F1 motor racing is an example of strict and changing regulation, where the regulating body appears to control rather than to simply define the sport. There have been major changes in the rules of F1 recently, almost on an annual basis, and more are planned. Sometimes this is done for safety reasons, sometimes to make the racing more interesting as a spectator sport, and sometimes to promote competition through involvement of smaller teams.Some changes make overtaking more probable for example or reduce the probability of an overwhelming technical advantage by any one team. Although heavily regulated, most people agree that the sport has thereby greatly benefitted, not least through dramatic leaps in safety.
The degree of organisation can vary from national or worldwide competitions for the sport, or it can occur in a purely ad-hoc, spontaneous way. A sport may be played individually (e.g. time trialling in cycling) or in a team, or just for recreation and well being (e.g. swimming).
Some challenging situations have had to be dealt with when there is an overlap of the regulation of the sport with other forms of regulation, e.g. safety (There have been serious losses of life in football audiences, through stand collapses or poor crowd management), or simple laws of the land (Some inadvertent or otherwise physical interchanges occur between participants: when is it acceptable for the sport regulating authority alone to investigate and if necessary punish these?) Can there be economic or public relations pressures affecting these issues?