 My name is Hannah van Den Bosch and I'm a program maker for Studiem Generale. And we organize all kinds of lectures like this one. You can see some on the screen over here. We also have Knight University coming up, which is a big science festival that we organize on the 19th of May. Be sure to check out the program as well on our websites. And it's also good to know that today's lecture also comes towards the Studiem Generale Certificate that we have. For which you can visit five different lectures and write a small report. So you can get the certificate and more information you can find on our website as well. And today's lecture is part of the Fixing the Match short lecture series. And this is actually, you have a question? Yes. And this is the third lecture and last lecture as well, which will take about 45 minutes. And then we also have 15 minutes time for Q&A. And the title is actually Fair and Foul Play in Modern Sports. I think that really reflects the idea of having, you know, like a good and bad perspective towards sports. That that's always part of sports as well. And thinking about what is good and bad is of course also a really philosophical question. And that's why I'm really pleased to invite Sandra Meosu, who is a sports philosopher. And she will give today a philosophical explanation as to why match fixing happens. She is the director of the Erasmus Center for Sports Integrity and Transition for the Erasmus School of Philosophy in Rotterdam. And she obtained her PhD in 2020 at the Freie Universität in Brussels. And she was actually also active as an athlete and coach herself. So please give an applause to Sandra Meosu. Thank you so much, Hannah. Thank you for the invitation and the initiative. Match fixing, a theme of our times and very urgent and relevant to come to a deeper understanding. You're right. I'm just building up a new center for sport ethics in the Netherlands. And this is very unique to engage it, included in a department of philosophy. In the Netherlands, there is a small body of knowledge on sport philosophy. But it's connected to human movement sciences or kinesiology at the Freie University of Amsterdam. And I was keen as a philosopher to include it, to engage it, to relate it to a proper department of philosophy. Let me first present myself. Yes, I was an athlete, but I was also into triathlon. And I performed at a solid elite level here in the Netherlands, being 10th at the Dutch Championships. And after that, in the middle of my career, I started as an executive at the Dutch Olympic Committee, which is a different role than being an athlete, player or coaching. You see me here at the track at Papendal, where the Dutch Olympic Committee has its offices. And then from 2007 until last year, I was an entrepreneur doing consultancy, interim management, commissioned research into all kinds of challenges modern sports faces. And this period of 30 years, I would call embedded ethics in the very heart of modern sports. And as a philosopher, I did my master in 1990. Who of you wasn't born then? Yeah, so these were the roaring 80s. I did it in Nijmegen, Havana on the Waal. And I did a thesis on Wittgenstein's Tractatus, hardcore philosophy, logic, analytical philosophy. And yet, I've always been intrigued by his quest for spiritual wisdom, as expressed in the Tractatus. So, yeah, we could define Wittgenstein as an analytical philosopher, but there's also a more spiritual, ethical dimension in his philosophy, which I found very intriguing, this ambiguity. Well, after those 30 years, as you can see, I finally did my doctoral exam, which is quite extraordinary, because I also am a mother and have a family and there is a business to rule. So never underestimate what you can do at a later age. Why not? And I had to move to the Free University of Brussels, because I was keen to be supervised by a real philosopher of sport. And in the Netherlands, there are few. So either I should have went to human movement sciences, but those are, yeah, they're not educated as philosophers, to be honest. They do sport philosophy, which is a separate room, a separate discipline. And I wanted to do original, fundamental, ontological research. So I ended up in Brussels, but then a former student of mine is the dean of the Erasmus School of Philosophy, Hupe Swart, and he invited me to bring back my knowledge to the Netherlands in Rotterdam. So I'm actually now building up this center. At the left, my dissertation in Dutch should translate it. Now let's move on to my lecture here. We all know by now that what match fixing does to modern sports. Here are some insights I took from the 2020 Europol situation report on the involvement of organized crime in sport corruption, betting, money laundering, and match fixing. I won't read it aloud. You can read with me and then I'll just bring my approach. As I see it, these criminals take maximum advantage of modern sports intrinsic vulnerability. At the same time, the heart of our precious sporting praxis contains undetected possibilities for moral resilience, as I will argue here. On this occasion, I wish to present a new explanation on why match fixing so easily has taken such a firm grip on modern