Eminent sports journalist Ayaz Memon uses the immortal Churchillian conundrum to tell Aditi Phadnis what is wrong with sports administration in India.
I think the fact that sport is in a mess in our country is indisputable...
This year itself affords several instances to establish that the malaise is both deep and widespread. IPL (Indian Premier League) is mired in controversy, the Commonwealth Games seem to be exploding with worms and scandals every day, the hockey establishment saved itself from being rusticated from FIH (the international hockey federation) by holding elections but appears divided down the middle, football is on the precipice of disaster, tennis has issues pertaining to selection for the Davis Cup, there are dope-related issues with weightlifting, etc, etc, etc. All this despite an enhanced sports budget, a bigger spend on infrastructure and training, more sponsorships and far enhanced involvement of the corporate sector.
But there are some areas of solace, of course. In chess, Vishy Anand has consolidated his position as the world’s best player, and Saina Nehwal’s meteoric rise to No 2 in world women’s badminton. Somdev Devbarman has broken into the top 100 in men’s tennis, Leander Paes is still winning Grand Slam doubles titles. Some shooters like Gagan Narang have done well, as indeed have some of the young boxers.
Yet, by and large, sports in India still seems beset with problems; some of them so fundamental and so old as to be diabolical. To use the immortal Churchillian conundrum, the situation’s hopeless but not serious!
Vishwanathan Anand, Sania Mirza, Bindra, even Devvarman are shining examples of excellence. So, is it only in team sports that things begin to go wrong?
It would seem so, but that is not necessarily true. All of them actually achieved laurels more on their own rather than any great help from the system. Abhinav Bindra, the only individual Olympic gold medallist from the country, could write a treatise on what odds he had to fight to reach where he did!
In hockey, football, cricket, athletics, weight-lifting, badminton... the problems are of a different kind
While this might appear so, at the core, the problem is no different. Most sports federations have either become moribund, showing neither the energy nor the vision to make any progress, or centres of power from where fuddy-duddy administrators can rule or ride roughshod over sports persons with utter disdain. What matte rs to them is retaining their vantage positions, from which they can decide on government grants and the like, usually putting pelf before self — and certainly before national interest.
This lust for power is so ingrained that almost all federations rebuffed the recent attempt by the sports ministry to limit the terms of office and set an upper age limit for holding position. The 83-year-old Vidya Stokes, who recently won the hockey elections, could be seen as a triumph of the democratic process, but I don’t know whether it is necessarily a victory for the sport.
The protracted conflict between the sports ministry and sundry sports federations reflects the utter lack of direction in Indian sport. This dissonance succours malafide intent because power has become an end in itself rather than for the good of sport. And the government has never seen sports as a priority sector either. Till very recently, the sports ministry was considered a punishment posting (as Mani Shankar Aiyar had put it), which tells its own story.
In that sense, cricket, which is not accountable to the government, has been far better run, is financially healthier and – despite the recent controversies – has made rapid strides in providing infrastructure and support services, tapping talent, providing a livelihood. It has followed a vision with purpose and thrust, helping raise the benchmark not just in performance, but also marketing the sport effectively and making the sport a multi-billion dollar industry. But, as the IPL controversy has shown, the foundation of the cricket establishment can also be shaken up easily by greed. So, hard soul-searching and administrative regimentation is needed here too.
If you ask me, the problem is two-fold. At the nitty-gritty level, it is of administration and governance — or the absence of it. At a philosophical level, it is the absence of sports culture in the country not just in the administrators, but in the people too. With such an apathetic approach at the level of government/federations and the public – it doesn’t surprise me that India still languishes so badly in most sports.
So, there are serious problems with administration. Should corporate houses then take up sport sponsorship and edge the government out altogether?
I would certainly like to see less and less of the government in sport. In fact, I don’t see the need for a sports ministry either. The United States doesn’t have one: It has a president’s council of health or some such under whose purview come the associations/federations/leagues et al. There is less governmental interference, more transparency and certainly more energy, effort and imagination in making the concerned sport viable in terms of talent, spectator appeal and profitability.
I think getting corporate houses involved is the best way forward, and the good part is that more and more companies are willing to support sport, either because of CSR (corporate social responsibility), corporate philosophy or promoter interest. Even in creating infrastructure, I believe public-private partnership is the way to go: The government could provide land and then settle down to monitor wasteful expense or greed, while private enterprise makes the infra financially viable. I believe the corporate world is willing, but must be assured of transparency, not shenanigans.
But then, China doesn’t have corporate sponsorship of sport. How do they do it?
A totalitarian political system obviously helps in this endeavour. The inherent contradictions and the tugs and pulls in a democratic set-up make for greater chances of dissipation of energy and money, unless the scrutiny on all activities is hard and consistent. There is no slag in the Chinese system — there is too much of it in the Indian one.
What is the way out?
Greater people involvement will help create a more vibrant sports culture in the country, more corporate involvement will make it more robust and productive. Greater media focus has already alerted the public to what can happen, but often does not and why. The RTI Act allows for more things to be brought into the public domain for assessment, debate and redressal. Sports today is not just a source of pleasure for the participants and spectators, but also of great national pride and a symbol of a healthy country. These are good enough reasons for it to be seen as a priority sector, not just a pastime.
