Sports aren’t zero-sum. When two teams play each other, they’re both enriched whether they win or lose. They both get practice, they both make money.

If it’s zero-sum, how can a team with a losing record continue to operate indefinitely?

I think this depends if you view a game or league purely as a compition (per definition if one team wins, another one has to lose), or as a "brand": very exciting games can increase the popularity of a league/sport, increasing revenue/attention even for the losing team.

I think most sports fans only look at the first part.

How can you have fans in a zero-sum game?

Teams A and B play each other, and everything gained by A is lost by B and vice versa. A zero-sum game. But somehow we have a fan X. But why are they interested? It seems like some extra value is created by the interaction of A and B (entertainment). This means it’s not a zero-sum game.

It’s not some games that increase the popularity of a sport. It’s all games. A lot more people show up to a stadium on game day than an off day.

Sport is a zero-sum game only if you ignore all the things that sport is about.

Example from this weekend - Shaqueem and Shaquill Griffin sack Aaron Rodgers in the final minutes of a game that ended the Seahawks season with a loss: https://twitter.com/ucf_problems/status/1216547670233358337?...

That was Shaqueem’s first NFL sack. That’s his second season with the Seahawks.

I suspect your example is only meaningful to people who already share your view. Knowing nothing about the NFL I barely know what you're talking about here and have no idea what point it's supposed to be making.

Basically: A player on the losing team made a good play.

I don't think it's a particularly good example; despite the fact that his team lost, that play significantly improved his team's chance for a win. If he doesn't make that play, then players on the other team would have better numbers.

You're not really clarifying yourself here.

All competitive sports are zero-sum. For one team to win, the other has to lose. That's what "zero-sum" means.

This is the third time you have reiterated your point without clarifying what any of "all the things" actually are, for us that don't seem to get it.

There are few conclusions to draw here other than that you either don't know, or don't want to share your insight.

You’ve mentioned things that are ignored three times. Could you say what those things are?

I’m not the person you’re responding to but I’ll give it a go.

The progress angle:

When two competitors clash they motivate each other to advance the state of human potential.

Today’s elite high school track athlete would have set world records decades ago.

The narrative angle:

When there is a clash of wills, narratives and stories emerge. When Michael Jordan had the flu and led a comeback in the NBA finals, he helped write a compelling story about fighting through adversity. Google “flu game”.

Sometimes it’s a little of both:

When Steph Curry overcame a series of chronic ankle injuries through a specialized regiment of training, he wrote a story into the culture about problem solving, and helped advance the state of sports medicine.

What's there to research? I'm familiar with football and familiar enough with the idea that new players made "winning" plays in the process of losing the game and ending their season. When you post three times and still have most respondents scratching their heads about your point, maybe it's your communication that's the problem.