sports. As I see it, we are in the phase of being aware of the severe risks of match fixing towards interventions from a political, external point of view. Well, haven't we all been overwhelmed by the fast growth of this rather new phenomenon? When I started to work to be employed in modern sports in the governance, there was no match fixing at least. We thought there wasn't. Maybe there was manipulation, but we didn't see it as a challenge. Well, what puzzles me more in general is this question. Why are we confronted with a still growing number of excessive distortions threatening sport? To my opinion as a philosopher, a profound comprehension of the ontological aspects creating this easy point of contact in the very heart of sport will help to find new complementary strategies in improving integrity. In my doctoral research, as you just saw, I identified three prevailing paradigms in conceptualizing modern sports. The most common sport as game playing paradigm, very well known. It's apparent antipode sport as competition. And thirdly, I discovered a secret discourse about sport as desire, sexuality. I tried to uncover the powers and activities actively excluded from modern sports. It's, as Foucault would call it, negative substratum. Well, here's the last. So my research engages on how players, coaches, referees and officials are so open for manipulation. So I'm into the very praxis of modern sports. It's not a legal approach. Well, what platonic, and with this I mean transcendent ideas about sport, developed this social praxis into the confusion situation it holds today. On the one hand, we love and praise sport because of its many validated benefits. Sport provides health, social cohesion, makes us happy and offers many people meaningful work, either as volunteers or professional. At the same time, modern sports almost seems to collapse under a growing number of excesses, like violence, cheating, racism, doping, sexual harassment, and not to forget betting, match fixing and undermining. Quite a list. How should we comprehend this expanding, still expanding, transgressive dimension in and around sport? As I said earlier, a deep understanding of modern sports complexity is vitally important. If we want to enjoy and improve sport's societal values and reduce its growing amount of integrity issues. Let's move on to the first part of my synopsis here. My doctoral thesis, entitled Critic of Sports Reason, you saw it, the philosophical archaeology of modern sports, starts from the very pertinent question to the relationship between the dominant truth discourse about modern sports and its increasingly excessive dimension. Let me outline why. As a philosopher, I've been working in modern sports institutions from the mid-90s, as you saw. What puzzled me over the years was this growing tension between the positive impact of sport, evident in its progressive manifestation in different societal areas, and the accumulation of integrity issues. As a policymaker at the top of the sporting apparatus in the Netherlands, I often felt torn apart in despair between a firm belief in sports ethical core, as my colleagues like to indicate, versus the impotence, if not despair, to stop abuses and distortions in the very heart of modern sports. At the time, I began to realize that this tension might be a systemic one. With a long history, going back to modern sports archaeology, archaeological roots. This is one of the roots, homo-ludens. You know it? A classic. So, I picked up this drill, this archaeology, archaeologic, archaeologic research, in 2016, starting my research. You could see it as an attempt to unlock the figurative chess pool of modern sports, in which the values, energies and activities that have been banished from the praxis since its birth have in a sense remained active. This chess pool thus contains the negative of the positive we address to sport, the much-vaunted, in the Netherlands, power of sport, its personality-forming qualities and societal impact. As such, my research represents a forbidden exercise, an attempt to reinsert the suppressed, unperceived aspect of what we today consider as sport. I will show that this journey to the downside is necessary to activate the future form of sport, the post-antibocene sporting practice striving to emerge. So, in a methodological way, this research represents philosophical archaeology, a new method. In this choice, I applied the approach of two closely related continental philosophers, Michel Foucault and Georgio Argambin, in which the letter was my dominant inspiration. Here he is. As Argambin states, philosophical archaeology is not regression to a specific moment in the past when the practice of sport came into being. By passing Foucault, Argambin states that philosophical archaeology should be elusive. It does not try to restore a previous state, like psychoanalysis pretends to, but to decompose and displace it, reactivating the moments in which an epistemic split was constituted by means of the repression and exclusion of modalities that should not live on in sport. In a veiled form, however, this archae, modern sport's undivided soil, so to say, is still active in the present. As I discovered