competitor’s desire for victory is
motivated by the want for adulation, esteem, glory and recognition as the superior competitor.
Caillois (1961) also discusses two types of play at various ends of a spectrum, paidia and
ludus. Paidia refers to unstructured, spontaneous activities associated with notions of instinct
and impulsive exuberance (1961, 141). Ludus is structured with rules, regulations and
discipline (1958, 141). According to Caillois (1961) it is natural for play to evolve from
paidia towards ludus over time arguing that we apply to new rules, objectives, goals and
desired outcomes to play to ensure it remains stimulating, interesting and exciting. Further, it
certainly also be argued that these new rules and other manufactured changes to play are also
implemented for commercial reasons. The transformation of play and games are often made
with the intention of making the play product appear more exciting, interesting and engaging,
thus meeting new consumer expectations, trends and demands. Play and games are constantly
repackaged and marketed to consumers as better, more advanced and more exciting than
before. As such it is difficult to deny that the influences of materialism and the market are, in
13some part, driving the transition from paidia towards ludus. This idea highlights that Caillois
was refining and highlighting Huizinga’s study of play, rather than offering a radical
criticism. Whatever the case, Caillois (1961) believes that play can become redundant unless
it evolves with new layers that continue to engage participants (1961, 141). Thus, play
evolves into games and sports.
Given Huizinga’s uncompromising and somewhat idealistic observations of play, how is it
possible to view and understand modern sport through Huizinga’s definition of play? The
answer lies not only in what Huizinga says play ought to be, but what he illustrates that play
creates. Huizinga is uncompromising about what play is as he believes the consequences of
the corruption of play extends beyond how much an athlete enjoys playing to the culture and
community which they are a part of.
As such, it is important not to dismiss Huizinga’s key characteristics of play in professional
team sport, particularly considering that notions of community and culture are often
considered central to their success. Play ought to be fun, players should feel a sense of
freedom to express themselves in a creative, spontaneous, authentic fashion and further, they
should feel empowered to make decisions about how they play, rather than merely following
a coach’s rules and instructions. Play may evolve from paidia towards ludus with new layers
of rules, objectives and goals introduced, but the rules and instructions should not eliminate
paidia. Indeed, by maintaining some sense of paidia, players will be more likely to achieve
their desired outcomes, objectives and goals.
To fully appreciate the relevance of Huizinga’s play concepts in today’s professional sports
landscape it is necessary to understand how play is foundational to community, what is meant
by the term ‘community’ and why sports teams should be viewed as communities. These
14ideas are best expounded through a case study of the Richmond Football Club in the
Australian Football League.
The Richmond Football Club: Upholding the Play Spirit in Professional Sport
In the broad field of professional sport, it seems impossible for play in its purest and most
authentic sense to exist. Afterall, professional athletes are not children playing and imagining
in a park, nor are they amateurs playing on the weekend simply for the sake of the game.
Instead, they are employees of sporting organisations and part of teams who are coached to
execute game plans, tactics and set plays while maintaining their team structures and playing
their role (Duncan 2016). When a player has the ball in a football match, they are not
completely free to do whatever they want for they are expected to carry out the instructions of
the coach. The hours of training, analysis and preparation for any given match boils down to
the simple fact that winning matters for players, teams and sporting organisations (Lovett
2019). As highlighted in the introduction of this paper, sport is now part of a broader
commercial entertainment industry and for winning players, teams and organisations, it can
be a lucrative form of making money (Lovett 2019). Thus, the outcome of matches, and the
score has consequences beyond the game itself: positions in teams are at stake, so too are
contracts, while winners take the spoils in the form of profitable contracts, prize money,
sponsorship deals, and invitations to A-list events (Steen 2013). For sports organisations with
winning teams, revenues grow and generally, so to do profits. Losers can please themselves.
