Conflict Theory In Modern Sport

groups of people apart from others only fuel the inequality as each group fights over control of the available resources (Vahabi, 2009). As it applies to sport, conflict theory can be observed in the colossal stadiums built by society elite to house the equally expensive teams used for monetary benefit that is without equal reward (Woods, 2011). This theory is furthered by the unobtainable participation of both athletes and spectators in respect to economic and social status.
In specific regards to sport, figurational theory can be associated with the development of tradition games to what we now know as modern sport; the separation between athlete and spectator and the removal of violence and acceptance of rules that maintained the elements

of excitement and tension (Best, 2010). The collective, as Elias writes, had to experience repression and shame in order to make such drastic transitions from the brutality to the more refined form of sport that is played today (Best, 2010). The benefits of the figurational theory lie in the national identity that forms and the globalization of a desire to understand the development sport and the constant desire to make them safer, less about money and power, and more about creating excitement and reducing boredom.
3. Explain the weakness of each theory.
The pitfall of the functionalist theory, as it applies to sport, is the tendency to overemphasize the positive attributes. One of the foundational functions of sport, as mentioned above, is the intent to bring those from all different backgrounds together on the court or field to participate in a singular activity that fosters teamwork, positive competition, and character building. What the functionalist fails to recognize is that certain parts of society have greater access and more advantages when it comes to sport solely based on economic status (Woods, 2011). This theory tends to support the status quo and cultural hegemony, which doesn’t allow