By Elaine Foster
(June 29, 2025)

Every semester, I ask my college students in my Foundations of Kinesiology course this question: What do you call the opposing team or athlete? For many, an uncomfortable chuckle and rosy cheeks are the immediate response before they begin writing. Others look to their teammates in the class and smirk. Inevitably, one student will ask, “Can I write anything down?” to which I respond, “Absolutely. Anything goes.” These visual and verbal responses speak volumes. And, so do the written statements.

Some students tell me they do not feel comfortable writing the names and titles they have used for their competitors. As one student wrote: “We called them the worst names possible that I cannot write on paper.” Most students, however, are starkly honest. Presently, over 300 students have responded to this question with a plethora of names and titles, some that are expected, others that are questionable, and many that are alarming.

Mascots, team names, jersey colors, and the name of the school are commonly used for competitors. Such terms are expected, as these are practical means of distinguishing teams and athletes from one another. Titles like rivals, competitors, and opposition are also commonplace as they describe what is occurring at the sporting event. All of these terms, in my opinion, seem appropriate and accurate. Interestingly, these names are the least commonly reported as being used by my students.

Words that describe the competitor(s) as others or non-entities are listed more often than those in the previous paragraph. Common terms include nameless face, just another team, losers, those guys, them, option B, and junior league. Although they seem to have a long-standing presence within sports, such terms are questionable because they place competitors in an out-group, as people who do not belong.

The last grouping of names gives me significant pause because of their meaning, and because these terms are cited most often by my students. I, like my previously mentioned student, feel very uncomfortable writing many of these names/titles on paper. Unsurprisingly, profanity is commonplace in these names, like SOBs and a variety of names that incorporate the F word. Other names, although not profane, are just mean: enemies, trash, cheap shots, stuck-ups, frauds, and lowlifes. Altering team names into crude words and using racist language is also cited by my students.

The names my students have used highlight the negative and harmful attitudes often held toward sport competitors. Scholars have written on the negative attitudes and subsequent actions commonly had toward competitors for decades (e.g., Delattre, 1975/1995; Feezell, 1976; Shields & Bredimeier, 2009; Stoll, 2019). The consensus is that viewing competitors as enemies, obstacles, and creating foul names for them is antithetical to the point of competition as, competition, in its true form, is about striving with a competitor as both parties are challenged and seek personal excellence (Keating, 1964; Shields & Bredemeier, 2009). Therefore, competitors are not bad guys, them, or SOBs, but are colleagues and companions in the quest for excellence in sport. Simply, without competitors, there would be no competition.

I believe the majority of coaches understand that competitors are integral to sport and should be respected. Coaches may even actively teach this concept to their athletes and expect athlete behavior to align with this ideology. Yet, othering competitors is still very common, as demonstrated through my students’ responses to my question.

Giving attention and time to this issue is necessary, and it is the coach’s job to do so. Strong and Shields (2021) ask coaches to consider whether they see their opponent as “…an enemy or a partner”, and emphasize that the answer “…has astonishingly deep and profound implications” (para 7). Coaches have a responsibility to “Model, teach and reinforce ethical behavior…” (Gano-Overway et al., 2021, Standard 7). Honestly examining values and behaviors is the first step to fulfilling this responsibility. Coaches can use the following two questions as a guide for this examination.

What Values Are You Actively Teaching/Modeling?

In sport, we often emphasize social values like hard work, teamwork, and loyalty. Although such social values are important in sport, they direct behavior toward what is best for you and your team only and can lead to unethical behavior if not tempered with moral values (Stoll, 2019). As Stoll (2019) discusses, the purpose of sport should be guided by moral values like justice, responsibility, honesty, and respect, applied to all parties involved, including competitors.

How the competitor is treated, viewed, and discussed is a reflection of which values coaches teach. When social values guide, competitors are an enemy in the way of the goal, something to be conquered, often at any and all costs. With moral values at the forefront, coaches view their opponents as respectable partners in the experience. As a coach, how do you see the opponent?

Honestly reflect on how you, as a coach, view the opponent. What do you call them? What do you say about them? Your answers will reveal the type of values you are teaching and following.

Are You Inadvertently Reinforcing Unethical Attitudes and/or Behaviors?

Although coaches may say they teach and expect moral values to be followed, they also might be inadvertently reinforcing unethical behaviors by overemphasizing winning. Of course, winning is a central tenet of sport, but it is striving to win that is the point. Striving to win can create a space to showcase talents, efforts, teamwork, and perseverance, especially when facing a worthy opponent (Delattre, 1975/1995). Intrinsic benefits may also flourish within motivations to achieve victory. Teams bond, friendships develop, and trust evolves as athletes train and engage with their competition. Therefore, as long as winning is kept within the “…proper perspective” (Hyland, 1990, p. 37), it contributes to the overall value of the sporting experience.

Yet, a coach does not have to break rules or bribe officials to be too focused on winning. Overemphasizing winning may result from how a coach reacts in the heat of play, responds to a loss, or handles a mistake. Poor reactions send a message and showcase winning as the coach’s top priority. An us-versus-them mentality evolves from an attitude overly focused on winning, which may explain the demeaning names my students shared. Winning means we are winners and the other team is losers. If being a loser is portrayed as failure by our coaches and leaders, it is easy to see why athletes will demean the competition through titles like nameless face, frauds, and trash.

In Sum

Although name-calling behaviors do not actually physically harm the opponent, they diminish the potential good competition offers by disrespecting the contest. The primary purpose of the sport is to test abilities (Stoll, 2019) and derive pleasure from the process (Keating, 1964), for all involved (Kretchmar et al., 2017). Under this lens, the competitor is understood as a partner rather than an enemy, as all participants strive to win. As a partner, colleague, or companion, opponents are integral to the experience of sport, and the focus is on what is best for all involved. With this perspective, sport becomes one of the greatest possibilities to experience something unique and beautiful.

References

Delattre, E. J. (1975/1995). Some reflections on success and failure in competitive athletics. In W. J. Morgan, & K. V. Meier (Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport (2nd ed., pp. 188-192). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Feezell, R. M. (1986/1995). Sportsmanship. In W. J. Morgan, & K. V. Meier (Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport (2nd ed., pp. 152-160). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Gano-Overway, L., Thompson, M., & Van Mullem, P. (2021). National standards for sport coaches: Quality coaches, quality sports. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Hyland, D. A. (1990). Philosophy of sport. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

Keating, J. W. (1964/1995). Sportsmanship as a moral category. In W. J. Morgan, & K. V. Meier (Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport (2nd ed., pp. 144-151). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kretchmar, R. S., Dyreson, M., Llewellyn, M. P., & Gleaves, J. (2017). History and philosophy of sport and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Shields, D. L., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2009). True competition: A guide to pursuing excellence in sport and society. Human Kinetics.

Stoll, S. K. (2019, Oct. 31). Ethics and the educator: Conquering the myths of ethical practice.

PHE America. https://www.pheamerica.org/2019/ethics-and-the-educator-conquering-the-myths-of-ethical-practice

Strong, J., & Shields, D. (2021, August 3). Purposeful competition. PHE America.