The Ultimate Frisbee Doctrine
Qui bono?
Five days after I published this substack on May 12th, 2025, the Wall Street Journal published this article.
I had never seen or reference the first four paragraphs in the rules (Preface, Description and Spirit of the Game) as a Doctrine, but in truth, that’s exactly what it is and all players are indoctrinated with this ideology from the first moment they play the game.
Has it served us?
To the Victor Go the Spoils
There is really no more appropriate quote to describe winners Ultimate Frisbee more than this quote from Henry IV, Part I:
What Shakespeare is saying here is that in a uneven, corrupted or unbalanced system, the winner is not going to complain about the lack of fairness in the victory and if we’re going to critique a set of rules, it is the losers that have the credibility, not the winners.
Winners always like things just the way they are.
The UPA’s Ultimate Frisbee Doctrine
In 1975, the 5th Edition of the rules for ultimate had no mention of sportsmanship.
In the 6th Edition, released in 1976, there is only a brief mention of sportsmanship:
In the 7th Edition (Circa 1978), we begin to see language in the rules that seem to be an attempt to tamp down on maladaptive behavior that has begun to emerge in competition.
Phrases like ‘mutual respect between players’, ‘basic joy of play’ and ‘Protection of these vital elements’ start creeping into Ultimate Frisbee’s unique brand of sportsmanship. They seem innocuous enough, but are they really as benign as they seem?
However, in 1982, nearly a half century ago, the 8th Edition of the Rules to Ultimate Frisbee was published by the UPA, which was incorporated in 1979. In other words, the 8th edition was the first time the rules were published by an official governing body.
For the first time with the formal creation of the Ultimate Players Association came a formalized set of rules and with these formalized set of rules came the formal codification of the Spirit of The Game and all that in entails.
The 8th edition of rules released in 1982 was amended to include four new paragraphs that would forever change the course of the game, culture and community of Ultimate Frisbee. These four paragraphs comprised the Preface, the Introduction and The Spirit Of The Game, or what we can collectively refer to as Ultimate Frisbee’s Doctrine.
Here are the four paragraphs that encapsulate the UPA’s Ultimate Frisbee Doctrine in their entirety:
Preface
The purpose of the rules of Ultimate is to provide a guideline which describes the way the game is played. It assumed that no Ultimate player will intentionally violate the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for inadvertent infractions, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no infraction.
In Ultimate, an intentional foul would be considered cheating and a gross offense against the spirit of sportsmanship. Often a player is in a position where it is clearly to the player's advantage to foul or commit some violation, but that player is morally bound to abide by the rules. The integrity of Ultimate depends on each player's responsibility to uphold the spirit of the game, and this responsibility should not be taken lightly.
I. Introduction
Description Ultimate is a non-contact sport played by two seven player teams. The object of the game is to score goals. The disc may only be moved by passing as the thrower is not allowed to take any steps. Any time a pass is incomplete, intercepted, knocked-down, or contacts an out-of-bounds area, a turnover occurs, resulting in an immediate change of possession of the disc. A goal is scored when a player successfully passes the disc to a teammate in the endzone which that team is attacking.
Spirit of the Game Ultimate has traditionally relied upon a spirit of sportsmanship which places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of the bond of mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate adverse conduct from the Ultimate field. Such actions as taunting of opposing players, dangerous aggression, intentional fouling, or other "win-at-all-costs" behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be avoided by all players.
Captain's Clause A game may be played under any variations of the rules agreed upon by the captains of the two teams. In tournament play, such variations are subject to the approval of the tournament director. Such things as length of game, dimensions of the field, and stalling count can easily be altered to suit the level of play.
The fifth paragraph, The Captain’s Clause may very well end up to be the sport’s saving grace.
In point of fact, we can mark the year 1982 as the year that Ultimate Frisbee became ideologicalized with this formal doctrine.
But where did the verbiage for these four paragraphs come from? It turns out that two years prior to the inception of Ultimate Frisbee at Columbia H.S. in Maplewood NJ, a phenomena emerged in California in 1966 known as The New Games Movement.
New Games were a counter culture phenomena that placed more of an emphasis on fun and fair play for all participants irrespective of talent, ability, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, physique, etc. but also deemphasized things like individual accomplishments and winning & losing.
