Abstract. In the three cases already treated, a real founding was furnished—gilded, tarnished, or contested, but real. Sports governance supplies the limiting case. The amateur ideal was proclaimed as the restoration of a past that never existed in the form remembered, and the proclamation was made by a body that needed the past for a present purpose. The college-sports suite has already argued that the primary product of that body is institutional insulation. This paper adds the memory argument: the insulation is defended by a furnished past, and the manufactured tradition therefore performs protective work. The case sharpens Paper 1, §1.1 at its weakest joint, because it shows that the disposition toward return does not require an origin worth returning to. Where none exists, one is supplied.
5.1 — The Manufactured Tradition
The three previous cases share a structure that this one breaks.
The fellowship possessed an apostolic deposit, delivered once, and furnished its memory of the delivery. The university possessed real colleges with real charters and real curricula, and furnished them into a golden age. The republic possessed a documented convention, ratification debates, and account books, and furnished the founders into either sages or speculators as required. In every instance the furnishing was an operation performed on something that was there. Paper 1, §1.2 said as much: the declinist error operates on a real past and improves it; the tarnishing of §1.3 operates on a real past and degrades it. Both presuppose material.
Amateurism presupposes none.
The claim requires stating carefully, because it will be misheard. I am not saying that no one before the nineteenth century played games for reasons other than money. Men have always played for love of the thing. I am saying something narrower and stranger: that the amateur ideal—the doctrine that competition is corrupted by payment, that the gentleman player is the true sportsman, and that this arrangement descends from an ancient practice now requiring defense—was constructed in Victorian England, was defended as a restoration, and had no antecedent in the practice it claimed to restore.
The Greeks are the alleged antecedent, and they are the clearest case. Ancient athletes were paid, and paid extravagantly. Victors at the crown games received, from their home cities, cash, pensions, tax exemption, front-row seats, free meals for life. Solon is reported to have fixed the Athenian bounty for an Olympic victor at a sum representing years of a working man’s wages.[^1] Athletes moved between cities for money, changed citizenship for money, and were recruited. The crown games awarded a wreath; the cities awarded fortunes; the two facts were never in tension for anyone until a Victorian schoolmaster required them to be. Young’s demonstration that ancient Greek amateurism is a modern invention—that there is no Greek word for amateur, no ancient distinction between amateur and professional athletes, and no ancient text expressing the ideal—is now the settled scholarly position, and it was resisted for decades by people who needed it to be false.[^2]
What actually happened is this. English amateurism arose in the middle of the nineteenth century as a device of social exclusion, and its function was legible on the face of its rules. The Amateur Rowing Association’s definition barred from amateur status anyone who was or had been by trade or employment a mechanic, artisan, or labourer.[^3] The bar had nothing to do with payment for rowing. A man who had never received a farthing for pulling an oar was disqualified because he worked with his hands, on the reasoning that manual labor conferred an unfair physical advantage and, unspoken and more to the point, that gentlemen would not care to race him. The rule excluded a class, not a transaction.
Once the exclusion was in place it needed a justification, and the justification was a past. The gentleman amateur was declared the heir of Olympia. Games were said to have been played, once, for their own sake, by men who needed no reward beyond the wreath, and the modern professional was a fall from that height. Coubertin took the doctrine into the revived Olympics and preached it as the recovery of Hellenic practice.[^4] It was recovery of nothing. It was a nineteenth-century class boundary given a fifth-century-BC pedigree, and the pedigree was manufactured to order.
Hobsbawm and Ranger supplied the term for this, and the sporting cases are among their sharpest.[^5] An invented tradition is a set of practices, governed by accepted rules, which seeks to inculcate values by repetition, and which establishes continuity with a suitable historic past—the suitability being determined by present need, and the continuity being, in the strong cases, factitious. The invention is not usually a conspiracy. It is what a body does when it requires legitimacy faster than legitimacy accrues.
Paper 1, note 6 flagged the question and deferred it: is invention a species of gilding, or a distinct operation? It is distinct, and here is the distinction. Gilding requires a past and improves it; invention requires only a need and supplies a past to meet it. The gilder is constrained, however loosely, by material he did not make. The inventor is constrained by nothing but plausibility. And because the invented past was built to fit the present need, it fits perfectly, which is the tell. A gilded founding always retains some awkward corner that the gilding could not reach—Washington’s gifts, the Yale Report’s defensive tone, the Jerusalem council convened because the matter was not settled. An invented founding has no awkward corners. It was designed.
