As a student athlete throughout my high school tenure, I would always hear coaches mutter the phrase, “This is not a democracy, this is a dictatorship!” It would always come after some comment from a player about why we do this or that, maybe a suggestion, and even sometimes, heated moments between the player and the coach. Much unlike a democratic leader, Thomas Hobbes’ sovereign leader was a single ruler who all obeyed. In hindsight though, are athletic teams really run without democracy? Does the coach hold a position much like that of Hobbes’ sovereign? A sovereign leader in sports has been proven to work the best.
Widely regarded as the greatest coach of all time, Vince Lombardi has been known for his hard-nosed, anything-to-win mentality. If any one coach were considered to be an absolute sovereign, many could argue that he be just that. It was Coach Lombardi that once said, “The leader can never close the gap between himself and the group. If he does, he is no longer what he must be. He must walk a tightrope between the consent he must win and the control he must exert” (Vince Lombardi Quotes). This speaks so closely to many of the things that we have learned about being the sovereign. As Professor LaVaque-Manty brought up in lecture, Hobbes’ sovereign is “absolute and indivisible” (LaVaque-Manty). Much like what Vince Lombardi brought to his teams, Lombardi made sure that the gap between him and his players were much the same, making sure to never let the team or his power, be divided. The sovereign’s power is also “nonforfeitable and unimpeachable,” (LaVaque-Manty) which many coaches modeling Lombardi’s ways try to maintain. Coaches are in total control of the team and no one within that team is going to challenge his/her power, much like the sovereign with its people.
Hobbes defines the sovereign at the end of Ch. 17 as
“one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence” (Hobbes).
Basically, a sovereign authority leads a society, in which all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. If a good coach were not to act strictly to that description, then he is not a good coach at all. Coaches should act with ‘great multitude’ and use the strength of the individuals on their team to make peace among them and defend the team. Coaches like Lombardi, Bear Bryant, Dean Smith, etc. have never put the individual ahead of the team and because of that, they were able to do what was best for their respective teams: win.
All teams, and especially the successful ones, have had a good leader at the helm. It has rarely ever been the case where a winning coach runs the team in a democratic manner. Athletic teams vary much from that of government and many of the most successful coaches have shown that democracy is no way to run a team. A coach that closely resembles that of Thomas Hobbes’ sovereign has the highest chance of leading a successful group of players.
Works Cited
LaVaque-Manty, Mika. “The Hobbesian Commonwealth.” Political Science 101: Intro to Political Theory. University of Michigan. Aud. B Angell, Ann Arbor. 12 Oct 2009. Lecture.
“Vince Lombardi Quotes.” Brainy Quote. 1009. Brainymedia, Web. 18 Nov 2009. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vince_lombardi.html>.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. 123-302. Print.
I strongly agree with your argument. Once a coach gives up the ultimate power he possesses, he can never regain full control of his team. Another good example of a coaching dictatorship is that of Bobby Knight. Although widely criticized for his on and off the court antics, Bobby Knight had a very absolute, effective, and successful style of coaching that made him set the record for most D-1 wins in college basketball history. And I could attribute most of his success because of the “Hobbesian sovereign” coaching style he had, either his way or the highway.
I agree as well with your analysis on sports. My former wrestling coach in high school used to tell us “know your place on this team.” It was a sign of ultimate control within his powers. I’d like to add that this is applied to more than sports, such as classroom settings. The “authoritarian figure” on a sports team and in a classroom must assume control of others to create an environment suited to accomplish a greater goal. If there never existed an authoritarian figure, chaos would occur. We’d have people rising to assume power they are not equipt to handle. Sometimes, a Hobbesian sovereign works because it allows the more experienced and skilled (Machiavelli’s “virtu”) individual to lead a group successfully.
But if we were to follow this argument to the field, we would conclude that the stronger team would be with that of the most authoritarian coach. At what point do we give teamwork any credit for a team’s success? If the coach is the only and ultimate “sovereign”, what authority does the point guard or the quarterback hold?
If there is no room for creativity or improvisation on the part of the players and the team, then there would be no chance at victory in the unpredictable elements in which sports are defined.
Interesting comparison. The one thing I thought of while reading is that players choose to be part of a team, while in Hobbes’ state of nature citizens automatically subject themselves to the sovereign if they live in that state. A coach is only given power if the players agree to join the team. In other words, a player can leave at any time.
