The normative theory of conventionalism can claim very few adherents in sport philosophy circles. Its failure to garner any significant support in this regard cannot be attributed solely to benign neglect. For what little attention it has received in the literature has been mostly of the critical, dismissive, variety. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that my survey of this literature is notable, save for a few exceptions, only for the negative, unflattering picture it paints of conventionalism as a theory of sport. But it may well be surprising, given what I have just said, that the second section of my essay is devoted to a robust defense of conventionalism against its many critics, which in part draws from the work of those select few in the sport philosophy community who think there is more to this theory than initially meets the eye. That defense is long overdue, since I think its critics have not only failed to see what conventionalism has to contribute to normative discussions of sport, but have also badly mischaracterized as well what such a theory, rightly understood, looks like and stands for. These two apparent errors are, of course, related, since it is in part because critics of conventionalism mistake what conventionalism comes to as a normative theory that they have seen fit to reject it, root and branch, as a substantive approach to the critical study of sport. To be sure, my effort to restore conventionalism’s good name depends on taking seriously the main criticisms that have been levelled against it, which, in turn, depends on giving those criticisms that comprise almost the whole of the extant literature a fair and comprehensive hearing.