erentiates between sport and athletics, e.g., sport is play, while athletics involves a contest. The focus in play is one the activity, while the focus in a contest is on victory (Butcher & Schneider, 1998). Ergo, fair play is appropriate in sport, but it is counterproductive and unacceptable in an athletic contest. Such logic would be useful in an effort to legitimise unethical corporate behaviour or, perhaps, the activities of "Murder, Inc."
Sport as a Contest; Fair Play as a Fair Contest. This approach does not differentiate between sport and athletics or play and contest. Rather, this approach holds that participants in a contest should abide by the rules of the contest. The principal objection raised to this approach is that it does not define fair play directly. Rather, the definition of fair play is anything that is not unfair, e.g., whatever does not impinge on the rules of the contest. Within the contest of this approach, a rule breaker cannot win the contest. A major problem, however, is the concept of the "fair foul" or the "professional foul" (Butcher & Schneider, 1998). Within the context of this concept, one does not break a rule when one commits an offence the intention of which is simply to stop one's opponent from a sure score (such as a basketball player illegally blocking an opponent or an association football player illegally tackling an opponent). Such "fair fouls" differ, according to this line of argument, from behaviours intended to harm an opponent (such as head butting). The proponents of this approach appear to believe that some rules of the game exist only to be broken as a part of a game strategy.
Fair Play as Respect for the Rules of the Game. This approach emphasises being true to the spirit of the rules as opposed to being true to the letter of the rules (Butcher & Schneider, 1998). While the co
...