Not only does this Ultimate Frisbee Doctrine have an obvious New Games flavor to them, but as we’ll see below, the UPA’s Doctrine is irrefutably a clear and direct derivative of the New Games Doctrine.
Rob ‘Nob Rauch (long time administrative leader and influencer within the UPA and USAU) acknowledged in a recent conversation that Ultimate Frisbee’s ideology has always been heavily influence by the New Games Movement.
Nob also made the stunning admission that Ultimate Frisbee’s Game Mechanics have always been designed as a ‘dead-ball’ sport, in spite of the games obvious continuous flow dynamics.
More on that below as it relates to the implementation of the New Games Doctrine within Ultimate Frisbee’s Game Mechanics.
There are no less than 10 separate ideologically misguided fallacies in the Ultimate Frisbee Doctrine that have never been challenged, scrutinized or vetted properly. They were simply accepted as true when in fact, all ten are false. They may have seemed reasonable at the time, but once you realize what their origin story is, you’ll think twice about it.
I initially published my findings on the New Games influence on Ultimate Frisbee in February of 2008 in this article. The cross pollination between The New Games Movement, Bernie DeKoven (The New Games Movement’s most prolific author) and Dan ‘Stork’ Roddick (who was the primary author behind those first four paragraphs), is undeniable and has been well documented.
A line by line break down of the ideological biases in the Ultimate Frisbee Doctrine can be viewed in this Dogs & Baskets podcast video.
What is the New Games Doctrine?
Research suggests that the New Games Movement had significant Marxist undertones, as it reflected the countercultural values of the 1960s, which were heavily influenced by Marxist ideas, and its goals of creating fair and inclusive games can be seen as a form of social leveling, akin to Marxist principles. The evidence leans toward connections with Postmodern Neo-Marxism, or "Wokism," further supporting the interpretation of the movement as "Proto-Wokism."
However, the movement's failure underscores the challenges of implementing such ideals, highlighting the complexity of balancing equality with human nature and incentives. This analysis, while acknowledging the lack of direct Marxist references, provides a compelling case for the ideological kinship, making it a fascinating intersection of play, sportsmanship and politics.
Key Points
Research suggests the New Games Movement had Marxist undertones, emphasizing equality and inclusivity in play.
It seems likely that its focus on leveling the playing field mirrored Marxism's economic equality goals.
By the mid 2010s, Marxism’s initial economic equality aspirations had, in fact, mutated and metastasized into Diversity, Equity & Inclusion initiatives across all geopolitical demographics and socioeconomic strata, much in the same way that New Games had initially intended to accomplish.
The evidence leans toward connections with 1960s counterculture, which included Marxist influences, supporting this interpretation.
There is some controversy, as direct Marxist references are sparse, but ideological parallels are strong.
The Spirit of Marxism
The New Games Movement of the 1960s likely had significant Marxist underpinnings, as it aimed to create games and sports that were inclusive and engaging for all, regardless of the fast diversity of our attributes. This focus on indiscriminate equality mirrors Marxism's goal of leveling societal hierarchies to achieve economic and social equality. The movement's emphasis on cooperation over competition can be seen as a critique of capitalist values, similar to Marxist critiques, and its roots in the 1960s counterculture, which was influenced by Marxist ideals, further support this connection.
The New Games Movement, emerging in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was a cultural phenomenon that sought to redefine play by creating games and sports designed to be fair and fun for all players, irrespective of attributes such as age, physique, gender, or athletic ability. This movement, led by figures like Stewart Brand, George Leonard, and Bernie De Koven, emphasized inclusivity, cooperation, and non-competitive play, with a motto of Play Hard. Play Fair. Nobody Hurt.*
Given its focus on leveling the playing field, there is a compelling argument that it had a significant Marxist influence, particularly when viewed through the lens of Marxism's broader goals of economic and social equality, as well as its modern evolution into Postmodern Neo-Marxism, often referred to as "Wokism."
This article is an attempt to provide a detailed exploration of these connections, supported by historical context, ideological parallels, and an analysis of the movement's eventual failure. Whether or not there is proof of a direct lineage to Marxist institutes like the Frankfurt School or other Marxist organizations, the ideological similarities between Marxism and New Games (and Ultimate Frisbee) is beyond coincidental.