with great consternation, the excluded modalities survived in sports figurative chess pool. Causing the transgressive distortions, like match fixing, we experience nowadays. Before I'll uncover my findings, I should explain the most significant premise of my research, derived from Spinoza. His thesis on the coincidence of knowing and being. I look at you at philosophers. I hope it resonates. A presupposition, presupposition, philosophers nowadays like to call imminence. In his ethics, Spinoza brought the, at the time, most revolutionary ontological insight that reality is one infinite substance, equal to God or nature. Deus sieve natura. This implicates that the act of knowledge itself, knowing as such, is always imminent to being as a continuous flow of experiences. There's no transcendent position, extraneous to the imminence of being. This epistemological point, in my opinion, seems crucial for the evolution of the philosophy of sport. For most scientific reasoning, even in our times, is based on the distinction between an absolute extraneous source of human knowledge, such as God or our conscious, the Brein, versus the empirical reality that surrounds us, the world we share. Contrary to this, I hold a radical, imminent position. I consider the field of knowing about sport, not only science, but all narratives about sport. Football insight, for instance. Including ours, my discipline, the philosophy of sport and sport ethics, as a specific field of interest. They are all inherent to the very being of sport, the practice of game playing, competition, coaching and governance. This is a very revolutionary approach, to be honest. An agonistic approach. As stated earlier, knowing science, philosophy, and being sport with all its many faces, even the ugly ones, in my opinion, are one. This major premise, in my argument, implies that sport scientists and philosophers of sport should carefully reconsider their clearly unwilling and unforeseen, yet unmistakably contribution to the distortions modern sports are facing. And thus, I try to debunk our knowing about what sport is, or should be. There's a very normative narrative going on in sport ethics. The Platonic ideas, these so-called ontological paradigms, with all the twists and turns they undertook over time, since the rise of modern sport, in order to change its actual being, the excessive situation in modern sports today. The archive I put together, sorry, this is one, constituted of iconic texts like homoludens, which is really one of the sources of sport philosophy, to be honest. And then there's the grasshopper, so sorry you are leaving. The Olympic Charter, handbooks, regulations and codes, but also, of sources resonating the downside. Disciplinary cases, tuchtrecht, autobiographies, documentaries, and social media accounts. I did follow Ronaldo's Twitter account for two years, very interesting, also a narrative. Stressing certain values. My aim was not to reach saturation, quantity, but to bring together a qualitative selection that allowed me to find the blind spot of our knowing about sport. This approach can also be qualified as new materialism, taking the distorted situation in modern sport just as it is. I try to uncover and re-include sports forgotten archer. In reconstructing all these different sources, I distinguish the things we do like to see and empathize in this sport in praxis, versus the ones that were excluded and we learned to forget. I peeled off our most dominant ways of conceptualizing modern sports. The prevailing sport as game, playing paradigm, its apparent antipode, sport as competition, and the secret discourse about sport as sexuality. In exploring these three prevailing paradigms, I kept looking for what Foucault would call the other. The powers and activities actively excluded from modern sports. In order to open up this dimension, I was forced to break open the current knowledge about sport, to enter beyond the dominant discourse in sport, without losing contact with the very practice. And this is quite a challenge coming from within. I had to turn into a barbarian, as Peter Schloterdijk would say. Again, the underlying aim was to unveil and reactivate what has been excluded and disqualify it. A very important modification, right from the very start of modern sports. As you might know, this moment of birth is broadly considered to be at the end of the 19th century, at the conception of the modern Olympic games. Let me just have a look. Yeah, this is nice. Just look a little. A polarity, binary system governing human society. So, where am I? Right from the start of modern sports, the animatic, wasteful, the Anisian, and as such transgressive bodily forces were banned from modern sports. Turning it into the rule-based practice, we now wish it to be. So, what are the effects of this exclusion of vitality on the present state of modern sports? In Agamemne's words, my analysis aims to profane the sterilizing, as you can see on the right, the sterilizing apparatus of modern sports. Institutions, regulations, codes of conducts, those are all, in my opinion, sterilizing interventions. And then pretending to improve inclusion, this normative split is a clear recipe