5.2 — The Carried-In Claim
The college-sports suite advances a claim which this paper takes as given rather than re-argues: the primary product of the governing body is institutional insulation.
The claim, as I understand it, is not that the association produces nothing else, and not that its stated purposes are held in bad faith by the people who state them. It is that the association’s most valuable output—the thing its members would least willingly do without, the thing that would be most expensive to replace, the thing whose loss would most alter their conduct—is not competition, not championships, not the welfare of players, and not the integrity of contests. It is insulation: the separation of member institutions from liabilities, obligations, and forms of accountability that would otherwise attach to enterprises conducting the same activities under any other description.
I will not defend the claim here. It belongs to the suite that made it, and it can be tested there. What this paper does is ask the question the suite’s claim leaves open, which is a memory question and which the suite is not equipped to answer with its own instruments:
How is the insulation defended?
Not how is it produced—the suite answers that. Not what does it cost—the suite answers that too. But how is it held? How does an arrangement of this kind survive contact with the people it disadvantages, with the courts, with the public, and above all with the members’ own consciences? An insulation that had to be defended on its merits, in the open, without a past, would be defended badly and would not last a decade. It has lasted a century.
5.3 — What This Paper Adds
The answer is that the insulation is defended by a furnished past, and the manufactured tradition therefore does protective work.
Watch the mechanism. The insulation requires a proposition that is on its face implausible: that men and women performing athletic labor before paying audiences, in facilities built from the revenue of that labor, under the direction of employees compensated at market rates for directing it, are not engaged in an enterprise of the ordinary kind and are not owed what participants in enterprises of the ordinary kind are owed. Stated flatly, the proposition does not survive statement.
It is never stated flatly. It is stated as tradition. These are students. This is an amateur pursuit. It has always been so. It is part of the tradition of American higher education, and behind that the tradition of the English playing field, and behind that Olympia. To pay them would be to destroy something. That something is old, and precious, and once lost cannot be recovered.
Every clause in that defense is a memory claim, and not one of them is an argument. Together they perform three offices, and it is worth separating them.
First, the furnished past converts an interest into a value. Without it, the association’s position is that it prefers not to pay its labor, which is a position anyone can recognize and price. With it, the association’s position is that it is preserving something entrusted to it. The first is an interest, and interests are negotiated. The second is a value, and values are defended. Nothing about the underlying conduct has changed. What has changed is the register in which it must be discussed, and the register was changed by the introduction of a past.
Second, the furnished past relocates the burden. Under the flat statement, the association must justify a departure from ordinary practice. Under the traditional statement, the reformer must justify a departure from what has always been. This is the rhetoric of return of Paper 1, §1.2, deployed by the party in possession. Note what §1.2 said about that rhetoric: the critic needs only to demonstrate distance, and departure is the charge. The association is running the return-disposition in defense of a present arrangement, which is possible because it has stored the present arrangement as the founding. Its critics are therefore cast as innovators against a deposit, whatever the substance of what they propose, and their proposals arrive pre-condemned.
Third, the furnished past supplies the members with their own good faith. This is the office that matters most and is least remarked. The presidents, athletic directors, and faculty representatives who administer the arrangement are not, in the main, cynics. They believe in amateurism. They believe it is old. They believe that in defending it they are conserving something rather than protecting a revenue position, and this belief is not a pretense they maintain for the public. It is what they have stored, and it is doing exactly what Paper 1, §1.4 said a furnishing does: presenting to them not as a premise but as a perception. The tradition’s protective work is performed inside the heads of the people it protects, which is the only place from which it could not be dislodged by evidence.
And the evidence, when it arrived, was not dislodging. Byers, who ran the association for thirty-six years and coined the term student-athlete, wrote afterward that the term had been devised to serve a legal purpose—to keep injured players and their widows out of workers’ compensation proceedings by denying that an employment relation existed.[^6] The origin of the central term was disclosed by the man who originated it. The disclosure changed nothing, and could not have, because by the time it came the term had been stored, and its storage did not depend on its origin. This is §1.4’s claim about the metabolism of evidence, verified under laboratory conditions: the strongest possible evidence against a furnished past, offered by the most authoritative possible witness, absorbed without visible effect.
Koselleck’s feedback runs here as it ran in the other cases, and it runs with unusual clarity because the expected future is so plainly a financial one.[^7] The horizon is a continuation of the present arrangement. The space of experience is arranged to sustain that horizon: a past of amateur purity, of games played for their own sake, of an institution that has always held the line. And the arranged past then goes on saying what the horizon requires, so that each new challenge—each suit, each proposal, each revenue disclosure—arrives at a memory already prepared to receive it as an assault on something ancient.