Play Hard. Play Fair. Nobody Hurt* can easily be seen as the precursor to Ultimate Frisbee’s SOTG.
Historical Context
The New Games Movement emerged during a time of geopolitical turmoil, social upheaval, deconstructionism, the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK & Malcolm X, anti-Vietnam War protests, the Summer of Love phenomena and civil rights movements, most of which were intertwined with or tangential to Marxist philosophies.
Figures like Stewart Brand and Bernie De Koven promoted games that rejected traditional competitive structures, aligning with Marxist ideals of collective action and solidarity. For example, games like "Slaughter" encouraged players to switch sides to ensure no team dominated, reflecting a desire for equal participation, much like Marxism's vision of a classless society.
This era was heavily influenced by left-wing ideologies, including Marxism. The movement's founders, such as Stewart Brand, known for his work with the Whole Earth Catalog, and George Leonard, associated with the Esalen Institute, were part of this countercultural milieu, which often critiqued capitalist structures and advocated for social justice and the Human Potential Movement.
Their belief was that human potential was limited as a result of artificially self perpetuating things like white male hegemony and that by artificially deconstructing these artificial societal constructs, then human would be able to reach their true potential. (In other words, human potential was being limited as a result of collective societal constraints and not individual because of the lack of drives like will power, forbearance, determination, perseverance, passion, innovation and invention).
For instance, the RationalWiki page on the New Games Movement notes its origins in the anti-Vietnam War movement and the Human Potential Movement, highlighting games created by Brand reflecting a desire for cooperative play over competition (RationalWiki - New Games Movement). This aligns with the broader countercultural rejection of hierarchical and competitive systems, which often drew on Marxist critiques of capitalism.
The Kill Screen article, "Inside the failed, utopian New Games Movement," further contextualizes this by describing the movement as a "playful crusade" growing out of '60s counterculture, emphasizing free love, sustainable living, and psychedelic bus murals. This counterculture was heavily influenced by the New Left, a political movement that emerged in the 1960s and continued through the 1970s, focusing on social issues like feminism, gay rights, and anti-racism, often with Marxist underpinnings. While not all New Left activists were Marxists, many were influenced by Marxist ideas, particularly in their critique of capitalism and advocacy for collective action, which resonates with the New Games Movement's goals.
We can certainly see many of both the New Games philosophy and the New Left ideals in today’s Ultimate Frisbee culture and governance, where things like pronouns and gender identity are viewed upon as having more of an emphasis and given more prominence than innovation and exceptionalism.
Marxist Undertones in the New Games Movement
Both the New Games movement and Marxism sought to dismantle hierarchies—Marxism economically, and the New Games Movement in recreation. By designing games where everyone could succeed, it echoed Marxism's push for redistributing resources to eliminate disparities. This connection extends to modern "Wokism," or Postmodern Neo-Marxism, which applies similar principles to cultural and social domains, suggesting the New Games Movement was a precursor, or "Proto-Wokism."
Marxism, founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, critiques capitalism for perpetuating inequality through the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, advocating for the redistribution of resources and the dismantling of class structures to achieve a classless, egalitarian society.
The New Games Movement can be seen as applying these principles to the realm of play, seeking to level the playing field in recreation by designing games where individual advantages—such as strength, speed, or athleticism—are minimized or eliminated.
1. Artificial Leveling of the Playing Field
Marxism fundamentally seeks to eliminate economic disparities by redistributing wealth and power, ensuring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
Similarly, the New Games Movement aimed to artificially level the playing field in recreation by designing games where individual advantages—whether physical, intellectual, or otherwise—were minimized or negated entirely. In traditional games, a faster, smarter or stronger player might dominate, just as in a capitalist system, those with more resources or talent might rise above others. The New Games Movement rejected this, striving to create an environment where no one’s inherent traits gave them an edge, echoing Marxism’s push to neutralize the privileges of the bourgeoisie and elevate the proletariat.
This parallel is particularly striking when compared to Marxism's goal of eliminating class distinctions to ensure all have access to resources, as noted in the Britannica entry on Marxism (Marxism | Definition, History, Ideology, Examples, & Facts | Britannica).
In Ultimate Frisbee, it’s not a difficult to present a cogent and compelling argument that says that The New Games influence sought to neutralize exceptional players and elevate the mediocre players.