for transgression. After all, what belongs to the community of sport is considered as good, appropriate, allowed, while the modalities that were excluded are disqualified as wrong, inappropriate, forbidden. As such, my research represents an ethical intervention, an experience that hopefully will change the way we look at modern sports and current challenges like match fixing and undermining. I wish to present here my two major general insights. First of all, my conclusion is that modern sports represents our collective demand. This concept is derived from Agamemne's reading of Leibniz, who thought of demand as an attribute of possibility. Every possibility demands to exist, hardcore philosophy. A rather difficult part of Leibniz thought, I will not dive in deeper here. But you all follow me in affirming that sport is driven by the wish to move, to play, to express and to perform. These are all, in my opinion, modalities of demand. Being, and thus the current manifestation of modern sports, is only demand contained in essence. Spinoza uses the word cornatus for this kind of demand, the desire to persevere. This continuous striving for existence. I consider demand to be modern sports ontological engine. All players and coaches taking part in match fixing are ultimately driven by the demand to belong. To stay in the warmth of our sporting community. Now it's a small step from this perception of demand to the concept of desire in psychoanalysis. This also is a rather provocative relationship. As I see it, sport produces seductive images, we saw a few of them. Symbols and propositions that feed our mutual need for identification. Both athletes and players, as well as coaches, executives, journalists and supporters. All of them can indulge their various desires in the realm of modern sports. Psychoanalysis has pointed out that some of our actions seem to stem from an unconscious part of our psyche. Not reducible to a physical part of the brain, but covering our whole being. Controversial, still. This unconscious part is fed by libidinous drives and shows itself through behavior, language, imagination. From a Freudian perspective, it's really tempting to see sport as a compulsive shot through camouflage practice for the human libido. I have colleagues who like to stress this definition of sport. But is this the same demand I introduced earlier? It is, if we follow the Lacanian structural concept of desire. Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalytic philosopher, I would say, his theory is founded on translating displacement into lack, lack, gemis. In sport, a perceived lack often seems to be the inexhaustible source of performance drive. This perception of demand also seems to resonate in Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of modern Olympic Games. His intentions were to liberate the animated physical forces from the tentacles of a stifling Victorian morality. Now here comes this tension, trying to liberate and again leading to exclusion of the more vitality of the Dionysian energies in sport. So did these intentions come true? I doubt it. According to Lacan, the human being as a desiring subject is born during the so-called Oedipus complex, all constructions. Although I know some people today are reluctant to go there, just a small lecture into these uncanny thoughts. To grow up, we all somewhere in time have to break with the secure symbiosis with our mother. Yet we will keep yearning for it the rest of our lives, be it unconsciously. So this unforgettable symbiosis represents our collective demand. If we see modern sports as a realm full of symbolic jouissance, a French word meaning pleasure and suffering, it may serve as the Lacanian signifiant, signifier or even phallus, for these repressed Oedipal desires. No wonder players and coaches who surrender to betting and fixing matches are blinded and naive in doing so. It's their phallic sidestep to belong. And yet, how about the societal impact modern sports claims to manifest? What systemic perspective may come from Lacan's subject-based theory of demand? Kivoy, what do you expect if drives should be repressed? Well, to get beyond the rather cramped Lacanian framework, I found an inspiration in the works of Julia Christewa and Gilles Deleuze. Christewa introduced the semiotic dimension as the a priori of representation, signification and language. Embodiment, and thus sport, belongs to this semiotic order. Christewa's thought completely reverses traditional linear thinking of Lacan, but also analytical logic. The semiotic modality, while to be suppressed, will never be lost and will continue to envelop the signification process. For this semiotic dimension Christewa chooses the controversial Greek term of Korah, taken from Plato's Timaeus. Literally, Korah means womb, space, place. Christewa stretches the meaning to the space of becoming, which is very near to Kornatis, in which life, including symbolic signs and language, come to exist. Now, this semiotic concept of desire coincides wonderfully with Agamben's concept of demand. At several places in his work, Agamben even cites Plato's Timaeus as well, introducing the word Korah, to explain his conception of