Cheerleading meets every criterion normally used to define a sport

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that the dispute is settled by applying the ordinary definition rather than by consulting tradition. The features generally taken to make an activity a sport are physical exertion and skill, systematic training, rules administered by officials, and organised competition in which performances are compared and a winner declared. Competitive cheerleading has all of them. Squads train through the year, perform routines built from tumbling, lifts, throws and dismounts that take years to acquire, compete under codified rules against other squads, and are placed in order by judges at the end. The argument then challenges what its proponents see as an asymmetry in how the definition gets applied. Gymnastics, diving, figure skating and synchronised swimming are all judged rather than settled by points or times, all involve routines choreographed to be watched, and all are uncontroversially sports. If judged performance is compatible with being a sport in those cases, proponents argue, it cannot be the thing that disqualifies cheerleading. They suggest that what actually drives the doubt is the activity's origin on the sidelines and its association with young women, neither of which is a feature of the activity as now practised. Proponents also note that the question is not merely verbal. Classification determines whether participants get qualified coaching, enforced safety standards, injury cover, access to facilities and recognition for the risks they take, since an activity described as entertainment is regulated far more lightly than a sport. They argue that competitive cheerleading involves throwing people into the air and catching them, which is among the more hazardous things an athlete can be asked to do, and that an activity of that kind should carry the protections a sport carries. On this account cheerleading is a sport, because it satisfies the criteria and because treating it otherwise leaves its athletes unprotected.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the definition offered is loose enough to admit activities nobody would count, from competitive dance to marching band, which suggests the criteria are necessary rather than sufficient. They also argue that the comparison with gymnastics misses a distinction: those activities exist in order to be contested, whereas cheerleading was created to support a contest between other teams and in most settings still does. On this view competitive cheerleading has split off from the thing the word names, so the claim holds for one branch while the question concerns the activity as a whole. Others accept the safety point entirely but say that protections should follow risk directly, without the label having to be won first.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics object that the criteria listed are necessary but not sufficient, since competitive dance and marching band would satisfy them too. [Rejecting P2] They argue that the features belong to competitive cheerleading rather than to the sideline activity the word usually names. [Rejecting P3] They reply that judged sports exist in order to be contested whereas cheerleading exists to support a contest, which is the distinction doing the work. [Rejecting C] They conclude that the argument establishes the status of one branch rather than of cheerleading as such.