By prioritizing games that allowed everyone to participate and succeed, the New Games Movement echoed Marxism's vision of a society where all individuals have equal access to resources and opportunities, regardless of their starting position. This is evident in the movement's philosophy of "soft war," "creative play," and "trust," as described in the Playground Professionals article, which emphasized community, empowerment, and cooperation (The Impact of New Games: Then and Now).
2. Equality as a Core Principle
At its heart, Marxism champions equality—economic, social, and political—by dismantling systems that favor certain groups. The New Games Movement applied a parallel logic to play, prioritizing inclusivity and equal participation over competition and merit. The New Games Movement implicitly critiqued traditional sports and games, which often celebrate and reward natural talent or trained skill—attributes not everyone possesses equally.
By ensuring games were accessible to all, irrespective of differences in ability or identity, it reflected a Marxist-like commitment to equality, albeit in a recreational rather than economic context. This focus on universal fairness over rewarding individual excellence aligns closely with Marxist ideals.
The chilling aspect here, with respect to the the Ultimate Frisbee’s Governing bodies’ attempts to cultivate this New Game philosophy of making Ultimate Frisbee accessible to all, irrespective of differences in ability or identity, is their refusal to recognize the fact that it is this very philosophy that has turned away millions of potential players over the past half century.
By attempting to institutionalize things like DEI and good sportsmanship, the UPA has completely destroyed true diversity, true equity, true inclusion and sportsmanship.
Why hasn’t a single person in within the Ultimate Frisbee ecosystem of governance asked the question:
“has this New Games approach ever worked?”.
By reimagining play to eliminate these competitive hierarchies, the movement challenged the status quo of recreation, much as Marxism challenges the status quo of societal organization. This critique aligns with Marxist analyses of cultural forms, as seen in discussions of Marxism in video game analysis, which extend to broader cultural critiques (Rhetoric & Technical Communication | Marxism for Video Game Analysis).
3. Critique of Traditional Structures
Marxism critiques capitalism as an oppressive system that perpetuates inequality.
Similarly, the New Games Movement implicitly critiqued traditional sports and games, which often celebrate and reward natural talent or trained skill—attributes not everyone possesses equally. By re-envisioning play to eliminate these competitive hierarchies, the movement challenged the status quo of recreation, much as Marxism challenges the status quo of societal organization. This rejection of established norms hints at a deeper ideological kinship.
This common critique of successful people, with its inherent envy and jealousy, will always have a certain appeal within society by unsuccessful people, of which there are always significantly more of. This kind of attempted ‘redistribution of success’ will therefore always have a broad based appeal but as we’ve seen time and time again, it always results in tyranny.
Connection to Postmodern Neo-Marxism ("Wokism")
The New Games Movement doesn’t just parallel classical Marxism; it also foreshadows what has been identified as Postmodern Neo-Marxism or "Wokism"—a modern devolution of Marxist thought applied to culture and identity across all conceivable spectra, rather than just economics. Here’s how:
1. Cultural Application of Marxist Principles
While Marxism traditionally focuses on economic class, "Wokism" extends its leveling impulse to cultural and social domains, seeking to dismantle hierarchies based on race, gender, sexuality, and other identities. The New Games Movement prefigures this by applying equality to the cultural sphere of play, disregarding differences in physical or personal attributes. In this sense, it can be seen as a proto-version of "Wokism," experimenting with Marxist equality outside the economic realm.
Within the past twenty or so years, this intersectionality of Ultimate Frisbee, New Games and Wokism has attracted a demographic of players that have found Ultimate Frisbee a safe haven for their ideology, at the expense of the game’s future and it’s best interests. In any event, it’s clear that this form of Cultural Marxism is a major aspect of Ultimate Frisbee’s game and community.
2. Deconstructionism and Restructuring
The philosophical roots of all three movements lie in deconstructionism—the questioning of traditional assumptions—and the restructuring of society. The New Games Movement as well as Ultimate Frisbee deconstructed the competitive, merit-based nature of traditional games, replacing it with a restructured system where outcomes were more evenly distributed. This mirrors the postmodern approach in "Wokism," which seeks to break down societal norms (e.g., meritocracy, gender roles) and rebuild them to prioritize equity. All three share a common ideological substratum: the belief that existing structures are inherently unfair and must be remade.
