#1 ·
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much "fairness" in sports actually depends on the rules staying the same once you've already started the game. We all grow up with this idea that if you follow the handbook, you get the reward. But lately, it feels like the governing bodies are constantly rewriting the playbook mid-season, and it leaves the people who actually put in the work feeling totally abandoned.
It’s one thing to update rules for the future, but it’s another thing entirely when those changes effectively strip away opportunities that were promised to people who are already deep into their careers. It feels less like "progress" and more like a breach of trust. When you commit years of your life to a specific path, you're operating under a certain set of expectations. If the people at the top can just pivot whenever they feel like it, what’s the point of the commitment?
Do you think there should be "grandfather clauses" for every major rule change in competitive organizations, or is it just the nature of the game to adapt as things evolve?
It’s one thing to update rules for the future, but it’s another thing entirely when those changes effectively strip away opportunities that were promised to people who are already deep into their careers. It feels less like "progress" and more like a breach of trust. When you commit years of your life to a specific path, you're operating under a certain set of expectations. If the people at the top can just pivot whenever they feel like it, what’s the point of the commitment?
Do you think there should be "grandfather clauses" for every major rule change in competitive organizations, or is it just the nature of the game to adapt as things evolve?