Cheating or breaking the rules is typically seen as morally wrong. Does this mean that supporting a beloved sports team that broke the rules is also morally wrong? Typically, saying “Go Saints!!!” would be morally neutral. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about rooting for a specific team. However, the Saints were accused and “convicted” of targeting opposing players with the intent to injure in what is now commonly called “Bountygate.” Paying someone to intentionally injure someone else is pretty clear-cut in being immoral. Therefore, it is logical to say that the Saints are immoral or, at the very least, were immoral at that time. Controversy does not arise from calling the Saints immoral, but it certainly does when calling their fans’ decision to root for them immoral. Supporting a racist organization such as the KKK is immoral, even if an individual is not a member. Logic would follow that supporting an immoral organization is in itself an immoral action. Ignorance, however, could be fans saving grace. There was no way for fans of the Saints to have known what was transpiring behind closed doors. They cannot be blamed for rooting for their team when they did not know about the immoral actions. However, once the allegations came to light, if they supported the team’s actions or downplayed them, then that would make them immoral.
What about an individual cheating by, for example, utilizing performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs)? Working under the assumption that cheating is wrong, then using PEDs is clearly immoral. Is it immoral to root for a player after they have been convicted of using PEDs? One can never be certain that a player is playing without them once they are convicted the first time. And does having an immoral player on a team make the entire team immoral? I say no unless the team was aware of the doping and attempted to hide it. The effects of doping can carry on for decades after the initial rule-breaking. Hall of Fame voting is thrown for a loop. The statistics of every player who ever faced the doper must be looked at with a new lens. And, arguably most importantly, earnings could have been negatively affected in so many ways. Whether or not a fan is immoral for rooting for their team of choice is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. However, it is interesting to jump down the rabbit hole and truly think about the morals of certain aspects of sports fandom, at least before we are all drawn back into the action.
Whether you did this intentionally or not, the argument that ignorance is a fan’s saving grace is a great example of aretaic reasoning. You evaluated the morality of cheering for the Saints on the basis of the peoples’ intentions. Their virtues are not reflected in the team’s previous immoral actions or anything else but their own intentions if we evaluate this situation from the aretaic point of view as you have. I think that that can be a fair argument. But that still begs the question, for me, should fans be more persuaded by the immoral actions of their team or is it okay to look past bad things in the past once they get on the field?
I think, as far as rooting for or cheering on individuals who have committed morally irresponsible acts, it all depends on if you are aware of the moral act that individual has taken, but it does raise an important question: is your morality compromised if you unknowingly support someone who was committed morally wrong actions in the past? In this instance I think of the partners of serial killers and other awful criminals; if they are involved and covered up for their partner, sure, they are also morally responsible. But if they had no evidence and just were trying to ignore fishy signs, where does that put them? I think you propose an important dilemma with this post.
Going off of Leah’s point, you could also evaluate the morality of a fan’s support through a consequentialist or deontological lens. The consequence of supporting the Saints might, at first, seem insignificant but as you evaluate further the action becomes more morally corrupt. By supporting the Saints, you contribute to the owner’s, coaches’, and players’ salaries and could lead to another “Bountygate” happening and as such could be seen as morally bad. Through deontism, though, supporting the Saints would be morally good because the action itself is not corrupt.
I think you make a good point in recognizing the role that ignorance plays in these scenarios. In using this argument, I would say that if someone knowingly supports, especially monetarily, a tram that purposefully injures other players, then they are morally responsible; however, I think it could be argued that these supporters are less morally responsible, for while they did support the action, they did not directly cause any injury to the other player, or even tell the team to hurt others. Different levels and amounts of moral responsibility would have to be accessed in this situation, as it is unreasonable to me that an individual who supports a team should be as morally responsible as the individual knocking out the knees of the opposing player.