demand, offering a place and a boat to things that come into being. In line with both, so Agamben and Christewa, I consider sport as a revolutionary practice, transforming that which is qualified as negative in sport and has been suppressed from the outset. In French, l'abjet, the abject, is partly, because of this, precisely modern sports are care, its ontological foundation. What we see here are the thoughts of Agamben, I will come to this later on, on bi-politics, sorry. The third bend I need to take here comes from Gilles Deleuze, who presents desire as a machine approach in a dominant social field. So here we enter beyond the subjective analysis in psychoanalytic thoughts. Machine is not a technical device, but refers to a series of more or less temporary linkages. Applied to sport as a social practice, an athlete or player produces an athletic performance driven by his or her desire, which is tapped by a coach who knows how to feed his or her own specific desire with this. And in doing so, the coach produces his or her own peak experience, which in turn is absorbed by a board member who in turn produces his or her own stream of desire using this experience, for example, a narrative that claims the performance of athlete and coach as his merit. It happens every day. This narrative in turn produces useful consumption. For instance among supporters or journalists, these processes take place far beyond the Oedipal drama. Being very complex and infinite, all desire machines are interconnected and constantly produce new flows of demand. What I most of all take from Deleuze is its critical reckoning with Lacan. For the Lacanian thesis that desire is most of all lack, keeps us all imprisoned in our own Oedipal tragedy. And as such, in my opinion, sabotages the creative, productive power of demand in society. This more revolutionary power in sport, potentially available in every player, coach and executive, should be reactivated to overcome threatening distortions like match fixing. That concludes for my first insight. Let's move on towards the second. Modern sports turns out to be a very easy vehicle for conducting biopolitics. Here we come. We should take a stance toward this critical discourse. To understand why, let me first tell a bit more about the concept of biopolitics. Here we are. Hobbes, of course. Leviathan. In his first volume of the History of Sexuality, La volonté de savoir, which is two volumes before Le Souci de Sois, Foucault introduces biopolitical power as a politically sanctioned regime to regulate the biological processes concerning the human body. Very literal. A few decades later, Agamben combines these insights with the polarity Hannah Arendt presents between Zoë and Bios. I think I have it. No, sorry. According to Agamben, so then we need this one again. Sorry, I'm not so... Yeah. According to Agamben, modern western politics is founded on the re-inclusion of this so-called bare life, Zoë, within qualified politically relevant life, Bios. In ancient Greece, natural life was still excluded from the polis, if you've read Aristotle, or the public domain. As Agamben states, this is quite the opposite in our times. The rule of law, so sorry she left, as a manifestation of political power, contemporary Bios, only operates because of the exclusion of naked, uncontrolled life. But the reverse is also true. I quote Agamben. Life, which is thus obliged, can in the last instance be implicated in the sphere of law only through the presupposition of its inclusive exception, only in an exception. Habs Leviathan already shows this twist by moving the naked, vulnerable body, from outside to inside, from bare life to political life. As such, the exception defines the political sphere of sovereign power as an inclusive exclusion. Now, should these rather inconvenient insights not make us wonder if the knowledge about modern sports, even the philosophy of sport and sport ethics, isn't also deeply involved in these counterfeiting dynamics? Although I speak for the community of sport ethicists, we defend sports' uniqueness as a rule-based social practice, protecting it as a separate realm, the practice in fact was excluded from the political sphere. It's a discussion going on in these times about Qatar, about the Ukrainian War. We excluded the Russian. But at the birth of modern sport, the Olympic movement said, well, sport should not be about politics, a separation, a divide. So the practice was actively excluded from the political sphere, and to some of us still should be. And yet this precious social practice is merely allowed and sanctioned by the ruling political order. And this is what our government calls the state of exception. So in a very provocative thesis, I state that modern sports in a way represents a state of exception. And is thus part of a global political play. So we define sports to be autonomous, with its own rules, legislation, education. And yet the practice is completely governed by political power, controlling all the bodies of individual citizens through sport. Interiorized repression, as implicated by the post-Lacanian conception of demand, keeps this political economy going. Considering this, should not we acknowledge