I offer no scriptural warrant for pretending that this arrangement is anything but what it is. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth (James 5:4). Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn (Deut. 25:4), which Paul applied to men and to their maintenance without hesitation (1 Cor. 9:9–10; 1 Tim. 5:18). The labourer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7). The furnished past does not answer these texts. It prevents them from being read as applicable, by ensuring that the persons to whom they would apply have been classified, in advance and by the memory rather than by any argument, as something other than labourers.
5.4 — The Founding as Invention
Now the theoretical yield, and it is the reason the outline placed this case last.
Paper 1, §1.1 asserted two ways of holding a founding and denied there was a third. The assertion had a weak joint, and an attentive reader of that paper should have found it: both dispositions appear to presuppose that there is a founding to hold. The revered origin is revered; the stage among others is one of the stages; either way, something happened at the beginning and the body is storing it.
Sports governance shows the presupposition to be false, and shows it in the direction that matters.
The disposition toward return is prior to its object. A body that needs a place to stand outside its present will find one, and if the record does not furnish one it will build one, and the built one will serve every office the found one serves and will serve them better, because it was made to measure. The amateur ideal did not arise from a memory of Olympia and then get applied to Victorian rowing. It arose from Victorian rowing and then acquired Olympia. The direction of fit runs from the present need to the past, not from the past to the present verdict.
This does not overturn Paper 1’s theory. It completes it, and it does so by revealing what the two dispositions actually are. They are not two ways of storing a founding. They are two ways of standing toward the present, each of which requires a founding, and each of which will obtain one by whatever means are available. Reverence for an origin is a posture that generates origins. The rhetoric of advance is a posture that generates prologues, which is exactly what Butterfield saw: the Whig historian does not discover a road leading to the present, he lays one, and the laying is done by the same faculty and for the same reason.[^8]
Three consequences follow, and they set the hinge paper’s problem.
First, authenticity is not the discriminator. One might have hoped, after Papers 2 through 4, that the test for honest recovery was whether the founding appealed to is real. Paper 5 kills that hope. The amateur tradition is wholly invented and functions exactly as a real founding functions; it inclines, licenses, condemns, and consoles with no loss of efficacy. Conversely, the apostolic deposit is real, and an appeal to it can be pure nostalgia. Reality of the founding is neither necessary nor sufficient. The discriminating instrument cannot be a fact-check.
Second, the four probes gain their point. Notice that every one of them asks about the body’s relation to its memory rather than about the memory’s correspondence to events. Authority versus evidence asks whether the showing has been attempted, not whether it would succeed. Distance asks whether the account contains anything the account did not want to contain. The feedback of expected futures asks what work the past is doing. Real failures versus laundered asks what the admitting costs. These are the right questions precisely because the invented founding passes a correspondence test as badly as possible and fails all four probes catastrophically—and, crucially, would still fail all four if Olympia had happened to be amateur. The probes catch what a fact-check misses.
Run them, briefly, and see. Authority versus evidence: amateurism is held on authority absolutely, and the showing was never attempted; when it was attempted it collapsed within a single scholarly monograph and the collapse changed nothing. Distance: the account contains nothing it did not wish to contain, no awkward corner, no contested episode, no founder who dissented—the tell of §5.1. Feedback of expected futures: the past exists to sustain a revenue arrangement and is maintained by it. Real failures versus laundered: the association has admitted failures for a century, and every admitted failure has been an infraction by someone else, a member institution, a booster, a coach, a player—never a failure of the arrangement itself, never one the admitting body would have to surrender anything to repent of. It is the laundering of Paper 3, §3.5 and Paper 4, §4.5, performed with unusual thoroughness: penitence in form, self-congratulation in function, and an enforcement apparatus built to perform it in public.
Third, the Preacher’s double corrective is now seen to be one corrective. Ecclesiastes 7:10 rebukes not the memory of the former days but the enquiry conducted as a verdict: thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this. Ecclesiastes 1:9 denies the unprecedentedness that the rhetoric of advance requires. Paper 1, §1.3 presented these as disarming the declinist and the progressive respectively, a corrective apiece. Paper 5 shows why they are a single instrument. Both dispositions manufacture. The declinist manufactures a height to have fallen from; the progressive manufactures a depth to have risen from; and the Preacher’s charge against both is identical, which is that the manufacturing was done before the enquiring. There is no new thing under the sun strikes the progressive’s manufactured depth exactly as say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better strikes the declinist’s manufactured height. What is forbidden is not the comparison. It is the comparison made against furniture one has put in the room oneself.
