Is cheating to lose more sinister or bad than cheating to win ?

Question

I came across this question in a book called Freakonomics . In the recently held FIFA World Cup there were so many instances of players fakely diving for penalties . The same players were treated as heros in their country . On the other side the Italian club teams were punished for match fixing .

So is cheating to lose more bad than cheating to win ?

Answer 1

Cheating to lose is worse, because it disappoints the fans (you know, the people who pay money to see the team, who buy the merchandise, who get into fights about whose team is better). It's just sad that players would intentionally lose, usually for money.

Cheating to win also isn't cool, but at least they aren't intentionally throwing the game.

Answer 2

Interesting. You seem to be saying that a flop is a cheat to give up or loose. In the short term that may be true but with the goal of winning something, i.e., a penalty kick.

I'd say it depends on the ultimate goal. For example, I've "cheated" to loose with my children. There would be no value in playing a sport full speed against someone 1/4 my size, so I've purposely held back to allow a child to beat me. I wouldn't see anything sinister about this.

On the other hand, athletes have been know to throw games often because they have gambled money against their own team. This seems to be sinister and a violation of any sense of good sportsmanship.

In the world cup, I seem to remember another concern along these lines. England, I believe, was warned by FIFA to play out their final group game even though they had clinched a spot in the dropout stage. The fear was that they would pull all their top players from the final group game. The concern was that they team they were playing could also qualify with a win, but another team would qualify if England won. Would this be cheating? In a sense yes, and in another sense no. Either way, it would have a negative affect on the fair sportsmanship of the game.

So, back to the flop: Is that a sinister cheat to loose? Many sports have a flop such as basketball's attempt to draw a charging foul or an American football punter acts out that he was fouled with his kick. With either of those examples, the penalty that the player ventures to gain is only a small part of the the game. In soccer, the player hopes to gain a PK which often converts to a goal and one goal could be the only score of the game. Still, that only makes the flop more aggrieving and common place in soccer.

In the end, it seems that severity of cheating is dependent upon the ultimate goal of the cheater. Cheating to allow a 2 year old to learn confidence is not sinister at all but even noble. Not fielding a full strength squad as England could have done, may not have been cheating, but was destructive to the tournament so could have been seen as negative on the game. Flopping is frustrating, ultimately negatively affects the game is sinister and should be penalized, but not as severely as one who premeditates fixing a match.

Answer 3

Cheating to lose is much more sinister. It is degrading to the other player, who is earnestly trying their hardest to win, and when you hand them the victory, it steals the flavor of true victory. I however think the analogy you used after the question, clearly does not fit the question you asked. When a player dives in a match it is in an attempt to draw a foul, and gain an advantage, in other words they are trying to win by cheating. In match fixing they are not trying to win or lose, they are trying to play to the point spread. Good question anyway though. I cheat sometimes to lose in a pool game, because I have won so many and I really need a smoke break. Wait, I guess I don't really cheat, I just intentionally do not play well.

Answer 4

In an absolute sense, cheating is never right, and neither one is worse than the other. Having said that, however, such scandals as the Black Sox in 1919 illustrate the fact that most people tend to think that it is, when there's money involved. If you're just some Little League player who wants to end the season early (a la South Park), cheating to lose isn't so bad, but a professional who bets against himself and then loses to collect money is evil.

Answer 5

cheating to lose would ONLY be done under circumstances in which an individual (or many) stand to gain monetary gain.

cheating to win CAN be about pride. take golf for example... it's easy to cheat, it's tough to monitor and duffers do it all the time to try and impress others or take a moral victory over a buddy.

only a stupid golfer, in this scenario, would cheat to GAIN strokes for any reason besides money (or things...)!

Answer 6

Cheating is cheating. It's a simple matter of honesty. If you are not good for your word, then what exactly are you good for? A person who cannot be trusted to be honest can't be trusted at all. I don't think anything justifies cheating.

Answer 7

Cheating is wrong on any level. However I have heard of people cheating to lose out of compassion for a less talented competitor. I can't think of any unselfish reasons for cheating to win.

Answer 8

The difference is simple. Cheaters who win are remembered as winners (remember Maradona in 1986 !); cheaters who lose are remembered as cheats (remember Maradona in 1994 World Cup for his doping !).

Answer 9

Cheating is Cheating, now matter how it is stated! It should be about honor, integrity, and doing ones best!

Answer 10

cheating is bad, period. If you cheat to lose to someone with less talent, they may believe they have more than they thought.