3. Proto-Wokism
Given these parallels, the New Games Movement can indeed be thought of as "Proto-Wokism." It represents an early attempt to apply Marxist-inspired equality and inclusivity to a non-economic field, laying philosophical groundwork for later cultural movements. Its emphasis on negating natural differences in favor of universal participation prefigures "Wokism’s" focus on correcting historical inequities through proactive leveling measures, like affirmative action or identity-based policies.
How The New Games Philosophy Was Implemented in Ultimate Frisbee
Within the three main sections mentioned above (The Preface, The Description and The Spirit of The Game) are phrases that lay out the groundwork and New Games ideology in the sport (no harsh penalties, mutual respect, identification of the ‘win at all cost’ athlete as the oppressor, the game is described as non-contact when anyone who has ever played the game knows that’s a false statement, etc.).
However, it is how the rules themselves have been codified that has created a game where the virtually every single rule favors the clumsy, unathletic and unrefined player over the advanced, refined and talented player. This is accomplished by inserting false positives throughout the sport that are specifically inserted to encourage the development of self-esteem. This notion that penalties are harmful to the development of healthy self-esteem is a hallmark of the New Games philosophy.
Jared Kass, who taught the game to 16 year old Joel Silver at summer camp in 1968 references this fact in his bio:
There’s never been any proof that the New Games philosophy or Marxist ‘Woke’ ideology has helped improve self-esteem and in fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite. Our youth today seem to have almost no ‘sense of self’ and virtually zero self-esteem.
Systemically, the way that New Games philosophy of making Ultimate Frisbee a game that is fun and fair for all participants has been successfully injected throughout the rules is by mashing up the two different prevailing frameworks for team sports (‘Dead-ball’ (DB) type of team sports and ‘Continuous Play’ (CP) types of sports) into a single hybrid framework that is extremely easy and addictive.
This DB-CP paradigm has created a situation that is harmful to all players. Exceptional players are not challenged enough while unathletic players are being given a free ride when they should have encountered corrective measures.
In other words, by mashing up the guardrails and game mechanics of two contradictory team sport frameworks, Ultimate Frisbee is lacking the firm, consistent and non-arbitrary boundaries of both of those paradigms and this lack of meaningful boundaries has harmed everyone in one way or another.
This false positive laden framework has resulted in significant amounts of artificially elevated levels of dopamine to be excreted in the human brain, giving the player a neurochemical indication of success when in fact, most of the times within a normal sport, they would have experienced failure.
The people who thought that the harshness of a turnover for a traveling violation would be detrimental to a player’s self esteem have actually produced the opposite effect. Self esteem is enhanced through the process of learning, improving and achieving your potential and the New Games influence on Ultimate Frisbee yielded the exact opposite results and has been harmful for natural self esteem development.
The Failure of the New Games Movement
Despite its ideological ambitions, the New Games Movement ultimately faded, and its failure reinforces the critique that any attempt that has ever been made to “artificially level the playing field” has been harmful to everyone and benefitted no one. Games, by design, thrive on a balance of challenge and fairness—well-crafted mechanics and a risk-reward ratio that allows skill, strategy, or luck to shine within a naturally level framework. The movement’s attempt to artificially enforce equality stripped away these elements, rendering games less engaging. When everyone wins equally, regardless of effort or ability, the satisfaction of overcoming obstacles or achieving mastery evaporates.
This mirrors a common critique of Marxism and its modern variants: by prioritizing equality of outcome over merit or natural variance, they risk undermining the incentives that drive progress and fulfillment. The New Games Movement’s decline suggests that artificially leveling the playing field—whether in games or society—can clash with the realities of human nature and the systems we create. Just as games need competition to remain meaningful, societies may falter when differences in ability or effort are entirely erased.
Ultimate Frisbee has also experienced similar decline, in spite of massive amounts of money to prop it up.
Over the past dozen or so years, over $75,000,000 was pumped into the game via USAU, AUDL, MLU and other international governing bodies, all in an effort to help promote the game and cultivate the culture and attract more participation.
The past few years, the National Championships have seen a significant decline in athleticism and quality as we’ve seen older players walking away from the game and the talent pool of younger players has continuously been declining and diminishing.
The New Games Movement eventually died off because it was a failure, with the argument being that quality games don't need artificial leveling, as they inherently provide a level playing field through well-thought-out mechanics.