So, the seriousness of sport has manipulated many of play’s characteristics at the professional
level: players are less free, the contest is more serious and the outcomes of the play contest
have consequences that do extend beyond the play field. The pursuit of excellence and
ultimate success may have remained the same, but the play element is different. Indeed,
Huizinga would argue it has been corrupted (Huizinga 1950). Nevertheless, as will be
15highlighted with the case study below, even within professional sports organisations
competing in serious competitions there is evidence to suggest that to help individuals form
strong connections with each other and reach their full potential both on and off the field,
some sense of authentic play should be maintained and more so, prioritised.
A Tumultuous Season:
After a disastrous 2016 season where the Richmond Football Club dropped eight places on
the ladder from the previous season and unexpectedly missed the finals series, the entire club
was under review (Marshall 2017). The head coach, Damien Hardwick, was under
significant pressure with many fans and even officials within the club suggesting that after
seven seasons as the senior coach it was time for him to either step aside or be forced to stand
down (Marshall 2017). Hardwick had coached the team to three consecutive finals series
which culminated in three first round losses (Marshall 2017). The 2016 season was
considered by many to be unacceptable for a club searching for its first premiership since
1980. Adding further unrest at the club was that a rebel group of supporters had lobbied to
overthrow the incumbent club board, claiming the progress made by the current
administration was unsatisfactory (Warner and Wood 2016). Ultimately the board remained
and backed Hardwick to continue as senior coach, yet there was little doubt 2017 shaped as a
defining season for the club. A repeat of 2016 would almost certainly spell the end for both
coach Hardwick and the entire Richmond Board of Directors. To ensure success, something
had to change and as the below highlights, much of this change focussed on altering the
perspective, attitude and mood of the coach and his players to ensure the play spirit was
upheld and that the key play characteristics of fun and freedom were prioritised. This change
was led and driven by Hardwick himself and was documented by Konrad Marshall in his
book, Yellow and Black: A Season with Richmond, after spending the 2016 and 2017 season
16inside the Richmond Football Club with largely unfettered access to the coaching staff and
playing list (Marshall 2017).
The Coach Lightens the Mood:
According to Marshall (2017) one of the biggest changes within the club from 2016 to 2017
was the attitude, demeanour and disposition of the senior coach, Damian Hardwick. Rather
than striving for perfection, Hardwick believed that the team’s imperfections were part of
what connected them as a community. Each member of the team had clear areas to improve
and as part of a community, they would have the support of each other to grow as individuals
and to actively contribute to assisting the team reach its goals.
Marshall (2017, 348) writes that “amid the frustrations and confusion of the calamitous 2016
season, the coach clung closely to process and analysis and exhaustive examination.” Yet
Hardwick’s attitude changed. In 2017 he worried less about data analysis and more about the
connection of the team. He often cited a quote attributed to Einstein to support his altered
focus: “not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted
counts” (Marshall 2017, 348). According to Hardwick, in 2017 he had “dialled up his right
brain”, which meant “tapping into a sense of curiosity and playfulness” (Marshall 2017, 348).
With this came a new appetite for storytelling. Whereas the year before his messaging to
players was “highly controlled”, with no room for an anecdote, this year Hardwick regales
many tales of his life, playing career and role as coach in order to provide a “distraction and
levity” and to “fight against all that seriousness and anxiety and information” (Marshall 2017,
348-349).
What Hardwick was effectively doing was rebelling against the corruption of play. While
Huizinga acknowledges himself that play can be serious within the contest and utterly
absorbing for those competing, the consequences beyond the contest should be as negligible
17as possible. Indeed, even when training and preparing to play, there should be time for fun,
frivolity and creativity, such as storytelling. This playfulness was a feature of many team
meetings the coaches and players had throughout the year. Prior to Richmond’s Round 5
match against Melbourne, Hardwick shared a light hearted story with his players about losing
a game of Connect Four to his teenage daughter, where the object is to connect four coloured
discs in a row despite the best efforts of your opponent to stop you. “Unfortunately, I can’t
beat my 17-year-old daughter,” said Hardwick to his players. “It drives me insane. But
there’s a reason why…I’m playing too quick. I’m playing all offence. And what do you think
my daughter’s playing?”
