Regulating the business of sport
The Bhupathi-Bopanna-Sania-Paes mess teaches us one
lesson: We need an independent regulatory body to deal with conflict of interest
when sport becomes business.
The very public bickering over the
selection of the Indian tennis team to the London Olympics has been seen
primarily as a clash of egos. With all the stars in the team well past their
prime, their egos are bound to be far greater than their capabilities. But the
unseemly drama has also served to brush under the carpet the larger issue of the
relationship between business and sport. If we ignore the personalities and look
at this episode in more abstract terms, it makes a strong case for a regulatory
body, independent of the government, the associations and the players, that will
ensure there is no conflict of interest in decision-making when sport becomes a
business.
To recognise the case for a
regulatory body, let us consider a hypothetical situation not entirely
dissimilar to what has just occurred in Indian tennis. In this situation, there
are five men players in a racquet sport ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. There is also a
woman player. The player ranked 2 owns a company that manages individual
sportspersons. Players rank 3 and 4 are contracted to this company, as is the
woman player. Add a member of the Union Cabinet with an important portfolio
being the Chief Patron of another of the entrepreneurial ventures of the player
ranked 2.
Players over selectors
The team for a major event is first
selected by a committee that includes players of another era who served the
country with great distinction and little arrogance. They choose players ranked
1 and 2 to be the doubles team. When 2 refuses, they ask 3 who also refuses.
Player 4 is not considered as he is supposed to be injured though he is fit
enough to get a wild card from the international federation. Finally, two teams
are selected consisting of those ranked 2 and 3, and those ranked 1 and 5.
Whether these teams will actually
win a medal is debatable. In a country where hope has always triumphed over
experience when following sport, let us say they come up with as many gold
medals as are available. But as far as the management of sport in India is
concerned, two principles have been effectively laid down. First, players can,
if they manage the media and the political space right, overrule selectors. And
second, belonging to the right corporate body promoting sportspersons is a more
effective route to the national team than impressing selectors.
Attributing this situation entirely
to the actions of one set of individuals would completely miss the wood for the
trees. The mess is the result of an unregulated commercialisation of sport. When
sports, particularly the more individualistic ones, get commercialised, the
benefits are unevenly distributed. Those at the top get a very high share of the
economic gain. With a few individuals gathering the spoils, there is extreme
competition for the few places at the top. The focus of the sport shifts from
finding talent among the youth at large, to making stars out of those who are
already seen to be talented. And in this intensive competition, corporate bodies
that create stars gain a stranglehold on the players and, through them, the
association.
Doling out largesse
The moral challenge in this
situation should not be underestimated. In a country starved of success in
globally-recognised sports, the stars get a great deal of largesse from the
Central and State governments. This largesse extends to corporate bodies owned
by the stars, and often includes the grant of significant amounts of land. It is
not unknown for State governments to hand over land taken over from farmers to a
sports entity. The stars then develop real estate interests, and it is not
unknown for such a star to be a director on other real estate companies.
While this system benefits the
individual stars, it does not do much good to sport. With little attention paid
to finding new talent from the people at large, the talent pool becomes
restricted. We then have to make stars out of very limited star material.
A country that accounts for a sixth
of the world’s population has to make do with a former woman singles player
demanding prima donna status on the basis of an occasional performance in
mixed doubles, an event that none of the major players consider worth their
while.
Regulatory body
Breaking out of this low level star
trap will require multiple initiatives. The focus in sports policy must shift
from developing stars from a limited talent pool, to picking up talent from the
youth at large.
More urgently, we need an
independent regulatory body that deals with the conflict of interests that arise
when sport becomes a business. Basic norms, like current sportspersons not
contracting other players in the same sport, will reduce the chances of a cartel
being formed by a group of sportspersons to keep out a competitor.
The Bhupathi-Bopanna-Sania-Paes
mess no doubt tarnished the image of Indian sport on the eve of the Olympics.
But it did teach us one lesson: Since players have shown they can be as
destructive in managing sports as other administrators, there is an urgent need
to set up an independent regulatory body if we are to prevent malpractices from
overriding all our sport.
- Umesh Shanmugham
No comments:
Post a Comment