When did we start giving trophies to children for simply being part of a team?
It used to be when you played sport at school it was one thing to make the team, and then only the very best were acknowledged and received their school colours. These were often given out for one individual performance, or for consistent performances that were a major contribution to the team as a whole. Whichever was the case they were hard-earned and an honour.
Some will no doubt argue that selecting a few from a team is wrong, but is not life like that? Manchester United, Juventus, or Barcelona may have a great season in their respective league and cup competitions, but does that mean that all of their English, Italian and Spanish players will be selected for the national team? No only the very best are selected.
How many team sports have a man of the match award at the end of every game? How often is the goalscorer the one who collects the award, simply because those making the decisions do not appreciate the contribution of others?
When England won the FIFA World Cup back in 1966 only those who played in the Final received winners medals. That was the way things were up until the 1978 World Cup and it was only in 2009 that the other players in the squad, including the three who appeared in earlier games received their medals retrospectively. This practice was also common in the Olympic team sports, if you did not get on the pitch in any games at the Olympic Games you did not receive a medal.
In 1976 two of the gold medal winning New Zealand Hockey side were lined up to receive their medals when they were pulled from the line up by Olympic officials. Poor Les Wilson and Neil McLeod were not even allowed to stand on the podium with their team mates.
There has been a strong push in England to have all of the heroes of 1966 recognised and receive a Knighthood for their achievement. History has shown that it was a very special one in terms of English sporting success on the World Stage. To date only coach Sir Alf Ramsey, Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst have received such an honour. For Alan Ball and captain Bobby Moore such an award would have to be posthumous now.
In fact up until 1999 only six of the heroes had received civil honours, Sir Bobby Charlton (OBE 1969, CBE 1974, Knighthood 1994), Sir Geoff Hurst (MBE 1979, Knighthood 1996), Bobby Moore (OBE – 1967), Jack Charlton (OBE 1974), Gordon Banks (OBE 1970) and Martin Peters (MBE 1978). Then in 1999 five more of the players were given MBE’s Nobby Stiles, Alan Ball, Roger Hunt, Ray Wilson and George Cohen.
Unlike football’s heroes from 1966 most of England’s 2003 World Cup winning Rugby Union side received honours from the Queen in January 2004. Coach Clive Woodward received a Knighthood, Captain Martin Johnson a CBE and Jonny Wilkinson an OBE. The rest of the other players received MBEs apart from the veteran prop forward Jason Leonard, already an MBE, and Andy Robinson, the forwards’ coach, both of whom received OBEs.
In 2006 when England finally wrested the Ashes from Australia after 18 years we saw Captain Michael Vaughan and coach Duncan Fletcher receive OBEs and the rest of the team all receive a MBE.
So what changed in 37 years to make British Prime Ministers opt to give awards to all, rather than the stand out players? Was this in fact the catalyst for all players in a team to be rewarded? Or had this trend started earlier than this?
What is wrong with giving trophies to young players for simply playing, without having achieved? Apart from giving the individual a false sense of self worth, it gives some individuals an unrealistic sense of achievement, which then leads to an attitude of entitlement.
Just recently a young athlete had his dreams shattered. The boy in question was in his late teens. He was never a stand out player. He had only ever won one individual award at his club, and his club had not won a league title.
Now everyone should be entitled to dream, everyone should be encouraged to aim high and have goals, but there comes a time when parents and coaches have to be realistic. They have a duty to sit down that young man and tell him where he is at.
The player in question was constantly told he was good, that he was a ‘great team player.’ Each year he went home with a trophy even though the team won nothing. He believed he was going to be a professional athlete. His parents chose not to see that there were better players around him each week, or maybe they simply did not know. The coach continued to flatter them with words of encouragement about their son. They too found themselves in a false place. Based on what they had seen and heard they too believed that their son had a chance of ‘making it.’ They sent him for trials.
The player soon realised that he was out of his depth. He was certainly out of his comfort zone. Not only did he suffer the rude awakening that his lifelong dream was shattered and that he was not going to become a professional athlete, he was humiliated. He realised that he should never have been in that situation.
There was almost a tragic end to this tale. The player in question understandably was lost and confused. How could he have been told he was good and how could he have received these awards yet be so far off the pace when it came to turning professional? There was talk that he was suicidal, he certainly became very introverted and had to be watched closely. People were very concerned as to his well being. Luckily he is back on track now, but no longer playing sport, certainly not playing the sport he loved so much he wanted to make it his job. He apparently feels that ‘the game mocked him.’
Clearly this was a story that could have had a tragic end. Fortunately it didn’t. Who or what was to blame? It is harsh to blame the parents. They did not know the sport their son was playing, so had no way of judging how he was travelling. They relied on the experts, his coaches; just as you rely on a mechanic to tell you there is something wrong with your car and how to fix it, you need coaches to do the same.
The interesting view taken by those around this young man was that the trophies had a lot to do with his state of mind. Every morning he would wake up at home and see a bookshelf weighed down with trophies.
A trophy is a symbol of success. Yet this individual had in his short life experienced little success, yet had all the trimmings that come with it. How can that be?
The dictionary defines a trophy as “a prize, such as a gold or silver cup, that is given to the winner of a competition or race, and often returned after a year to be given to the winner of the competition in the following year.” He did not give his trophies back, they were there to make him feel good, to make him feel he had achieved. Yet in truth he had not, and all they did was give him a false impression of the talent and ability he had.
The England teams mentioned did achieve. They won the highest competition there is, the World Cup. Yet did they all deserve to win awards beyond their winners medals? If they did then why didn’t the boys from ’66 not receive the same honour? Different times and different attitudes towards athletes no doubt. Sport and acknowledging heroes can now win an election, no longer is it just about policies, its about popularity.
The giving of trophies to all is a process that is unlikely to change. It is almost as if clubs feel beholden now to give something to everyone at the end of the season. However, how about rather than trying to sell dreams they sold the ideal of being a part of a team, of how good it feels to be fit and the fun of playing and the enjoyment of playing alongside your mates. This will undoubtedly stand our young men and women in good stead in the future, far more than a bookshelf of trophies will.
