Bridge, the genteel and physically unchallenging card game played by millions, may exercise the brain muscle, but is it a sport?
That is the question taxing legal minds as a high court ruling on Monday paved the way for a courtroom battle to decide.
The row centres on a refusal by Sport England to recognise the trick-taking game as a legitimate sport and thus eligible for lottery grants.
The English Bridge Union claim it ought to be recognised as a “mind sport” and want Sport England’s refusal to do so declared unlawful.
An estimated 300,000 people regularly play Bridge in the UK. It receives no public funding, with members funding international bridge activities.
Sport England, who hold the purse strings for lottery grants to non-professional sporting groups in the UK, however insist bridge is no more a sporting activity than “sitting at home, reading a book”.
Mr Justice Mostyn, who has admitted enjoying a hand or two himself on social occasions, granted the Aylesbury-based union permission to mount a full judicial review of Sport England’s decision. He also directed that the World Chess Federation (FIDE) be informed of his decision, as they “might want to get in on it”.
Richard Clayton QC, representing the union, told the judge: “This case raises a short but important point: whether Sport England is entitled to refuse to recognise bridge as a sport.
If it was recognised as a sport, it would open the road to grants from public funds for bridge tournaments, and also for it and other bridge bodies to qualify for valuable tax exemptions.
Kate Gallofent QC, for Sport England, said: “Sport means all forms of physical activity aimed at improving physical fitness and wellbeing, forming social relations and gaining results in competition at all levels”. She added the definition is based on a European Sports Charter, issued in 1992, and had the benefit of promoting “a common European definition of sport”.
“The starting point of the definition of sport is physical activity. Bridge cannot ever satisfy this definition,” she said.
However, the judge was told other EU countries, including the Netherlands, Ireland and Poland recognised bridge as a sport, and the International Olympic Committee also “recognised in 1999 that bridge and chess should be recognised as “mind sports”.
“There is nothing in the Sport England charter that limits sports to physical activities, and the health benefit of playing bridge is well documented,” said Clayton.
Giving permission for the judicial review “by a narrow margin”, Mostyn said it was arguable that the card game was a physical activity “if the brain is a muscle”.
Mostyn said: “You are doing more physical activity playing bridge, with all that dealing and playing, than in rifle-shooting. There are a number of physical activities, such as running on a treadmill in a gym, which are physical recreations but not sports.”
Arguing against the decision, Gallofent said there was an “absolutely clear bright line” between bridge, chess and currently recognised sports. In snooker or rifle-shooting, no one else could take your shot, she said. While in bridge, “somebody else could step up and play my cards for me in these sort of mind games”.
“There is a difference between sport and recreation. I can enjoy sitting at home reading a book – it does not mean I can claim it’s a sport,” she said.
The judge said there were “a number of strong indicators that an essential ingredient of sport, even if it is not competitive, has to embrace physical activity”. But, he added, the fact the IOC recognised bridge and chess as mind sports was “very significant”.
“I do not conclude that this case is completely unarguable, or that this challenge is vexatious or frivolous,” he said.
Outside court, Ian Payn, vice-chairman of the English Bridge Union, said: “We are very pleased with the decision.” By being recognised as a sporting body, the union hoped to “strengthen its hand” in a separate, ongoing battle for tax exemptions, he added.
