The Value of Commitment to Team Games

Many schools struggle to win the commitment of their pupils to play in teams every weekend.  And co-operation from parents to make social arrangements which do not clash.  As well as to ensure that children want to play in long distance away games.  "Some Fridays are a nightmare, scratching teams together.  Sometimes we are almost begging kids to play," says one Director of Sport at a prominent day school.

Then the waters are muddied by the issue of compulsory rugby.  Can and should pupils be compelled to play in matches that are potentially dangerous, or for which they might be insufficiently strong or competent?

Is it worth the struggle?  Would it be easier to reduce the weekend programme, and get rid of the hassle? In a climate where the honour of selection can no longer be assumed, is the fixture card of years gone by still appropriate?

The world which young people inhabit has changed significantly.  Constant communication through social media, and an expectation of instant replay make it difficult for children to get through the school day without checking a variety of devices, and responding to a cacophony of beeps and lights.  It creates a world of constant stimulation, incessant distraction and multiple simultaneous activities.  The expression "multi-tasking" has been invented to acknowledge this.

Commitment to team games is the opposite of this.  At a cellular level.  The feeling of belonging to a team, of being valued for a contribution to a bigger entity.  Belonging to a culture, striving towards a long term group goal, often facing setback and adversity along the way, stimulates the release of oxytocin and serotonin, the feelgood hormones of long term social interaction.   The constant stimulation of social media produces short term hits of dopamine high, a chemical associated with achievement but also with addiction.

Simon Sinek sums this up in his seminal work on leadership in modern society, "Leaders Eat Last":

"This 'see it and get it' generation has an awareness of where they are standing and they know where they want to get to; what they can't seem to understand is the journey, the very time-consuming journey.  They seem flummoxed when told that things take time.  They are happy to give lots of short bursts of energy and effort to things, but commitment and grit come harder"

Certainly, selflessness and long term commitment are old fashioned values.  But perhaps this is why schools need team games more than ever.  Maybe they are amongst a diminishing number of opportunities for children to learn the enjoyment and satisfaction of being amongst a group of like-minded people who share a culture and collaborate to strive towards long term goals.  To learn the warm, enduring satisfaction of oxytocin highs.  This can also have an impact on their achievements elsewhere. American psychologist, Angela Lee Duckworth identifies "grit" (a combination of qualities, in which perseverance is prominent) as the quality that best predicts future success for children.  Ahead of IQ, social background or physical co-ordination. 

Despite this value, these benefits are not widely promoted.  Schools publish the features of their competitive programmes - which teams play what, where and when - but not the benefits that commitment to teams can bring to pupils.  They devise strategies for compelling pupils to turn up, and punishing those who don't, but not for convincing children and parents why this is a good thing, and something that brings a rich cocktail of benefits. 

When parents on the touchline are incapable of watching the game without constant distraction from phones and email, it is easy to conclude that they share their children's addictions to short term stimulation.  Therefore, it will probably be necessary to educate them of the positive advantages of commitment, so that they come to believe in its potential - not merely see it as an intrusion on social life demanded by an unreasonable school.