Maccabi Tel Aviv fans let down 311.
(photo credit: Adi Avishai)
Sometimes the most exciting or nerve-wracking moments of a game are the plays: an
impressive score or an impossible save; a disappointing near-miss or a bungled
one. Fans do not go to games to be reticent about cheering on the heroes or
berating the goats; they want to make their voices heard.
adrenalin moments are the calls made by the referees or the umpires. Fans don’t
go to games to be reticent about those either, but sometimes expressing an
opinion has unexpected results. A few weeks ago two spectators were ejected from
a US college basketball game for loudly and repeatedly protesting the official’s
calls. The case raised the ancient and contested issue of fans’
Certainly fans can be ejected for disruptive behavior; it doesn’t
make sense to let one spectator prevent another from enjoying the game. There is
also broad agreement that spectators can be ejected for hostile or offensive
behavior such as racial slurs. But the fans ejected from the North Carolina game
were not accused of disruption, of using profanities or racism or any other
particularly offensive speech. The referee was understandably upset at having
his judgment questioned so tenaciously and vociferously. But is this a
valid basis for restricting the fans’ actions?
There are two basic approaches we
can use to study this question. One is a “freedom of speech” paradigm. In
this view, the sports arena is a public place; anyone present has the right to
speak his mind about King George III, about the referee’s calls, or about
anything in between. According to this paradigm, it makes a big
difference if the sporting event is taking place in a public or a private
This approach is adopted by many experts, but it seems to me that
it doesn’t capture the essence of the controversy. The referees in the game
wouldn’t ask to eject a fan for tweeting his criticisms in real time to millions
of followers; freedom of expression is not really the issue. (We wouldn’t want
judges to be above criticism, would we?)
The other approach is the commercial
one. What are the conditions of the contract between the organizers of the
sporting event and the fans? What should they be? Who has the right to
adjudicate the rules? The usual rule is that a proprietor has broad rights to
decide who is present on his premises. If he ejects a patron, he is only
responsible for giving a refund. But from an ethical point of view it’s clear
this right can’t be used arbitrarily. We couldn’t condone an event that ejected
people merely for having dark skin, orange garments and so on.
the main question here is, what are basketball fans paying for? And I think the
answer is to experience a sporting event as a public spectacle. Basketball is
not like tennis, where fans expect or want crowd reactions limited to muffled
oohs and ahs; it is more like a kind of group therapy where everyone wants the
chance to give expression to his emotions and experience those of fellow
spectators. Based on this criterion, the decision to eject fans for
second-guessing the refs was a bad call.
JPOST VIDEOS THAT MIGHT INTEREST YOU:
Meir is research director at the Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem, an
independent institute in the Jerusalem College of Technology (Machon Lev).
Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>