Cricket – especially Indian cricket -
at the Olympics has the jury divided. Will it become another glamorous sideshow
usurping the ‘poorer’ Olympic sports? Or will it boost the country’s medal
prospects?
Cricket has always been an accidental tourist at the
Olympics.It started with Athens in 1896,when the sport was pinned as one likely
to uphold Olympian ideals before a lack of entries shelved all plans.In 1900 in
Paris,two glorified club teams from Great Britain and France played at the
Universal Exposition after Belgium and Holland pulled out,but they didn’t even
know they were playing at an Olympics: the match was retrospectively granted
recognition only in 1912,and it remained the game’s last questionable tryst with
Baron Pierre de Coubertin’s legacy.For cricket,then,it has more been a case of a
road not being taken at all,rather than the road less travelled.That is,until
now.
Recent developments in Vancouver suggest that the new,snappy
Twenty20 might change it all in 2020.With the International Olympic Committee
granting full recognition to the International Cricket Council,cricket’s
governing body can bid for a slot in 2013 when the host for the 2020 Games will
be finalized.
While the shorter format might have facilitated this
move,have things really changed all that much since 1900,when Britain’s team
included players from the Devon County Wanderers Club at the expense of names
like CB Fry,Ranjitsinhji,Wilfred Rhodes and Sydney Barnes?
The
return of cricket at the world’s premier sports arena – interspersed with
one-off stints at the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur in 1998,the South
Pacific Games in 1979 and an anticipated debut at the Asian Games later this
year – could be bumpy with India,the most powerful entity in cricket’s booming
economy.At Kuala Lumpur a’split’ team was sent by India as BCCI had another
commitment.That the Board has also stalled World Anti-Doping Agency tests on its
players,mandatory for participation in the Olympics,indicates its disdain.
Perhaps by 2020,money-minded cricketers could get more gung-ho about
amateurish ideals and medals,but that’s doubtful.Perhaps the BCCI,with almost
the game’s entire revenue generation machinery at its disposal,could start
getting more convinced about the Olympics’ commercial potential than that of the
Indian Premier League,but don’t bet on it.
Maybe space will be
carved out from the packed Future Tours Progrmme,but what about the
ramifications on cricket-conditioned spectators and by extension,other Indian
sports? Especially the likes of hockey,once spirited world-beaters who now
merely totter? At one go,the IOC’s decision has given India,long inured to medal
poverty at the Games,some raging debates to spar with.
There’s a
school of thought that cricket will,at best,be a queer sideshow in the
gargantuan Olympic circus,more synchronized swimming than 100 metre dash.The ICC
has only 10 full members,and that’s no place to start.Of course,there are 35
associate members and 59 affiliate members,but it’s more a unique brainwave to
notch up the numbers,given that even the ICC will be hard-pressed to take their
competitive skills seriously.If spreading the game is ICC’s mission,how about an
IPL game in the US? “Cricket defies the Olympic spirit,” said the effervescent
and insightful former Indian cricket captain Bishan Singh Bedi.”The simple
reason is it’s not a global sport.It does not fit into the Olympic pantheon.In
India,what it will do is kill the other games even more,because cricket will hog
all media space and by extension,public attention during an Olympics.Cricketers
are prima donnas who don’t care about ideals,and the administrators are too
lustful to make way for such events.They can’t even sign up with WADA.These are
merely ill thought-out ways to desperately globalise the game or put it in the
Olympics and see if it works.Cricket and Olympics both don’t need each other.”
