"India's addiction to just one sport — cricket — is a real puzzle: "

 

Times of India
22/05/2013

India's addiction to just one sport — cricket — is a real puzzle:
Allen Sanderson
Ronojoy Sen | May 20, 2013, 12.00 AM IST

The IPL's spot-fixing scandal has kicked off a larger discussion about India's sporting culture. Allen Sanderson of the University of Chicago, renowned for its economists, is an authority on the economics of sports. Speaking with Ronojoy Sen, Sanderson discussed India's obsession with cricket, why he thinks the Commonwealth Games didn't benefit India much — and why the world's most beautiful game hasn't made a big goal in America yet:

You must have noticed India's fondness for cricket — why do you think India has developed virtually as a one-sport nation?

 I have no idea why India puts most of its eggs in one basket — cricket! There's only a nod to soccer and strangely, to field hockey as your country's national sport. I think for the country as a whole, and particularly for schoolchildren growing up, you'd be better off diversifying and having, say, half a dozen popular sports here.

 India's seeming addiction to just this one sport is really a bit of a puzzle.

You mention other sports — why has the world's number one sport, football or soccer, not become so popular in America?

 In the US, soccer has had to compete against well-established popular sports such as baseball, American football and basketball. So, it's an uphill climb. In addition, Americans seem to enjoy more scoring as opposed to finesse styles of play that very often don't result in a goal. And we probably prefer a little regular break now and then, to grab a bite to eat or something to drink. The other major sports, including ice hockey, lend themselves to regular periodic stoppages of play — thus, 45 minutes of uninterrupted running up and down the field with little, if any, end result, like a goal or two, is simply unappealing to a culture that increasingly wants a mix of entertainment in its sporting events.

 Plus, that's where the big bucks are — television broadcasts and to be effective, these require well-defined stoppages.

Outside of TV, the American college sporting system, often funded by private money, is seen as a model by developing nations. What's your view of this?

 I would certainly hope that the rest of the world would resist trying to emulate the American collegiate system. This largely rewards coaches, athletic departments and middle and upper-income white students who play on non-revenue teams like volleyball, swimming, diving and baseball. The revenues that underwrite such commitments are borne on the backs of lower-income, inner-city African-American players who are being grossly exploited.

What would you recommend as a good model to develop sports?

 In my view, the European Community sponsorship is a much better system.

Finally, there was huge controversy over the 2010 Commonwealth Games held in Delhi — are big-ticket sporting events beneficial for the host city or domestic sports?

 Well, to the world outside India, the consensus was that the Commonwealth Games, largely owing to corruption and inefficiencies, were considered a net loss for India.

 In general, big-ticket games, like the World Cup, Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games or events which include Nato summits, political conventions, etc, are rarely a net plus for a city or country. Too much money gets spent and too much is spent on things or places with relatively low value. One should view these events as a party of sorts, a short-term fun or pleasurable activity — and not an investment.

 
 
 
 















.




7