Why Competition Is Mostly Toxic — With One Possible Exception

We’ve all heard it: “Healthy competition is good for you.”
In school, in sports, in business, we are conditioned to believe that competition brings out the best in people. We praise the hustle, celebrate the winners, and tell ourselves that the struggle is worth it because it drives progress.

But I’m not convinced.

In my experience, competition rarely feels healthy. It feels toxic. It warps priorities, drives people to burnout, and often turns potentially positive experiences into zero-sum games. Whether in sports or in business, I struggle to see much long-term value in competition when it becomes the driving force behind human effort.

The Myth of Healthy Competition

We’ve been sold the idea that competition fuels excellence — that pushing yourself to beat others somehow makes you better. But when you really look at it, competition often shifts the focus away from what truly matters: growth, collaboration, and value creation.

Instead, it feeds an obsession with being the best, not necessarily better. And there’s a difference.

Sport: When Winning Becomes the Only Thing

Consider sport. The narrative is all about being the best, beating your rivals, and standing on top of the podium. Sure, that might motivate some people to train harder or push their limits, but at what cost?

When winning becomes the only goal, people cut corners, take drugs, or sacrifice their health and relationships. The desire to beat others takes over the joy of simply improving oneself. Even among amateurs, I’ve seen how the pressure to outperform others kills enjoyment and creates unnecessary stress.

Studies have shown that this kind of pressure can lead to serious mental health consequences, including anxiety, depression, and burnout. For example, research published in the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology highlights how the competitive nature of sports often leads to high levels of performance anxiety and stress in athletes. Another study found that young athletes, in particular, suffer significant psychological harm from the relentless pressure to win, including perfectionism and identity issues (source).

Does society really benefit from a generation of people wired to feel they are never good enough unless they defeat everyone else? I’m not so sure.

Business: Consumers as Collateral Damage

The same story plays out in business. We’re told that competition leads to lower prices, better products, and more choice for consumers. But in reality, what often happens is that businesses become obsessed with beating the competition, not serving the customer.

Companies slash prices unsustainably, rush out half-baked features, or prioritize marketing stunts over meaningful innovation — all in the name of winning. And when one company finally dominates, competition doesn’t improve anything. It disappears.

We don’t get healthy markets. We get monopolies. We get walled gardens. We get companies that forget about us the moment they’ve crushed their rivals. Research from the Chicago Booth Review warns that monopolies often lead to higher prices, reduced innovation, and worse outcomes for consumers. Additional analysis by Camoin Associates points out that monopolistic dominance also creates barriers to entry, stifling future innovation and economic diversity.

Even regulatory bodies like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority are being urged to address these issues, particularly in the tech industry where dominance by companies like Apple and Google is raising serious concerns (source).

But What About the Winners?

Of course, many would argue that the pain is worth it. Just look at the success stories we glorify — athletes like Michael Jordan, Serena Williams, or Tom Brady. These individuals are often held up as proof that relentless competition breeds greatness.

And to an extent, that’s true. These are examples of people who channeled their competitive drive into historic achievements. But even then, I have to ask: at what cost?

Take Michael Jordan, whose competitiveness is legendary. His obsession with winning pushed him to the top of his sport, but it also left a trail of strained relationships, personal sacrifices, and — by many accounts — a lingering restlessness, as if winning never fully satisfied him. As noted in Business Insider, Jordan’s competitiveness extended beyond the court, often turning everyday activities into intense competitions, suggesting a relentless drive that may have overshadowed personal enjoyment.

The same could be said of Serena Williams, who after decades of dominance still seemed burdened by the weight of having to constantly prove herself. According to ESPN, those close to her describe an internal turbulence that has driven her to rise from moments of despair and continue to chase excellence, even as she seeks happiness in a life that regularly tests her ability to overcome.

Tom Brady, who extended his career well beyond what most would consider fulfilling, seemingly driven by a fear of stopping more than a love of playing. His intense desire to win, described by former teammates as a “sickness,” illustrates a competitiveness that may have come at the expense of personal peace (Business Insider).

Success, in these cases, doesn’t seem to bring peace or lasting joy. Instead, it appears to fuel a never-ending cycle of rivalry, pressure, and anxiety. You have to wonder: Is that really winning?

The Evolutionary Exception

There is, however, one domain where competition arguably has a legitimate claim to being healthy: nature.

Biological competition — the kind you see in evolution — has led to the development of stronger, smarter, and more adaptable species over time. Animals compete for resources, territory, and mates, and this process seems to genuinely improve the resilience and survival of species. The concept of intraspecific competition — competition within the same species — is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory and natural selection.

The Red Queen Hypothesis further explains how species must constantly evolve not just to gain an advantage, but simply to survive in an ever-changing ecosystem. This kind of competition, while brutal, serves a larger purpose: the ongoing adaptation and survival of life itself.

Yet, it’s worth noting that nature also thrives on symbiosis — cooperation between species for mutual benefit. Competition isn’t the only force at work.

What If We Aimed for Mastery, Not Victory?

What if we stopped glorifying the act of beating others and started focusing on being better than we were yesterday?

Instead of building systems that pit people, companies, and ideas against each other, what if we built environments that reward collaboration, long-term thinking, and sustainable value creation?

We could still push ourselves to improve, but without needing someone else to lose for us to win.

Rethinking Our Obsession

It’s time we challenged the narrative that competition is always good. In most cases, it’s a distraction. A toxic game that warps priorities and leaves real potential untapped.

Let’s be honest about the cost. And let’s start building cultures, in sport, business, and life, where success is measured not by how many others we’ve beaten, but by how much better we’ve become.