Naturally,there are those who disagree,like Australia’s Adam Gilchrist,who
argued at the Cowdrey Lecture last year that both the ICC and IOC could
benefit,one by branching out to the US and China,the other by penetrating the
subcontinental subconscious.For an India-specific focus,look no further than
former hockey captain MM Somaya,who has for long been vocal about reformatting
those government-run sports which languish due to corporate apathy and a corrupt
bureaucracy.”Cricket in the Olympics will be an added advantage for India,” he
says,”It is well-run and established.Our cricketers are talented,professional
sportsmen who deserve to have a go at an Olympic medal.Why deprive them of that
right? They are champion performers and their presence in the contingent will be
an awesome boost.It will add to cricket’s global presence,and other sports here
need not fear.Maybe they could learn a trick or two.” Why,then,doesn’t the
powerful BCCI sound so eager? Could its reluctance be a potential spanner in the
works for the ICC’s plans? Many feel focusing on massive revenuegenerating T20
tournaments,some of which are still largely developing brands like the Champions
League,make more sense.One official argued: “Cricket’s revenue-generating
model,based on TV deals,is unlikely to be replicated in the Olympic arena and
scheduling will be a hassle.Also,in future,will a highpriced cricketer be
allowed to sacrifice his T20 club commitments for the Olympics?” One premier
sportsman who wholeheartedly agrees is double trap shooter Rajyavardhan Singh
Rathore,India’s first individual Olympic silver medal winner (since Norman
Pritchard’s silver double in 1900,if you consider him Indian) at Athens in
2004.”The question is who needs the other more,” feels Rathore,”The Olympics is
a brand and so is IPL.Right now,when it comes to the subcontinent,I think Brand
Olympics needs Brand Cricket,or Brand IPL,if you may.Indian cricket doesn’t need
the Olympics,it’s the other way round.The BCCI seems to know that only too
well.The Olympics is a global brand,while IPL is an Indian brand,with Indian
character.Maybe we should develop our Indian brands more,so,like FIFA,we can
call the shots instead.Why do you think most big soccer stars are not there at
the Olympics,while the hoopsters are? The clubs would never release big stars
and the Games had to bow to that.The IPL is professional,while the rest is a
weird mix of the amateur and the professional.It remains to be seen if top
cricketers are made available for the Olympics.”
There are other
potential pitfalls.In 1998,the BCCI and the Indian Olympic Association were at
loggerheads over squad selection before the Commonwealth Games,with the board
stuck between honouring its contract with a marketing agency and sending a’B’
team to Kuala Lumpur.The use of jersey logos was another sore point.The ICC
bailed everyone out by suggesting the matches would not be conferred One-day
status.For a board which argued successfully in court that it was an independent
body effectively owning the brand name’India’ when it came to cricket
representation,who’s to say these problems won’t snowball a decade later?
Then,of course,there’s the bigger impact on other sports.”India is
just getting to be a presence in some Olympic disciplines,” argues former hockey
captain Pargat Singh,”These need to be funded,encouraged,not be sidestepped by a
glamour show.I think the Olympics should drop the word’amateur’ from its ideals
as it seems more and more inclined to allow professionals to boost ratings.It’s
not about individuals,it’s about the team.”
One compromise solution
could be to adopt the FIFA model,and make cricket in the Olympics an event for
the under-23 with an allowance for three overage players,but former world
amateur billiards champion Michael Ferreira is not convinced.”I love my
cricket,but it’s a chicken and egg situation.Cricket is on its way to milking
the last penny from corporates.Sunil Gavaskar was an icon who changed the way
India thought,but so was Dhanraj Pillay,” he says,”Why this easy’brand building’
fixation now? T20 in the Games will be a disaster for other sports because the
event will be usurped by the cricket industry.I am even against tennis in the
Olympics,because winning a Grand Slam means more than bagging a medal.What have
our Olympic champs like Abhinav Bindra and Rathore actually got back?
Nothing.Olympics are no place for the ragtag,bobtailed armies which have
recognized that T20 offers them a unique opportunity to stay in the limelight.”
Rathore,though,is against such pigeonholing.”It’s morally wrong to
stop cricket’s entry to protect weaker disciplines,” he says.”It’s idle
speculation whether its presence in the Olympics will harm other sports.It will
take years but in time,the Indian public will learn to appreciate other sporting
achievements on the world stage,see what other sportsmen are up against,and that
will have a positive effect.By the time 2020 arrives,India will hopefully be
regular medal contenders in at least four disciplines.Other sports need not be
insecure,maybe they’ll benefit too.What is not speculation is India will have a
chance to bid for Olympic medals in another sport.Cricket will be a strong medal
prospect,so I welcome it.”
T20 in the Games? It’s guaranteed to be
an eye-turner,at least in India.At the end of the day,it’s just another medal
contender,but right now,public perception seems to be our cricketers merely need
to turn up to guarantee the country a gold.Maybe,in time,fans might discover
it’s not so easy!
