This paper argues against the conception of sport as theatre. Theatre and sport share the characteristic that play is set in a conventionally-defined hypothetical reality, but they differ fundamentally in the relative importance of audience and the narrative point of view. Both present potential for participants for development of selfhood through play and its personal possibilities. But sport is not essentially tied to audience as is theatre. Moreover, conceptualising sport as a form of theatre valorises the spectator's narrative as normative for sport experience over that of the participant athlete or player, eliding player experience. Imposition of external narratives over experience risks fossilising interpretation and inhibits the beneficial effects of play for self-realisation, especially as a form of self-examination and creation through internal self-narrative. Sport is frequently described in theatrical or dramatic terms, or as a kind of theatre, or even declared to be theatre: "Sport is theatre, and through it we can see the human condition cut to the bone. Sport has peace and stillness, drama, comedy, and tragedy. It conveys more vividly than any other branch of human activity the elation and despair in every person's emotional range." (6: p. 9) Certainly, there is drama in sport, and comedy, because there is passion and humour experienced by its participants and which appears to the spectator as a play presented for the observing. But, while it is clear that there are parallels and analogies between them, is the equating of sport with theatre really fair to either sport or theatre? The "theatricalisation" of sport can be linked in a great many cases to the selling of sport, as experienced with the broadcast of every Olympic Games, World Cup, Superbowl, and not a few local minor sport rivalries. Certainly, the desirability of tickets to a sporting event is increased if spectators can be persuaded that it has world historical significance or profound human interest. While both the mechanisms and the reasons for these phenomena are worthy of close examination, these will not be my target in this paper. 1 Instead, I shall explore several fundamental characteristics of sport as play that I shall then put forward as constituting evidence that many of the most 1 Providing a better show is not only motivated by filthy lucre: the ancient Roman munera could hardly be called sport (in the modern sense) though they required considerable athletic training, but however we classify them, such shows were motivated by (a) religious-judicial requirements for the punishment of criminals and (b) political expedience for those who paid for them to be put on. See (13). Convention, Audience, Narrative 2 familiar interpretations of sport as "theatrical" are misguided. I argue that not only are such interpretive efforts destructive of sport as play, but they commonly misinterpret those respects in which sport really is like theatrical-play, thereby also failing to grasp a significant value of sport for its individual particip...