“Defence,” answers the room (Marshall 2017, 170).
Hardwick was being playful, but making a serious point about how he wanted the team to
play. He wanted his team to play defensively, to deny the opposition of time and space and
to frustrate them and force them into making a mistake. Yet in relaying his important
message to the players, Hardwick was having fun. In amongst the seriousness and defensive
game plan, the spirit of play flickered.
The coach’s enjoyment throughout the season was undeniable. For him, work was fun. “The
job is fun,” he tells his players after one match, “even when it’s hard” (Marshall 2017, 230).
Further, it was the connections he was forming with his players, possibly a result of the fun
they were having together, that made him happiest: “That’s what makes it great. I get to come
to work each day and see you blokes, and it makes me happy every day” (Marshall 2017,
230). This playful attitude of coach Hardwick was reflected in numerous stories recounted by
Marshall (2017) in Yellow and Black, highlighting a concerted effort by the club to rebel
against the increasing seriousness of sport, to worry less about data analytics and to instead
18uphold notions of fun and freedom in order to strengthen relationships and connections
between members of the team.
Be the Child:
In the lead up to Richmond’s Round 1 match against arch rivals, Carlton, Marshall describes
the emphasis Hardwick places on his players having fun. Marshall (2017, 106) writes: “This
time 12 months ago, his address was full of vitriol and anger – he wanted blood, and he
wanted his players to want blood as well. This year he wants fun. In the past hour Hardwick
has laughed more than he’s sighed, strutted more than twitched. He points to one final
message on the board: “BE THE CHILD – BE ALL IN.”’ He later tells his player, “It’s fun.
It’s playing without fear” (106).
By instructing his players to ‘be the child’ when they play, Hardwick was essentially telling
them to be free, uninhibited, to be yourself, back your instincts, don’t fear making a mistake
and don’t worry about the consequences of the contest. It’s these characteristics that
underlined the team’s preseason, including their camp in Maroochydore. Before their first-
round match, Hardwick reminds them of the fun they had – pushing coaches into the water,
playfully putting teammates in headlocks and faking injuries to “scare” club doctors
(Marshall 2017, 106). Through their playful nature, the players had begun to connect with
each other and their coach. This sense of fun and connection was something that resonated
throughout the entire season.
Play at the Club:
Throughout the season play became a central theme and focus of many activities organised at
the club, which were designed to ensure players enjoyed coming to the club to spend time
and connect with their teammates and coaches. For example, Marshall (2017) recounts a
session where the players played a West African drum, called a djembe. Their musical
19instructor informs them that name of the drum means “gather in peace” and that the
instrument was used in West Africa “to bring the community together.” On that note, the
players are instructed to “feel the vibes, close your eyes, and hit the drum” (Marshall 2017,
444).
Marshall (2017) describes the scene that followed:
“…the men in the room dressed in yellow and black sneakers and tracksuits, singlets and
shorts, let their arms and hands fly wildly. Hardwick laughs while sharing a moment with
McIntosh. Grimes and Griffiths exchange smiles. Riewoldt and Rance bang each other’s
drums and grin…All of them are drumming and beaming together.
…They then shuffle, two steps left – clap! – and two steps right – clap! They wave their arms
in unison. They take a knee and open their arms wide, and they repeat after him (their
instructor).
“Go, hey!”
“Go, hey!”
“Go, hey!”
“Go, hey!”
“Go, Richmond” (Marshall 2017, 444)
Following the session, the message from manager of the leadership and cultures program,
Shane McCurry is clear: “When you guys play together it’s so much easier, so much louder,
so much more fun, so keep going on that journey, and get that prize you’ve been waiting for”
(Marshall 2017, 445).
20The music session was a simple activity encouraging the players to be playful – to let down
their guard, to be instinctive and creative, to have fun and, importantly, to form bonds and
connect. Indeed, the idea of playfulness appears to be a central part of the club’s culture and
presumably, their culture program.