This failure can be attributed to the same challenges that Marxist systems often face: the difficulty of maintaining artificial equality when natural differences exist. Games, like societies, thrive on a balance of challenge and fairness, and when everyone wins equally, regardless of effort or ability, the satisfaction of overcoming obstacles or achieving mastery is lost.
Artificial vs. Natural Equality: Ultimate Frisbee and The New Games Movement's attempt to enforce equality through game design clashed with the inherent dynamics of play. For example, games like "Slaughter" aimed to ensure no winners or losers, but this artificial leveling removed the competitive element that many find engaging. Ultimate Frisbee’s aim to make the game appealing to a wider base of participants has backfired as many have found this approach to be a tremendous turnoff.
Similarly, Marxist systems often struggle when they prioritize equality of outcome over merit or natural variance, as noted in critiques of Marxist economic policies (Marxism | Definition, History, Ideology, Examples, & Facts | Britannica).Human Nature and Incentives: Both games and societies rely on incentives to motivate participation and excellence. The New Games Movement's rejection of competition and merit removed these incentives, leading to its decline, as seen in the closure of the New Games Foundation in 1990, as mentioned in the Laughing Squid article (The New Games Movement That Started in San Francisco in Late 1960s Is Returning in June 2016). Ultimate Frisbee has faced a constant struggle for many decades to achieve the kind of growth that most participants believe that it is deserving of. Rather than consider the possibility that it is the game’s framework that is the issue, the Ultimate Frisbee community leaders reshape the argument as a way of defending their ideology.
This parallels critiques of Marxist systems, which can stifle innovation and productivity when they prioritize equality over individual achievement, as discussed in various academic analyses of Marxism in cultural contexts (Rhetoric & Technical Communication | Marxism for Video Game Analysis).
The movement's eventual failure, as noted, highlights a shared challenge with Marxism: maintaining artificial equality can clash with natural differences and human incentives. Games, like societies, thrive on balance, and removing competition may reduce engagement, much like Marxist systems can struggle with productivity when prioritizing equality over merit.
If Ultimate Frisbee, as a culture and a community, is not willing to do some serious introspection on the validity and legitimacy of integrating the New Games philosophy into the framework for the game, it also faces a similar fate.
In summary, while direct Marxist references are limited, the ideological and cultural context strongly suggests significant Marxist undertones within both New Games as well as Ultimate Frisbee, making for a compelling case for connection. The parallels with these with Postmodern Neo Marxism (Woke ideology) further cements this compelling argument that the New Games movement was grown on Marxist soil.
Connection to Postmodern Neo-Marxism ("Wokism")
There exists a strong connection of the New Games Movement to Postmodern Neo-Marxism, or "Wokism," which extends Marxist principles to cultural and social domains rather than just economics. This mutated and metastasized derivative of Marxism seeks to dismantle hierarchies based on race, gender, sexuality, and other identities, advocating for equity and social justice.
The New Games Movement can be seen as a precursor to this ideology, as it applied similar principles to the cultural sphere of play.
Cultural Application of Marxist Principles: While classical Marxism focuses on economic class, "Wokism" extends its leveling impulse to cultural and social domains, seeking to correct historical inequities through proactive measures like affirmative action or identity-based policies. The New Games Movement prefigured this by applying equality to play, disregarding differences in physical or personal attributes and prioritizing universal participation. This is evident in its design of games that ensured everyone could play, regardless of ability, as noted in the Laughing Squid article, which highlights the movement's focus on inclusion and non-competitive play (The New Games Movement That Started in San Francisco in Late 1960s Is Returning in June 2016).
Deconstructionism and Restructuring: Both the New Games Movement and "Wokism" share roots in deconstructionism—the questioning of traditional assumptions—and the restructuring of society. The New Games Movement deconstructed the competitive, merit-based nature of traditional games, replacing it with a restructured system where outcomes were more evenly distributed. This mirrors "Wokism's" approach to breaking down societal norms, such as meritocracy or gender roles, and rebuilding them to prioritize equity. This connection is supported by the movement's philosophical underpinnings, as seen in Bernie De Koven's work, which emphasized play as a means of social transformation (How Games Pioneer Bernie De Koven Taught The Gospel Of Play).