I think that this is a very true comparison. I would also like to bring up the point that a coach also must have sovereign power over his/her support or fans. Look at Michigan Football (i know it’s a touchy subject after the last two seasons). Rich Rod came in without any Michigan experience, he technically was not “hereditarily fit” for the job (Machiavelli). He has also lost the support of many fans, including myself. The team seems to be lost so there must be some point of failure in leadership positions. Sovereign power, it IS what wins championship both athletically and academically. The person in charge really needs to have the respect of the people affected or else most of the time there will be nothing accomplished.
I agree with your interesting comparison. The coach must run his team similar to a sovereign leader in Hobbe’s society. He must have complete control and say over everything going on within the program. Another interesting point is that Hobbe’s says that the leader should be loved and feared which also seems very applicable to a coach in any sport. If you look at most successful coaches they are very strict guys that still have utmost respect from their players.
I think that is is a great argument. Like Noah previously said players choose what time to play for and give up everything to that one coach. The only difference is that there are multiple coaches on a teams and even players can be leaders, which Hobbes would not agree with. In high school sports this truly applies, but as you move to the college and pro levels teams are run less like Hobbes would envision.
I agree with you completely. Once a coach puts the team members’ interests instead of the team itself, it loses its strength. Teams are expensive and extremely based off of statistics, thus having a bias such as a team player’s opinion on an issue can skew the probability to win. A sovereign authority takes complete control of a society, however in this protects all individuals once they abandon their rights naturally given to them. By having one coach make all of the decisions, no biases can occur and quick and important decisions can be implemented.
I agree that this is a great comparison to Hobbes idea of a sovereign. I believe that it is vital for the coach to make decisions on his own, since these decisions will produce successful results. As noted earlier the coach is the main force that leads to success and it is important that he doesn’t take into account the individual interests of the players, as it will diminish the strength of the team. Hobbes would agree that a team should not be a democracy. If a team were a democracy it would be very difficult to make decisions and solutions. It is necessary to have one “sovereign” who rules the team and is the only decision maker.
I agree with your argument that it is important for a coach to have control of his team, but although he does need to maintain an authoritative role, he still needs the help of his surrounding staff to be successful. In football today there is more emphasis on what the offensive and defensive coordinators are doing than ever before. When something goes wrong with either side of the ball, that coach tends to take some of the heat (such as how Scott Shafer was fired after the 2008 season). I think it is important that these coaches have a say as to what happens on the playing field because they are experts in that area. That being said, I think the head coach needs to maintain a sovereignesque role over his team so they have one voice to listen to. I think it was great that you brought up the idea of putting no one above the team, such as Bo Schembechler’s infamous “The Team” speech proclaimed.
I can appreciate this parallel. It is true that in one respect a coach is like Hobbes’ sovereign. A good coach should not be too friendly with his team because they may end up rejecting him as an authority figure. At the same time, a good coach must also walk that fine line because if a coach is too over bearing they can end up rejecting them as well. So in a way I can see how a good coach can relate to Hobbes’ sovereign; however, there are far more ways that a coach is not like the sovereign. The sovereign can kill someone at will. Sovereigns take all of your free will away once you go into a contract with them. You do sign a form of contract when you join a sports team; however, you do not give up all of your rights to your coach. You are free to leave that team at any time; this differs from the contract one goes into with the sovereign. That contract gives all of your rights over to the sovereign and once you “sign” that contract there is no going back. Therefore, although there are some similarities I can see more differences between a good coach and a Hobbesian sovereign.
Interesting article. I’ve been holding the similar question for a really long time. I think here’s a different between team and a country.
Ends determine the means.
For a hobbes leviathan, people are willing to subjecting their rights to soverign because of fear of death.
For modern society, the reason people form a country is not solely for security but some more like the pursuit of happiness. So they choose the democracy.
For a team, the goal is to win, simple. The coach is the only one who is trained and specialized in leading the team and tell what players should do. The most important thing here is conformity. So the so-called “dictatorship” is a necessity here to make sure the coach lead the team more easily.
In my high school, they took football very seriously. Our football team was Michigan State Champs for two years in a row, which increased the coaches’ Leviathan standing. The players had to do what the coach said or else they faced not playing in the next game. When signing up to play, they gave up all of their rights to decide such things as how to run practice or what needs to happen in certain situations. These coaches are seen to have full knowledge of how to “protect” the team from a loss, just as the Leviathan is seen to be the person that is going to help the group of people survive.