5.5 — Closing the Run of Cases
Sports governance gives the clearest instance of a founding built to serve the present’s need for insulation, and with it the run of cases closes.
Set the four side by side and the progression is not one of increasing severity but of increasing visibility, which is why the order was chosen.
The fellowship furnishes a real deposit and holds, in the appointed times, an apparatus expressly constructed to prevent the furnishing from flattering it—an apparatus it keeps and turns outward. Its founding is real, its memory is smoothed, and its culpability is the highest in the cluster because the instrument was in its hands. Least visible, most accountable.
The university furnishes a real and mixed past into a golden age, or into a benighted prologue, according to which reform it wants. It possesses historians who have said hard things and a storage that has never heard them. It was never handed an apparatus and cannot be blamed for lacking one.
The republic furnishes a densely documented founding in two directions at once, and its two parties are so evenly matched that the furnishing becomes visible in the friction between them. The gap between the idealized and the operational origin is in the account books, and both parties read the books, and neither moves.
Sports governance furnishes a founding that was never there at all, and here the mechanism steps entirely into the open, because there is no real past to argue about and therefore nothing to obscure the operation. Most visible, and—this is the sting—least troubled by its visibility. Byers said what the term was for. It is still the term.
That last observation is the one the cluster has been building toward, and it is the one that makes the hinge paper necessary rather than merely interesting. Exposure does not dismantle a furnished past. Not the Greeks’ pay, not Byers’s confession, not Veysey’s finding that no idea of the university ever won, not the framers’ account books, not the periodicals that show a doctrine before it was revised. Every case in this cluster has been exposed, in print, by competent people, some of them insiders, and every furnished past in this cluster is still in place and still deciding verdicts. A furnishing is not a belief that evidence can reach. It is the room in which the evidence is received.
Which raises the question that Paper 2, §2.4 posed and none of the four cases can answer: when is return to a founding the faithful recovery of a genuinely known past, and when is it nostalgia wearing the dress of fidelity? Sincerity does not sort it—the association’s officers are sincere, and so were the men who reversed the fellowship’s doctrines. Outcomes do not sort it, because outcomes are metabolized. Authenticity does not sort it, as §5.4 has just shown. Refusing to return does not sort it, because that is merely the other disposition, manufacturing in the other direction.
What is needed is an instrument that operates on the body’s relation to its own memory: whether the founding is held on evidence or on authority; whether the account admits anything the account did not want; whether the past is doing work for an expected future; whether the failures confessed are ones the confessing party still commits and still profits by. Four probes, sketched across four cases, never yet assembled.
The hinge paper assembles them. It builds the test out of Paper 2’s discriminating question and Paper 1’s two-furnishing theory, runs it against all four foundings to show that it travels, and hands it to the reformer, so that he may appeal to founding principles without committing either the progressive error or the declinist one. And then it turns the instrument, because the scholar who has spent five papers examining how other bodies furnish their pasts has been furnishing one of his own throughout, and Cluster III will require of him precisely what he has required of them.
Notes
[^1]: Young (1984) collects the evidence for ancient athletic prizes and pensions and treats the Solonic figure with appropriate caution as to its historicity and its purchasing power. I cite the report as a report. The general picture—that victors in the crown games were richly compensated by their home cities and that this was universal, expected, and unremarked—does not depend on any single figure and is not seriously contested.
[^2]: Young (1984) is the demolition; Kyle (2015) and Miller (2004) incorporate its findings as settled. The word amateur has no Greek equivalent, and the attempt to find one in ἰδιώτης fails on inspection, since that word contrasts the private man with the public one rather than the unpaid with the paid. Two features of the historiography deserve notice as data for this cluster rather than as background. First, the invented Greek amateurism was propagated by Victorian classicists who were themselves products of the schools the ideal served, and their scholarship and their interest ran in the same direction without either being visible to them—which is Paper 1, §1.4’s claim about perception and premise, appearing in the very literature that manufactured the case. Second, Young’s argument was resisted long past the point at which it had been made, and the resistance came from people with institutional positions to protect. Cf. Paper 3, note 9, and Paper 4, note 3: nobody’s furnishing is only other people’s problem, and the historians of a manufactured past are not exempt from manufacturing.
