Comment by CocaKoala

Sports are fun to watch; they can provide you with a connection to a place, give you a chance to learn about strategy, are an easy way to strike up a conversation with somebody else, and are a good way to feel a part of something bigger than just yourself. Why is the article "Why Sports Are a Sad and Dangerous Waste of Time" and not "Why Watching TV or Watching Movies or Reading Dumb News Stories On The Internet Are Sad and Dangerous Wastes of Time", given that by basically every metric the author provides (people get really worked up over them, people get into big arguments over them, people cheer wildly for the participants, billions of dollars get spent on them, and the consumers don't accomplish anything useful by consuming) apply to them? Is it because the author likes watching movies, doesn't like sports, and is bothered by the fact that people like a thing he doesn't like?