that sport scientists, even the philosophy of sport community, my colleagues, are keeping up the exception to live off the rule, being the western political system as it is. Such an intolerable thought. That concludes all I wish to present here on my findings so far. I'd like to finish with some thoughts on how to prevent and detect match-fixing, effectively. The concept of potentiality as used by a gambler is crucial in this respect. A new form of sport will only come from activating its impotentiality. How come? Difficult. Western democracies need an anomic, abject dimension to keep going. In modern sports, this is the body in its complete, vital and naked existence. It's Zoë. As I said earlier, the sporting body is politicized all over. Agamemne calls this the sacrificing of the most vital powers for the sake of economic value. The result lies in inoperativity, in French, for a growing classless society. The riots in our cities and stadiums last winter, this winter. But also, to my opinion, the growing amount of players and coaches turning into betting, manipulation and match-fixing, they reflect this status of inoperativity. Unwillingly, at least I hope, modern sports take a firm position in creating inoperativity. Now, potentiality lies in the realm of inoperativity, and this unexpressed yet vital human energy being demand is preserved. As such, I argue that excesses, distortions like match-fixing, are more than symptoms of modern sports pathology. Integrity crisis. Hidden away in the dark, they also show us the way to catharsis and healing. And yet, within sports, there's an enormous reluctance to face up to its excessive dimension. Is it not precisely in accepting this collective inability to act in this uneasy impotentiality of sports that a new start can be found? Knowing that potentiality, dynamis, according to Agamben, in this respect directly indebted to Aristotle, always stands in relation to incapacity, a dinamia, to the potentiality of not being able to do something either. In my opinion, a systemic transition in the domain of sport, activating a new form of sport, pushed by its original, creative, revolutionary power, will occur, including its collective incapacity. As such, the hidden, transformed potential of modern sport can be released. Let me quote again Agamben on this. The greatness and also the abyss of human potentiality is that it is first of all potential not to act, potential for darkness. Radical evil is not this or that bad deed, match-fixing, but the potentiality for darkness. And yet, this potentiality is also the potentiality for light. Lovely. Following this, we really need to look this incapacity in the eyes and debunk the prevailing narrative on match-fixing, conceived as an external threat conducted by criminals. Bel-Chinese. It's about time to acknowledge that sport, unfortunately, turns out to be an easy target for severe crimes like match-fixing and undermining. If we go by there and do include sports intrinsic moral topography, creating systemic exclusion and, thus, excessive demand, match-fixing may turn out to be an unexpected ethical treasure. Hidden, hiding the most fruitful soil for catharsis, deep change in the very heart of sport. Again, I turn things around. Reframing. By activating the transformative power of the inclusive community sport still represents, that is why these players strive to belong, thus re-including the players and coaches that somehow feel excluded and, as such, are open to manipulation and betting in despair. We will deeply improve modern sports moral resilience to prevent and detect match-fixing. Strengthening this intrinsic moral agency is much more effective than any form of external regulation or prosecution. The latter strategy, in particular, if we ruthlessly exclude our fellow players and coaches, will only create new excessive behavior and transgressive distortions, as I see it. So, to conclude, we should take much more care of modern sports precious ethical core. Integrity issues are more than symptoms of modern sports pathology hidden away in the dark. They also show us the way to catharsis and healing. Thank you so much for attending. Hello, hello. Yeah, it's working. Are there any questions? Yes, okay. I'm audible, good. First of all, I wanted to say that as a business student, I never would have imagined to enjoy a lecture like this. Thank you very much. Okay. You're welcome. Yes. It changed a little bit about my view on philosophy. Very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing your insights. Apologies for my lack of philosophical terms and academic terms. However, in very Lehman words, so to speak, as I understand correctly, it is good in your words, but then simplify perhaps that there is a problem, this match fixing, which sheds light on the inner core values of ethical in sports. Basically, right? Very simple, simplified terms. What would be in your eyes the main direction to stare towards on the spectrum of regulations? Would it be less? Would it be more? To what extent? Maybe I've missed it in the conclusion or maybe I misinterpreted it, but that would be my question. Well, thank you for your question. Regulation is still necessary. So it's