Abstract
As sports have become more professional, winning has become more important. This emphasis
on results, rather than sporting virtue and winning in style, probably explains the
rising incidence of the Strategic Foul. Surprisingly, it has found some apologists among the
philosophers of sport. The discussion of the Strategic Foul in the literature has produced
subtle distinctions (e.g. Cesar Torres: constitutive skills versus restorative skills) as well as
implausible distinctions (e.g. D’Agostino: ‘impermissible’ but ‘acceptable’ behaviour). In
this paper I will review Robert Simon’s defence of strategic fouling and conclude that his
justification is not convincing.