It seems this sense of joy was even more important, and in focus, during the most serious and
potentially stressful moments of the season. The music session, for example, took place
during Grand Final week – in the lead up to the biggest game of the year, and undoubtedly
for the Richmond players, of their careers. According to Marshall (2017) this had been a
central theme and focus for the entire year, so it should not surprise that it continued to
punctuate their season right up to its culmination.
Freedom on the Field:
This sense of play also became a key feature of the way Richmond played football. As
illuminated throughout this paper, so often in the serious world of competitive, professional
sports, players are expected to execute game plans, set-plays, tactics and coach’s instructions.
This, of course, inhibits and marginalises a player’s freedom, creativity, flair and instinct.
When a player wins the football, they are often caught between their instincts and natural
urges to play with flair and creativity and the instructions about where they are expected to
kick, or even to run to. Naturally, this obligation and responsibility is a reality for
professional athletes, but it is also more contrived and limiting than Huizinga’s characteristic
of play.
Nevertheless, for the Richmond players, an undeniable emphasis on upholding some sense of
play characterised their approach to the game. For example, Marshall (2017, 127) notes that
before a game against the West Coast Eagles, coach Hardwick tells his players, “I want to see
you go for your marks…I want to see you run and carry…I want to see you win the ball and
21get it going our way.” These simple instructions were reinforcing the play ideal of being
uninhibited, unrestrained and playing with some sense of natural flair and freedom.
The idea of playing with freedom was also illustrated through the views of Richmond
assistant coach, Blake Caracella. According to Marshall (2017) Caracella believed the most
significant changes to the team’s approach from 2016 to 2017 was that the game style in 2017
allowed players greater freedom: “Previously, I think things were more coordinated, and
decision making was more structured…whereas now it’s more open…you (the players) have
options, make the choice, figure it out” (306). Further, Caracella believes enabling players to
make their own decisions is an important part of players having fun, telling Marshall (2017),
“Footballers want to express themselves on the field by how they play the game. And they
want to have fun. Understanding the many options open to them does this.” He then tells the
players, “And when you’re all showing some part of yourself, you’re expressing yourselves
as a team” (307).
Above all Caracella concludes that “you still want them (players) to have fun” (Marshall
2017, 307). By season’s end, this had become a defining feature of the team. In the moments
leading up to their preliminary final, the teams’ full forward, Jack Riewoldt, instructed his
teammates to “have fun,” while midfielder Josh Caddy implored his teammates to “remember
the connection they have developed all season long” (Marshall, 2017, 418). According to
Caddy, the connection the team had formed from playing together, and having fun, was the
intangible asset that would ultimately propel them to victory against their opponents, the
Greater Western Sydney Giants: “The Giants can’t see it, they can’t hear it, but it’s there and
I guarantee you they don’t have it – and they can’t defend it. So, let’s use it and play with
passion” (418).
22Then, coach Hardwick started their team meeting with joke that had nothing to do with the
upcoming match, but which had “the room in stitches” (418).
Happiness, Growth and Connection:
The sense of fun and connection that characterised Richmond’s season had a profound impact
on many of the players, enabling them to grow, strive towards their full potential and reach
their team goals. One such player Marshall (2017, 186) interviewed was 29-year-old Shaun
Grigg, who was the oldest player in the “the team’s best 22.” Marshall (2017, 186) writes that
Grigg “felt energised by the changed attitude of the coaching group and the stated club
philosophy…it has made every day fun.” By having fun, players could relax, be themselves
and connect with each other. This idea was supported by Grigg, who said that as a leader he
“encouraged everyone to be themselves,” which “made the environment so much more
relaxed, without taking any professionalism away. There are times for hard work, and there
are times to have a joke. It’s been a massive shift (from last year). Massive” (Marshall 2017,
186).
