The rules of a fair game

Any competition between unequal participants faces the same question: should the prize go to the strongest, or to the one who improved most? The answer chosen shapes who takes part, and it cannot be avoided by saying that both matter.

Rewarding absolute performance is simple, transparent and easy to defend. It also guarantees that the same people win, which in a school means that the students who already play sport outside school take the prizes in school. Over a term, everyone else learns that the competition is not about them. The data shows this before the students say it: participation falls fastest among those who scored lowest in week one.

Rewarding improvement solves that and creates two new problems. The first is arithmetic: improving from two to four repetitions is a hundred per cent, while improving from forty to fifty is twenty-five. The second is manipulation: a measure based on your own earlier score rewards a low first score, and students notice this faster than adults expect.

FitForm uses a third approach, which is not a compromise but a different target. Classes are compared on the share of students who take part, with individual points capped daily. Under that rule the strongest student helps their class most by persuading three classmates to try, and the weakest student's first session is worth exactly as much as anyone else's. Strength still shows — it is visible in personal records — but it is not what the table measures.

No rule is neutral. Each one answers the question of what the competition is for, and the honest thing is to publish the answer rather than to let the scoreboard imply it.