I used to really enjoy my twenty-five years or so of hard, competitive tennis. Admittedly though, it was the physical activity itself which drove me, not diehard competitive spirit, and when I improved and was placed in serious teams I found all the analysis and arguments unpleasant and stopped. Nonetheless, at seventy, it seems to me that those among my contemporaries who played no sport are now the poorer for it in several ways. There is the obvious quality of residual fitness, which I have come to believe does actually exist, but there is also the mental aspect of sportsmanship, which is difficult to define but instantly recognisable in someone. Not all sportspeople possess sportsmanship, especially these days, but those who do have a valuable mental attribute in all fields of endeavour. It is the ability to have an intense battle with somebody within a harmless, controlled framework and emerge the best of mates afterwards regardless of who wins.
Luckily, I never had the right build to participate in those sports which are clearly dangerous to health. For example, there is growing realisation that concussion from the contact varieties of football is producing dementia in alarming frequency among older, ex-footballers. Other examples of harm exist in other popular sports. The sentiments of the previous paragraph, therefore, do not apply to those sports having a high probability of serious injury.
So part of me agrees with outin, as sports are certainly neither necessary nor sufficient, (exercise might be necessary for health though) but another part agrees with mjames.
Topic: I'd like to make an announcement