not a plea, a Nietzschean plea for a Dionysian music future of modern sport. But I think we need complementary strategies to prevent and detect distortions like match fixing and to look in the mirror. If I address it to my fellow sport ethics colleagues or the executives ruling modern sports apparatus, we should acknowledge that there is an intrinsic fruitful soil for these players and coaches, in the case of match fixing, to be seduced. Especially players, they are quite vulnerable when they, for instance, don't get the opportunities and salary like Ronaldo is having. And then this is a very fruitful situation to include them in criminal activities. So, and this to my opinion has to do, in my opinion, has to do with the morality, the normative morality we centralize in modern sports. And this also has to do with regulation. You should obey the rules. But there's a tension between the expression and the fair play people should do naturally versus obeying the rules and being dependent on the regime. So to conclude my answer would be we need a complementary strategy and not just do more regulation, do more punishment and do more prosecution. I think this will only make distortions grow. Thank you for your question. All right. Thank you for the question and for answering any other questions. Maybe a few. Yeah. More sociologist, you could say. So I'm also interesting in what you can tell about the audience, the audience of the sportors, because they have impact on the world of sports, of course. So and you have got several examples, of course, in the stadiums at Silver, which have an impact on how we perceive correct behavior, you could say. Yeah. Very relevant aspect underestimated, to be honest, because the audience, the fans and the supporters keep this business going. I referred to the current debate still debate going on about Qatar. I had a journalist this week and he came to me and he said, should or should I not push the button and watch the World Cup. And he he hoped that as a philosopher and a moral philosopher, I would give the answer to him. He's also one of the audience. And we all have to make our own choices. But then we are so willing to enjoy and engage with the game again. I would bet this journalist will turn on the TV and watch the World Cup. But what what I see as a turbulent, well, phase where we're into this transitional era. It's not only about climate change and about integrity issues in sport, but there's so much more going on that the power of the audience will grow. I regard the debate, the still the debate which is still going on about Qatar and which we had about Tokyo, the Olympics and the Winter Olympics in Beijing. I see it as a symptom of, well, an audience transforming into a much more critical stakeholder. And the same goes on with private companies and sponsors that are withdrawing for offering support to Qatar and our national keep. So this is, I think, a phase of transformation, turning around and rethinking the paradigms, the presuppositions, especially the economic agenda that has taken over modern sports. It wasn't there in the beginning. It took over the games in the beginning of the 20th century. So we could go back and recharge and do it much more, much more simple and thus much less expensive. Is this an answer to your question? I'm just like, I also have a question maybe relating to the previous one, because it also makes me think when you're talking about transformations and about, you know, this idea of catharsis and deep change that is necessary. You previously mentioned when we were talking also this still very masculine culture, these ideas about masculinity and also when you're talking about your third ideology paradigm of a secret sexuality or I don't know how you mentioned it. But do you think that there is also a big change to make there and also maybe come from the audience or from. I think what's happening under our eyes, the growth of women's sports, as we have seen in the Netherlands, the best performances the last 10 years were in women's sport, football, water polo, what can I say, my humble athletics, not to forget. Yeah, it shows that we're also in an era of what you should could call feminization of modern sport. And there has always been a reluctance and resistance towards this because the more masculine powers were dominant, as you said. But then it's all breaking up, breaking through and yeah, I don't wish to be an essentialist because I think we're moving towards a non-binary society in which these huge polarities come closer. So, yeah, it's, it's happening. It's happening. And the fact that I can now lead a century in sport ethics is one of the, yeah, one of the examples. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me just come to the stage again. All right, thank you very much Sandra for giving this very interesting lecture and also this, yeah, philosophical explanation to this topic, but really struck me was the idea of, you know, that really made me think the desire to be long and that it's of course a really big part of sports as well. And, yeah, I really liked your philosophical analysis about it. So thank you again and please again give a big applause for Sandra.