Importantly, Grigg articulated the sense of community that had resonated throughout the
club, which could largely be attributed to the renewed emphasis on upholding the spirit of
play. Indeed, the spirit of play is important in professional sport settings because of the
outcomes it stimulates: a sense of obligation and responsibility to teammates and to help them
achieve their common goals; growth; fulfillment; connection and community. Yet this is only
truly possible if players are willing to reveal their true selves to genuinely connect to others.
This is often stimulated through an inherent childlike love for the game, which can
sometimes be lost within the seriousness of modern, professional sport.
23According to Marshall (2017), Grigg was fond of a quote he heard from a cricketer, English
paceman Stuart Broad, who highlighted the importance of upholding the play spirit even in
the most serious of sporting environments:
“Remember all the teammates who support you, all the coaches who help you, all the fans
who cheer for you, but at the end of the day, play for the little boy who fell in love with the
game” (187).
When play binds teams into a community based on athletes having fun and feeling the
freedom to reveal their whole self, the individual player’s desire to reach their potential is
supported by the community with the understanding that each individual athlete will use their
talent and skill to help the team achieve their goals. Furthermore, the satisfaction, honour and
esteem achieved from team success outweighs individual prestige, no matter how satisfying
the individual honour and acclaim.
Enjoying the Moment:
While it is clear Richmond made a distinct effort to uphold play notions of fun and freedom
throughout the season, it is undeniable that in the high-pressure environment of professional
sport, there would have also been numerous serious, intense and even repetitious or even
monotonous moments within matches, training sessions and team meetings. Yet even then it
seems the coaching staff was focused on ensuring the players were enjoying their craft. When
reflecting on a drill the team had finished at training which focused on the team’s “desire for
workmanlike behaviour,” Hardwick asks the team how they would describe the drill
(Marshall 2017, 23). The answers were all positive, such as “awesome” and “exciting,” but
there was one answer in particular coach Hardwick liked the most: “I heard that,” he says, “It
was fun. It was great. Now let’s do it again. And again. And again (Marshall 2017, 23).”
24Thus, even within the training and implementation of intricate game plans, set plays, tactics,
and structures which all reflect the serious nature of sport and the obsessive focus on
winning, sport should still be fun and never so restrictive that all sense of freedom, flair,
creativity, instinct and fun are lost.
An Unbreakable Connection:
Richmond’s season culminated with the ultimate success, winning the premiership after
defeating the Adelaide Crows in the Grand Final by 48 points (Marshall 2017). Further,
several Richmond players had their best season of their careers, including star midfielder
Dustin Martin who won the Brownlow Medal – the AFL’s most esteemed individual award
(Marshall 2017). Martin was also awarded the Norm Smith medal, after being adjudged best
on ground in the AFL Grand Final (Marshall, 2017).
Play and Community:
In truth there’s undoubtably many reasons that stirred Richmond’s improvement from 2016
to 2017, many of which would sit well outside, or even in opposition to Huizinga’s play
ideal. These include the strict game plans, regimented structures, intricate tactics and specific
roles and instructions players were asked and expected to execute each week of the season.
However, it’s difficult to deny the role upholding some sense of play had in the team’s
improvement. The obvious emphasis on ensuring players still enjoyed coming to the club, to
have fun and to play with some sense of freedom ensured the players bonded, connected and
formed very real and genuine relationships. This sense of community is essential in
providing individuals with the confidence, encouragement and support to reach their
individual goals and their full potential, while also ensuring individuals feel a sense of
obligation to help others achieve their goals and the goals of the team. Importantly, if
individuals are reaching their potential, the whole team benefits.
25When reflecting on the improvement of the team and the special ingredients that propelled
the club to its most successful season in 37 years, Richmond’s General Manager of Football,
Neil Balme spoke about the importance of the relationships formed between the players and
the sense of responsibility and obligation, they felt towards each other:
“It’s all about people relating to each other and feeling responsible to each other, so you push
over and make the numbers or you make the shepherd. The things you do for each other, you
do because you actually care about the next bloke and you want that to happen. So,
connection is really crucial. It’s so significant to what you do” (cited in Greenwood 2020).
