Abstract

The purpose of this article is to show that fraleigh, in "right actions in sport", has not successfully argued for the supremacy of knowledge as an inherent value in sport. this involves a discussion of how fraleigh misapplied criteria from the moral point of view (baier), why he should not have attempted to use these criteria in the first place, and how the application of nonmoral standards fails to show the putative supremacy. "challenge" and "uncertainty" are offered as potentially stronger candidates to explain human fascination with sport