There is a very superficial argument in support of team sports. I would argue that supporting team sports is way worse than supporting national governments. I would say that ideally we should do away with both eventually, but even for things that you're against, some are worse than others.
Nation states perform a purpose. If you live in a developed country, your chances of survival and passing on your genes are far higher than living in tribal society. So even though my views are mostly anarchistic and I have many criticisms against nationalism, I would pledge my allegiance to the United States before any other country or sports team any day.
Sports fanaticism is one of the crudest form of tribalism that persists to this day. It perpetuates an "us vs them" mentality that spreads hate without any rational consequences. If you frame sports games as a form of religious ceremony with the team mascot as an idol, then everyone would think that it is the most violent, lunatic, and primitive form of religion there is. Fans attack each other and rally behind warriors who battle against worshippers of different gods. Sports fanaticism tap into the most primal nature of mankind.
You cannot have a voluntaryist society that promotes sports fanaticism. The sports are a representation of ancient warrior cultures. Humans evolved for survival, not for accurate perception of reality. In terms of peace, sports are our ways of experiencing the desire for war. In war, bloodlust irrationality is inevitable. Conflicts between fans will escalate into honor killings and primitive rituals in an anarchist society that allows for sports fanaticism. That is the biological nature of human beings.
Wow! What kind of sports are you watching? You make it sound like every sporting event is a gladiator match that's fought to the death, with the crowd cheering for more blood-lust.
Sorry, but I just don't see that happening. Is there an occasional fight that breaks out among (usually drunk) fans? Yes. Do teams compete on the field and are there fans that have a preferred team that they want to see win the competition? Of course. Does this mean that it's necessarily violent or even that the other competitors are necessarily an "enemy?" Not at all.
Does such a competition make the event worse than a coercive state that harasses, extorts, assaults, imprisons, and murders individuals on a routine basis? Not at all.
I get that some people just don't like sports, but trying to characterize sports as the problem with society is absurd. And in an anarchist society, who's going to forcibly prevent athletes from competing with each other? Who's going to prevent people from watching such competitions and being entertained by them? The fact of the matter is, athletic competition isn't going anywhere...probably ever. If nobody's rights are being violated, then it's not anyone's concern. If a rabid fan wants to attack someone, then they can be dealt with accordingly. I just don't see how someone participating in sports or watching them for entertainment is my business. They can do what they want and I'll be OK.
That's not my point. I don't think sports are bad. There is a lot of value in team sports. What I'm saying is that rallying a whole city behind sports fanaticism is philosophically incompatible to volutaryism, which I also think is good in many ways but also flawed. Saying that in an ideal world, people can follow the NAP and not infringe on other people's right to their own activities and beliefs is as silly as liberals believing in a communist utopia.
Competition, coercion, and deep personal connections are necessary for human beings. There is no steady state equilibrium. I think the world needs people with voluntaryist anarchist opinions, yet at the same time, it will never work for the whole world.
The religious nature of team sports I discussed in the previous post was not entirely an attack on either religion or team sports. They are simply inherently connected mindsets that makes us human, for better and for worse. There's a cost and benefit to such behaviors. For every cost that you list for statism, there's a counterbalancing benefit. For every cost of anarchy, there is also a counterbalancing benefit. Government is complex network of relationships. Human beings are largely irrational, and if you've ever played the telephone game, you know that information gets distorted the further away you are from the epicenter. That is the cause of conflicts in all relationships. Between 2 people, it could be a fight between spouses. When the network is bigger, like in a government, the miscommunications affect many more nodes, so the effects are amplified and could lead to deaths.
Until we can mind meld, we cannot solve the problem of imperfect information. What anarchists do is pointing out the superficial problems without offering any deep insights or solutions.
Don't just observe what happens as an immediate effect of an action. If that's all that matters, then everyone would have been libertarians already for thousands of years. When you realize that consequences of actions become extremely complicated when you expand the implications out 10 steps, you start to see the intrinsic connections between statism, team sports, religions, and many many more ideas. Now add in a random error parameter to every step, and you start to see that anarchy isn't as elegant and ideal of a proposal as people make it out to be.
Therefore, I can lean anarchist and personally enjoy playing sports while having this view of global dynamics. I consciously avoid confirmation bias.