Curling is the game that is actually open to the whole country

The argument

Proponents of curling argue that an official sport should be one most citizens could take up, and that this is where hockey fails. Organised hockey requires expensive equipment, purchased repeatedly as a child grows, together with ice time that clubs must pay for and travel to fixtures that falls on families. The result, proponents argue, is a sport whose competitive levels are effectively restricted by household income and by proximity to a facility, which makes it a poor emblem for a country that describes itself as broadly egalitarian. Curling, on their account, is close to the opposite. Equipment is minimal and usually supplied by the club, the game is played in modest facilities in small towns as readily as in cities, and it imposes no requirement of speed, size or collision, so it is played by children and by people in old age, by the athletic and the sedentary, and by mixed teams in the same competition. Proponents argue that a sport in which a grandparent and a grandchild can be on the same rink is a more accurate representation of a national pastime than one which selects for youth and physical advantage. They add that participation of this kind is what a designation should be measuring. A game watched by many and played by few, they argue, is a national entertainment rather than a national sport, while a game played across regions, ages and classes is the thing an official sport is supposed to name.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those favouring hockey reply that accessibility is not the test a national symbol is chosen by, since few countries select their national game for how cheap it is to play, and that recreational and outdoor hockey on public ice is in fact played very widely at no cost. They add that curling's own participation is concentrated in particular regions and in club membership, and that a designation naming a sport most Canadians neither play nor follow closely would not be recognised as describing the country at all.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That accessibility is the relevant test is asserted and is the very matter in dispute. Few countries choose a national sport by what it costs to play, and the opposing position holds that a symbol is chosen for what it signifies. [Rejecting P2] The cost objection describes organised club and competitive hockey rather than the recreational and outdoor game played on public ice at no charge, which is where most participation occurs. The premise generalises from the most expensive form of the sport. [Rejecting P3] Curling's own accessibility is stated without acknowledging that its participation is concentrated by region and runs largely through club membership, so the contrast the premise draws is narrower than it appears.