In 2007, Fifa President Sepp Blatter visited Kolkata and watched a match between traditional rivals East Bengal and Mohun Bagan. Afterwards, asked whether Fifa would invest more money in Indian football, the voluble Swiss said: “Help yourself and heaven will help you”. Which was an elliptical way of saying no. Few people would argue with Mr Blatter on this point, even if they haven't witnessed the painfully low quality of India’s top football clubs. With a country ranking of 133, India has few reasons to put before Fifa for funds. But Mr Blatter was making a more important point that Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel, who heads India's football federation, may want to consider as the 2010 Fifa World Cup draws to a close after being hosted by a country with an economy a quarter the size of India’s.
Fifa’s vision for India, Mr Blatter explained, was “Win in India with India” by improving infrastructure first. “India is a rich country,” Mr Blatter said, “and I am sure that with the proper infrastructure and culture of football at an early stage, be it in schools or universities or at the regional leagues, Indian football will definitely improve a lot.” That’s the kind of sensible recommendation that India’s disorganised and politicised football administration is unlikely to follow. Yet, it must surely be a matter of embarrassment that the country's international football record has deteriorated steadily in the nineties — from 100 in 1993 to 133 in 2010. The country’s best result has been fourth place in the 1956 Melbourne Olympics (the story that the Indian team was disqualified from the 1950 World Cup because its footballers were barefoot is disputed).
If one takes Mr Blatter’s point that success begets investment, then Indian football has a long way to go before it can be deemed worthy of the kind of money the world governing body for football pours into Africa. It is striking that countries like Ivory Coast, Ghana, South Africa and Nigeria routinely turn out global football stars whereas India’s most-capped player to date was mostly benched by a second division English club.
Many theories have been forwarded for African footballers’ success in the European leagues, most of them absurdly racist (Sampler: they are tough because they only eat meat since there is little crop cultivation). The fact is that many of these small, poor African nations see a link between poverty alleviation and footballing success, and this prompts them to channel a mania for the game into constructive promotion at local levels, so Fifa is happy to pour money into these countries. The impact of their programmes can be seen on the world stage. And the international success of their players has created a feedback effect; most African footballers who make it big in Europe remit their earnings for schools and hospitals and public facilities in their native countries.
By contrast, India, a country with 384,900 registered players and over 6,500 clubs (compared with, say, 23,000 players and 220 clubs in Ivory Coast) barely invests in its footballing infrastructure despite the publicised efforts of the odd corporation. Indeed, one of the most successful local clubs, Mahindra United, backed by conglomerate Mahindra & Mahindra, will be disbanded after the 2010 season. In 2007, Mr Blatter called India a “sleeping giant”. The country’s 50 million football fans wait for the country's football administration to wake up, with more hope than realistic expectation.