To understand the significance of the strong emotional ties the Richmond players shared with
each other it is necessary to first understand what is meant by community and how the
Richmond team can be viewed as a community. To understand what community is, it is best
viewed through the concept of social capital. Social capital refers to the networks and
relationships required to achieve common and shared outcomes. Jane Jacobs (1961) was one
of the first to extensively discuss social capital in her book The Death and Life of the Great
American Cities, arguing that for neighbourhoods to thrive with active, vibrant engaged
citizens, the authority of the neighbourhood needed to be shared by its participants. The
empowerment of the neighbourhood’s inhabitants ensures that they feel a collective
responsibility and obligation to each other to contribute to and enrich the life of the
neighbourhood and strive for positive outcomes that benefit the majority. In striving for a
common good, citizens were active participants in the life of the neighbourhood rather than
mere subjects or consumers.
Importantly, through participating in the life of the community individuals were encouraged
and supported to reach their potential and actively pursue their unique talents to help the
community reach their goals. In doing so, the individual feels a sense of belonging,
26achievement, self-worth and satisfaction. When this is compromised and power is centralised
the community is corrupted. Jacobs was hostile towards anything that disrupted or interfered
with citizens being able to own their communities and actively work towards making a
genuine and meaningful difference. This included ‘redevelopments’ and other ‘red tape’,
bureaucracy and anything else that took the power away from the people.
This point is also illustrated by Robert Putnam in his study of the different government
reforms of Italy’s North and South in 1976-77. In Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions
in Modern Italy, Putnam (1993) highlights the success of the northern Italy reforms which
decentralised power with new local governments which encouraged citizens to collectively
participate in and enrich community life. The fact citizens felt empowered by the reforms
meant they also felt a sense of civic responsibility to work with their fellow citizens to ensure
life within the community was as vibrant, strong and satisfying as it could be.
As Putnam writes:
“In the North, the crucial social, political, and even religious allegiances and
alignments were horizontal, while those in the South were vertical. Collaboration,
mutual assistance, civic obligation, and even trust – not universal, of course, but
extending further beyond the limits of kinship than anywhere else in Europe in this
era – were the distinguishing features in the North. The chief virtue in the South, by
contrast, was the imposition of hierarchy and order on latent anarchy (1993, 130).”
What the neighbourhoods of Jacobs’ analysis and the citizens of Northern Italy in Putnam’s
study were experiencing was a sense of community and can be applied to sporting teams to
understand their connection. In their 1986 essay, Sense of Community: a definition and theory
McMillan and Chavis define ‘sense of community’ as:
‐ A sense of belonging to the community
27‐ A sense of finding individual and collective meaning from participating in the
community
‐ A sense of collectively being able to influence the decisions and actions of the
community
‐ Developing a sense of identity through the community
‐ Developing emotional connections of fellow members of the community, which
stimulates a sense of obligation and responsibility to each other and to help achieve a
shared and common goal of the community (1986, 6).
It should also be noted that it is through actively engaging in communities that individuals
and individualism can shine and more so, where individuals can reach their full potential.
Community members are encouraged and supported to work on improving their unique
talents, which should then be directed towards enriching life within the community and
striving towards the common good.
Therefore, the Richmond football team should be viewed as a community where players
and coaches are able to:
‐ Come together to enjoy something in common with others;
‐ Feel a sense of belonging and meaning;
‐ Form strong and emotional ties with other members of the community;
‐ Feel a sense of loyalty, obligation or responsibility to each other; and
‐ Influence and activity contribute to the shared and common goals of the community.
The Spirit of Play:
Clearly the strong connection, cohesion and emotional ties between the Richmond players
acted as a source of strength in their pursuit of the premiership, which makes Huizinga’s
account relevant in understanding their success. As highlighted earlier in the paper, it was
28You can also read
