Competition has been a normal part of human culture for many centuries. Records are kept from Greece have large games in 776 BC and the Mayans playing Pitz in 1800 BC. There are various other records of competitions held by other cultures in history as competitions often bring people together. However, they can also be very competitive and create tensions. This often relates back to the awards that often accompany these events and are earned by merit, meaning the one who performs the best will receive not only recognition and an ego boost, but a physical item defining the quality of athleticism or skill the competitor brought.
Recently though, a new type of trophy has been making headlines across the US and are becoming increasingly popular in US sport culture. These trophies are earned by simply participating. Participation trophies do not have a defined point of origin, but according to Crelin in “Participation Trophies: Overview”, there are records of people awarding trophies for participation spanning back to 1975. Other records exist showing a softball team giving out participation trophies in 1977 and many other small instances such as this before the 90’s, but many larger organizations began to implement awarding trophies to kids who participated during the 90’s rather than awarding trophies to the teams who won tournaments. As time progressed, so did the use of participation trophies.
As participation trophies have grown in popularity, an increasingly studied debate has also risen. On one side stands those who support the use of participation trophies because they abolish the opportunity for a kid to feel like they are not good enough by rewarding the effort and encouraging the child to continue pursuing a game they love. On the other side are those who are against the use of participation trophies because rewarding mediocracy does not prepare a kid for the real world of a competitive school and job market. As a realist, I side with those against the use of participation trophies as I believe it is important to prepare kids for their futures, and I also believe participation trophies set an unfair expectation of how the real world is.
Those against the use of participation trophies often argue they create a sense of entitlement amongst children. By awarding a child for solely showing up, the child then expects to be commended for this same act once grown up as well. In “Should Everyone Get a Trophy” By “X”, many argue that life is not just about showing up, but also about performance. Kids receive grades in school for how well they know the material, not how long they have been in the classroom. Graduates receive jobs based on passing their specific classes through various hours of effort placed into them, not just by signing up. Managers receive their positions through hard work and merit earned promotions, not by showing up and doing a job just to get it done. Kids are often given the wrong perspective on life when awarded participation trophies, and when they reach the real world, they have to adjust to a new reality.
James Harrison, a linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers, has children who received participation trophies and was not impressed. In his statement, “everything should be earned” Harrison concludes that he got to the NFL through lessons taught to him through competitive games. He learned the importance of working hard to be better than the rest because the losers never received anything. Alongside of work ethic, he also discovered how to lose and the importance of learning from a loss. In “Participation Trophies Reward Mediocracy” by “X” it is argued that participation trophies relieve the effects of losing which can be dangerous as losing is a normal piece of life. Jean Twenge, an American psychologist who has conducted multiple studies on the effects of participation trophies on kids, argues that even if one is good at something, they will certainly lose more than they succeed. In this lies the importance of not overlooking a loss.
To add, when one overlooks a loss, they also tend to overlook a success which is also detrimental to winners as the hard work put in by an individual or team is not recognized and thus assumed to be redundant by those who won. When children see others receiving the same award as the one they too received when the others have not worked as hard, mediocracy is encouraged, which again, comes back to haunt kids in their futures.
However, those who advocate for the use of participation trophies often argue that losing can haunt a child for their futures as well by harming them psychologically. In “Counterpoint: Participation Trophies Reinforce Performing At One’s Highest Potential” data suggests Participation trophies encourage effort and commitment in children who receive them. Tom Farrey, The Head of Aspen’s Institute of Sports and Society Program argues that the purpose of youth sports is “fun and fitness” rather than “winning”. It has been found that many youth sports programs for kids under the age of twelve often do place fun and fitness above winning in their mission statements. With this in mind, merit trophies do not serve youth sports as well as participation trophies do. For this reason, Farrey argues heavily for participation trophies to be used while kids are under 12 in order to inspire fitness at a young age, not scar kids mentally or emotionally, and encourage the effort put in by the children. Carol Dweck, a professor at Stanford University, followed Farrey’s statements with a study demonstrating that awards for effort such as participation trophies push kids to attempt harder tasks down the road and challenge themselves. She also makes the statement that, “Merit trophies award kids ‘good’ ability, but it also punishes kids ‘bad’ ability” and that is what is dangerous about merit trophies. However, both Farrey and Sweck argue for merit trophies after a certain age, with both settling on about the age of twelve for the time when a child should begin receiving awards based on the quality of effort they exemplify.
Other people argue that participation trophies create a sense of sportsmanship that tech kids to work together well despite differences. This comes from all the players being equated on the same level. The argument is that when a kid is not recognized for better quality of play, then they do not feel superior to others. Instead, when everyone receives the same award, it is common for everyone to feel the same, regardless of if one kid scored every point while another scored none. Many psychologists claim this mindset of equality is healthy for a young developing child compared to the alternative when kids feel lesser to their teammates. When kids feel as though they are worse than another team or player, then they often hold onto this feeling and develop dangerous habits that can lead to depression, no motivation, and more. Advocates argue Participation Trophies remove this potential and dangerous mindset. However, it is worth noting this idea is still being explored as the data found is not entirely reliable.
Yet even more have explored the reason kids stop playing sports in “Why Children/Youth Drop Out of Sports”. In this article, Peter Witt discovers kids quit organized sports for a variety of reasons including lack of enjoyment, low physical fitness, stress, the team, the coach, the parents, other activities, and more. Witt argues that some of these factors such as enjoyment, physical fitness, team, and stress can potentially be solved by instituting participation trophies, but other factors such as cost, equipment, coach, parents, and other activities can still discourage children from participating in organized sports even if Participation Trophies are the main reward system. Through this Witt demonstrates that many people who argue for or against participation trophies are missing the fact that winning and losing is not the only reason kids do not enjoy sports, and Witt advocates for solutions to these problems as well.
Witt then proceeds to list solutions to the various problems he identifies and proposes an interesting solution to participation trophies. He argues the importance of merit trophies, as competitiveness is what makes sports enjoyable for some children and is not always a bad thing. Witt proposes the use of “secret” participation trophies. He says to award merit trophies to the the teams or players who deserve them as to teach kids how to lose, the importance of training, and prepares them for real life once they get older. However, Witt also argues to award a type of participation trophy to every child under a different name. He lists several examples, one way is to implement a rule that allows every kid to play a certain amount of time every game. In this way, those who are not as strong as other players still feel important to the team and like they make a difference. Another method is to award an MVP per match but make sure every kid is awarded it at least once per season. In this way, kids feel encouraged as they believe they played very well at least one time per season and strive to always play that well. Through these methods, kids are still rewarded for participating, but those who put in the extra effort are also rewarded for the extra time they have put in. Witt also stresses that this method only applies to organized sports and not every competition such as a spelling bee. In those instances, it is easier to recognize every competitor, but still award the top competitors with medals or trophies commemorating their achievement.
There are various solutions to the Participation and Merit Trophy debate, and there are many arguments to each to side. However, the arguments seem to boil down to psychological damage. Those for the use of participation trophies argue that kids are hurt when losing and those who are against the use of participation trophies argue that kids are hurt when they are not taught the difference between winning and losing. Both sides are concern about the effects the awards can have on their children in the future. The simple answer to both sides is a compromise, such as the one presented by Witt.