Interestingly enough, when Irv Kalb discusses the early days of proselytizing Ultimate Frisbee in the early days, in virtually every interview he’s given or any book this is discussed, he has consistently talked about the fact that it felt to him that must have been what it was like starting Christianity and in many instance you online, can find references to The Gospel of Ultimate Frisbee
What is Ultimate.com Connection; Thus, the New Games Movement can be thought of as "Proto-Wokism," experimenting with applying Marxist-inspired equality and inclusivity to play, laying the groundwork for later cultural movements focused on social justice.
Detailed Analysis and Supporting Evidence
To further substantiate the argument, consider the following table summarizing key aspects of the New Games Movement and their potential Marxist connections:
This table highlights the ideological parallels, showing how the movement's goals and context align with Marxist principles, even if direct references are sparse. The lack of explicit Marxist terminology in primary sources, such as Bernie De Koven's works or the New Games Foundation's publications, suggests some controversy, but the cultural and philosophical connections are strong, as seen in the movement's alignment with countercultural critiques of capitalism.
Qui Bono?
Understanding and acknowledging that the New Games ideology had a significant impact on the development of Ultimate Frisbee’s rules, culture and community is vital information with regards to doing any sort of community-wide self-examination of whether or not the sport is headed in the right direction.
An important question to ask is ‘Who has benefited from the New Games framework implemented in the game of Ultimate Frisbee and who is penalized?’
It’s very clear the the players who have been penalized and harmed the most by this framework are the top 1% players, the exceptionally talented athletes. The players that have benefitted most are all the mediocre players so that they can compete on a playing field that has been skewed in their favor.
The real question here is whether or not Ultimate Frisbee has ever benefitted from the New Games Ideology and has utilizing this framework ever been in the best interest of the sport?
Innovation, competition and invention in sports comes from firm, consistent and non-arbitrary boundaries. When you have sport designed for the highest common denominator in athletic talent & performance, the exceptional player inspires all other players to become the best they possibly can become and new players will want to join and play the game because of where the exceptional players have taken it.
The idea that by appealing to the lowest common denominator, the sport will proliferate throughout society and prosper is a hypothesis that should be rejected out of hand. It was never true and it’s been a dismal failure.
The results are in and this cultural experiment has proven that the New Games ideology simply cannot produce a quality sport where the cream rises to the top. The Dan ‘Stork’ Roddick New Games ideology has been given FIFTY years to see if could work. It has not. The time to abandon it has long since past by now.
It’s time to put the New Games aspect of Ultimate Frisbee out of its misery.
It’s time for the Coup de Grass, the mercy kill.
Conclusion
The New Games Movement of the 1960s, with its mission to design games that were "fair and fun for all players" regardless of attributes like age, physique, gender, or athletic ability, exhibits significant Marxist undertones.
Through its pursuit of equality, its rejection of traditional competitive hierarchies, and its artificial leveling of the playing field—principles that resonate with Marxism’s economic vision and "Wokism’s" cultural agenda, Ultimate Frisbee has withered on the vine and has remained stale, stagnant and an embarrassing cultural anomaly for many decades.
Ultimate Frisbee sought to erase the natural hierarchies that emerge in traditional competitive games—hierarchies rooted in differences such as strength, speed, or skill—mirroring Marxism’s broader aim to dismantle class structures and redistribute resources for a more egalitarian society.
Historically, by connecting the New Games Movement and Marxist ideology to Ultimate Frisbee’s Spirit of The Game Philosophy and its modern cultural counterpart, often dubbed "Wokism" or Postmodern Neo-Marxism, we can empirically see time and again how this core attempt to artificially level the playing field has eventually failed every single time it’s been tried.
Ultimate Frisbee’s perpetual failure to successfully break into the mainstream sport scene underscores a key lesson: while the impulse to enforce fairness is ideologically compelling, it can falter when it denies the inherent dynamics—whether of games or human society—that make striving and succeeding worthwhile.
Ultimate Frisbee needs to be overhauled to help us push ourselves beyond what we thought we were possible of.
When we compete, whether in business, in politics or in life, our opponent is always the same.
Our most persistent and most worthy adversary is always our own mind.
A well designed sport isn’t there to push others to their limits.
A well designed sport is there for us to push ourselves beyond ours.
— Frank Huguenard
Key Citations
You'll never be remembered.