Contributors to the literature on gamesmanship typically assume that gamesmanship can be clearly distinguished from other legal strategies used in sports. In this article, we argue that this is a mistake. Instead, we propose that gamesmanship is a form ofstrategic excellenceand a proper part of competitive sport. Using Howe's influential work on gamesmanship as a representation of the received view, we show how the current debate rests on a presupposition that fails to withstand critical scrutiny (Section 2). Further, we argue that once this distinction is shown to be untenable, Howe's evaluative account of gamesmanship fails (Section 3). By contrast, our alternative analysis leads us to a more positive evaluation of gamesmanship. In particular, we contend that effective uses of gamesmanship are simply examples ofstrategic excellencethat - by definition - fall within the boundaries of what is permissible in competitive sport. We conclude by considering the relationship between gamesmanship and the spirit of the sport (Section 4) and by addressing a potential criticism that draws an analogy between sport and professional practices that clearly do not permit strategies akin to gamesmanship (Section 5).