Continuing our discussion on whether cheerleading is a sport, or better, what truly makes any activity a sport, I think it best to build from that first part of the definition detailed in Part I - "to be a sport, an activity must exist primarily for athletic competition against other teams..."
Within that partial sentence above you not only have the concept of "competing" as a criteria for a "sport," but also strong inference that sports are athletic in nature and, thus, must require some level of athleticism in order to play or participate in them - at least respectably. So for us to nail down whether something, anything, is a sport or not we must first list what aspects are considered athletic.
As a physical educator (former coach and athlete), this is something I deal with (and evaluate) all the time. We refer to these athletic aspects as skill-related fitness components, and they include:
In some way, shape or form coaches, and athletes, are always trying to improve their athleticism through these six components, thus, making them an important part of what a sport requires from its participants.
That being the case, we can use them to help create a real definition of what a "sport" actually is, rather than using an arbitrary definition like Judge Stefan Underhill used in the "cheerleading is not a sport" case.
And that definition might look something like this:
"To be a sport, an activity must exist primarily for athletic competition against other teams" and/or individuals, and contain (at least) moderate levels of agility, speed, coordination, balance, power, and reaction time when participating.
Under this definition, basketball, soccer, swimming, gymnastics, volleyball, football, badminton, tennis, wrestling, baseball, and yes - competitive cheer would all fall under the category of a "sport." And the nice thing about using such a definition is that it helps remove much of the ambiguity and simple "opinion" expressed from many of the commenters at the end of Omaha World-Herald's article.
To further clarify, if we were to apply the original definition of a sport detailed in the World-Herald piece (the one Judge Stefan Underhill used in the case) to, say..., professional boxing, we would find that professional boxing is not a sport either because it does not have a defined season nor is it teams that are competing.
How silly is that???