Almost everyone believes that they know what a sport is. Or at least we think we do. If someone asks us to name a sport, we immediately think of football, cricket, badminton, athletics, swimming, or tennis. We recognise them without hesitation. We have watched these sports on television, played them in school, or cheered for our favourite teams. We rarely stop to ask why these activities are called sports. We simply accept that they are. But the moment someone asks us to define a sport, the answer becomes much less obvious. Most people would probably say that sport involves physical activity. That sounds reasonable because almost every traditional sport requires running, jumping, throwing, swimming, or some other form of physical effort. If that were the complete definition, then the answer to the question raised in the previous chapter would seem straightforward. Would robotics competitions qualify as sports, when robots, rather than humans, perform most of the actions on the field? However, the more I explored this idea, the more I realised that the definition of sport is not so straightforward. Chess, for example, immediately challenged this assumption. It is widely recognised as a sport, and it is governed by international federations, national associations, and world championships. Yet a chess player does not run across a field or lift heavy weights during a match. Success depends on concentration, planning, memory, strategy, and decision-making rather than physical strength. Then there are sports such as archery, shooting, sailing, and even esports. Each demands a different combination of physical ability, mental skill, strategy, precision, and training. They do not all look the same, yet they are all recognised as competitive sports by different organisations and communities. This made me realise something important. Perhaps there is no single characteristic that defines every sport. If we insist that physical activity alone defines a sport, we immediately face questions about chess and esports. If we ignore physical activity completely, then almost every competitive activity could be called a sport. Clearly, the answer lies somewhere in between. To understand this better, we first need to examine how different dictionaries and sporting organisations define the word sport. 2.1 How Has Sport Been Defined? After asking myself what really makes an activity a sport, I decided to look for the answer in the most obvious place is a dictionary. I expected that different dictionaries would use slightly different words, but would agree on the basic meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary describes sport as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which individuals or teams compete against one another for enjoyment or recreation (Oxford English Dictionary, 2026). Similarly, the Cambridge Dictionary defines sport as a game, competition, or activity that requires physical effort and skill, usually played according to established rules (Cambridge Dictionary, 2026). The Merriam–Webster Dictionary offers a slightly broader description, referring to sport as a physical activity undertaken for pleasure or exercise, often conducted according to agreed rules and frequently involving competition (MerriamWebster, 2026). While dictionaries explain how a word is commonly used, governments and sporting organisations often adopt definitions that reflect their own objectives and policies. One of the most widely cited policy definitions comes from the Council of Europe’s Revised European Sports Charter. It defines sport as all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to maintain or improve physical fitness and mental well-being, develop social relationships, or achieve results in competition at all levels (Council of Europe, 2021). Interestingly, not every sporting organisation attempts to define the word sport. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), for example, does not provide a universal definition in the Olympic Charter. Instead, it recognises International Federations that govern individual sports and establishes the conditions under which they become part of the Olympic Movement (International Olympic Committee, 2025). Likewise, the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF), formerly known as SportAccord, focused primarily on recognising and supporting international fed8 erations rather than publishing its own formal definition of sport. Although these dictionaries and organisations approach the subject from different perspectives, several common ideas emerge. Skill, competition, rules, and organisation appear repeatedly. Most importantly, almost every formal definition emphasises physical activity as one of the defining characteristics of sport. At first, I thought I had finally found my answer. But the more I thought about these definitions, the more questions they raised. Chess was the first activity that made me pause. Millions of people around the world recognise chess as a sport. Success depends much more on concentration, planning, memory, and strategy than on physical exertion. If physical activity was essential, where exactly did chess fit? Formula One racing raised a different question. Although the car provides the power, no one would argue that the driver is merely a passenger. Formula One drivers undergo intense physical training to withstand high speeds, powerful braking forces, and extreme cockpit temperatures. Their reflexes, endurance, and decision-making are constantly tested throughout a race. Bridge, a popular card game, presented yet another interesting case. It relies on strategy, communication, partnership, and decision-making rather than physical strength, yet it is governed internationally by the World Bridge Federation and has long sought recognition within the Olympic Movement. Activities such as chess, bridge, and Formula One suggested that defining sport was far more complicated than simply asking whether an activity involved physical exercise. If physical activity alone defines sport, activities such as chess and bridge become difficult to explain. On the other hand, if physical activity is ignored completely, then almost any organised competition could qualify as a sport. Where should we draw the line? Should debating competitions, coding contests, Olympiads, or robotics competitions also be included? Looking for answers to these questions led me to the philosophy of sport. Unlike dictionaries and sporting organisations, philosophers are not primarily interested in writing practical definitions. Instead, they try to understand what fundamentally makes an activity a sport and why finding a single definition has proved so difficult. Rather than offering a formal definition, Parry (2007) identifies a set of criteria that indicate the fundamentally ethical nature of sport. These include physical effort, contest, rule-governed activity, institutional organisation, and shared values and commitments. He argues that sport cannot be fully understood without ideas such as fair play, justice, equality, and respect for opponents. Bernard Suits approaches the question from a different perspective. Rather than defining sport itself, he explains what makes an activity a game. According to Suits (2005), games are voluntary attempts to overcome unnecessary obstacles. Participants willingly accept rules that make achieving a goal more difficult because those very restrictions create the challenge of the activity. Robert Simon focuses on the nature of sporting competition. Simon (2014) argues that opponents should not simply be viewed as enemies trying to defeat each other. Instead, sport is a mutual quest for excellence, where competitors help each other achieve higher levels of performance through fair and challenging competition. Reading these different perspectives changed the way I looked at my original question. I realised that I had been searching for one perfect definition of sport. Instead, different sources highlighted different characteristics, suggesting that no single definition can capture every activity that we call a sport. This also changed the way I thought about robotics competitions. Instead of asking, Are robotics competitions a sport?, I began to ask a different question: How similar are robotics competitions to traditional sports? Do they share the same values, challenges, and experiences, or are the similarities only on the surface? The next chapter begins that exploration by taking us inside the world of robotics competitions. By understanding how teams are organised, how students prepare, and what they experience during competition, we can fairly compare robotics competitions with traditional sports and decide for ourselves whether they deserve to be considered a sport.