More on moving the goalposts

The news story I mentioned yesterday is worth reading more closely.

Take the comment by the parent who supports the idea of cancelling the score at half time if one side is winning easily:

"It gives them the opportunity to participate on a level playing field, so I think it is a fairly good idea."

Note firstly that this awful political cliche is invading real life.

Note secondly that it is a silly metaphor to use when you are talking about football.

Note thirdly that the man means the exact opposite of what he says. He wants to handicap teams that are too good, when the metaphor conveys the idea of a fair contest in conditions that are the same for both sides.

In fact if you did want to handicap the better team one way of doing it would be to have a sloping pitch like Yeovil Town used to have and make them play uphill for the whole game.

The defenders of competitive sport are no better. Here is the one quoted:

"We have to foster a competitive spirit, the will to win and the desire for success. If you are taking that away you are actually disempowering children with the necessary life skills to overcome adversity."

The competitive spirit is no doubt a good thing to acquire, but can't children play football because they enjoy it? Does it have to be defended with words like "disempowering" and "life skills"?

And this seems a very Labour conception. Liberal recognise that people are all individuals and are happy for them to let their very different talents flower.

Labour, however, feels uneasy with this. It wants everyone to play sport because it is good for them, and no doubt sports other than football are "posh" or "elitist".

But not everyone is good at football, and the professional left sees people as endlessly vulnerable. So the game has to be made ridiculous to accommodate everyone without traumatising them.