[^3]: The ARA’s mechanics-and-artisans exclusion is the standard illustration and is reproduced in the literature on Victorian sport; see Holt (1989) and Guttmann (1978) on the class basis of English amateurism generally. The rowing case is chosen because the rule stated its ground on its face rather than leaving it to be inferred, which is uncommon and useful.
[^4]: On Coubertin’s Hellenism and its relation to the actual practice of Greek athletics, see Young (1984, 1996) and MacAloon (1981). MacAloon is sympathetic to Coubertin and is the better guide to what the man believed he was doing, which was not fraud. The founder of a manufactured tradition need not know that he is manufacturing; ordinarily he does not, because the past he supplies arrives to him as memory. This is the point of §5.3’s third office.
[^5]: Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), and see Paper 1, note 6, where the question deferred there is answered in §5.1 here. Hobsbawm’s introduction supplies the definition I have paraphrased; the volume’s treatment of sport is one of its most persuasive stretches.
[^6]: Byers with Hammer (1995). I state Byers’s account of the term’s origin at the level at which he stated it and do not reconstruct the litigation, the dates, or the specific proceedings he had in mind, none of which I have in front of me. Byers’s book is not a neutral document—it is a founding furnished by a man revising his own life’s work near its end, and Paper 2, note 5 said what kind of evidence that is: invaluable and not neutral. The value here does not lie in its accuracy about any particular case. It lies in the fact that the disclosure occurred, was published, was widely read, and altered nothing.
[^7]: Koselleck (2004); see Paper 1, note 4, for what is and is not borrowed from the pairing.
[^8]: Butterfield (1931); see Paper 1, note 3. The claim in §5.4 goes slightly beyond Butterfield’s own, and I want to mark the extension rather than smuggle it. Butterfield described the retention of the past as prologue. I am claiming that the same faculty which retains a prologue will supply one where the record affords none, and that the Whig historian and the manufacturer of tradition are performing one operation in two registers. Butterfield did not say this. Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983) supply the missing half, and the two literatures have not, so far as I know, been joined at this joint. If the joining is wrong it is my error and not theirs.
[^9]: On what this paper does not argue: nothing in §5.3 entails a particular policy on compensation, eligibility, or governance, and I have deliberately declined to state one. The scriptural texts cited there bear on how a labourer must be treated and are not in dispute among people who accept them. What arrangement satisfies them in this instance is a question of application that the memory argument does not settle, and Paper 4, note 15 gave the reason a paper of this kind must not settle it: a thesis that the furnishing fixes the verdict in advance cannot itself hand down verdicts on the cases it uses as demonstrations. The reader who wants to know what ought to be done should go to the college-sports suite, where the argument is made by instruments fit for making it.
[^10]: A caution about §5.5’s ordering. I have arranged the four cases by increasing visibility of the mechanism and have suggested that culpability runs inversely to visibility, the fellowship being least visible and most accountable. That is a real claim and I hold it. But the ordering is a rhetorical construction of mine, imposed after the fact on four cases the outline supplied in a different order and for different reasons. A reader alert to what this cluster teaches should notice that I have just furnished a past for the cluster’s own argument, arranged so that it arrives where I want it—and should apply the four probes to my arrangement before accepting it. The hinge paper’s fifth section promises to turn the instrument on the scholar. This note is where the turning begins.
References
Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. G. Bell and Sons.
Byers, W., with Hammer, C. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. University of Michigan Press.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse University Press.
Guttmann, A. (1978). From ritual to record: The nature of modern sports. Columbia University Press.
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Holt, R. (1989). Sport and the British: A modern history. Oxford University Press.
King James Bible. (1987). Thomas Nelson. (Original work published 1611)
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time (K. Tribe, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1979)
Kyle, D. G. (2015). Sport and spectacle in the ancient world (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
MacAloon, J. J. (1981). This great symbol: Pierre de Coubertin and the origins of the modern Olympic Games. University of Chicago Press.
Miller, S. G. (2004). Ancient Greek athletics. Yale University Press.
Sack, A. L., & Staurowsky, E. J. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the NCAA’s amateur myth. Praeger.
Shils, E. (1981). Tradition. University of Chicago Press.
Smith, R. A. (2011). Pay for play: A history of big-time college athletic reform. University of Illinois Press.
Young, D. C. (1984). The Olympic myth of Greek amateur athletics. Ares.
Young, D. C. (1996). The modern Olympics: A struggle for revival. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1982). Zakhor: Jewish history and Jewish memory. University of Washington Press.
