Stop ! Think ! Then if you must, revile...

Real Madrid have had quite a summer. Their massive spending has induced shrill screams of indignation and foretellings of doom from most of us and our pet budgies. Labels ranging from the mild ‘unprincipled’ to the vitriolic ‘scum’ have been slapped on them with cheerful nonchalance. Even pontiff Platini of UEFA has felt the need to wade in with his tuppenceworth. The wave of antipathy that is directed at Real seems to unify widely disparate sections of the footballing spectrum, who whatever our differences on most other issues, all agree that there is something unsound and corrupt about the way Real are aiming to win their tenth. Indeed, a large number of us even seem to look upon the acquisitions as a personal insult and wait with anticipation for the experiment to fail so that we may rejoice gleefully at the fall of ‘the evil empire’. Viewed from a broad perspective, especially for those of us somewhat more financially challenged than the millionaires of Real, this is quite a natural reaction. What gives them the right to showcase their apparent opulence at a time when the rest of the world is struggling to get by ? And while their activities are admittedly quite annoying when viewed from this perspective, a deeper examination of the state of big football clubs today and perhaps a measure of introspection might lead us to question some of our viewpoints.

Let us begin by looking at the very fundamental question of why the really big football clubs exist? What in other words is their raison d’être? This is actually not a particularly easy question to answer and can draw a wide variety of responses. Certainly common among them will be bringing joy to the fans and providing local youngsters the opportunity to play the game. Making money for their owners probably wouldn’t figure in that list. Yet it is in many ways evident, particularly in the English premier league that this is the ultimate objective which clubs now serve. Who then believes that Malcolm Glazer really cares about the cheers of the Stretford end or that Messrs Gillet and Hicks really lose sleep over the happiness rating of the kop faithful.

Compare that to the way Real Madrid have done it. While the signings have been made with an eye on the commercial potential of the players, the only purpose of that is to try and keep the club solvent by bringing in money. The money that Real make, and don’t forget until last year they made more of it than any other club in the world, is therefore used purely and simply to fulfill previously stated objectives. The banks have for reasons best known to themselves agreed to foot the bill for Real’s spending spree, but how exactly is that a concern of ours? What is also to be remembered is that these banks include Santander, one of the very few to emerge from the recession stronger than it went in. And speaking of relying on dodgy financial firms, who was it that AIG was giving millions of pounds of it’s money to, even as it’s investors were losing all of theirs ?

Certainly, the quality of the players signed is beyond doubt, and so is the fact that if they do start to gel they will produce some devastating football. And, after a season of humiliation and despair, this is what the fans of Real Madrid needed. This club exists therefore to serve it’s fans. This, coupled with the philosophy of unwavering commitment to attacking football that is historically associated with the club is added reason for the fan of the beautiful game to love rather than loathe Real Madrid.

Another accusation of those who love to hate the blancos is that they prise away, with the aid of the filthy lucre, players who have been nurtured and groomed by other clubs. And this makes less sense than anything else, because not only do Real pay more than fair price for any player they sign, their signings are usually established footballers who have already served their clubs for some period with distinction. So is there a moral high ground to be claimed by a club which on the one hand berates Real for inflating the transfer market and at the same is accused of offering monetary inducements to 14-15 year old kids from lesser teams to sign on for them? Remember, most of these kids will fall by the wayside and end up with little. And when the odd one does blossom and turn into a quality player, the manager is praised for his ‘eye for talent’, for being shrewd and not falling into the trap of spending big money.

Another argument against Real’s policies is that as a result of their signings, their own youngsters get little opportunity. And yet, no less than five players from the academy (Casillas, Arbeloa, Granero, Guti and Raul) and eight Spanish players (+Xabi Alonso, Raul Albiol, Sergio Ramos) have already started for Real in the primera liga this season. This is significantly higher than that of most other top European clubs. A number of the academy players have had stints with other teams before breaking into the Real first team, but that is only to be expected and ultimately, they are Madridistas playing for Madrid.

Naturally, we are predisposed to dislike the idea of something being won with no effort, without blood, sweat and toil. And it won’t be. Real have the players, not yet a team. And if they do indeed manage to forge a team capable of winning titles, it is not for us to hate them for it. For by their spree we have something to look forward to. Whatever may be the financial implications, from a football fan’s perspective, the idea of Kaka, Ronaldo, Benzema and Alonso playing together is an enthralling one especially considering who they’re up against. El Classico can’t come soon enough!

Game enough, Gentlemen?

As Cricket’s ‘establishment’ moves in to administer the final push that will send the ICL spiraling into oblivion, it appears the time is ripe for an obituary. The BCCI’s recent offer of ‘amnesty’ to those involved in the rebel league has widely been seen as the final nail in the coffin of an ill fated David whose Goliath was always going to be too strong.        

But so long as it still breathes, perhaps an analysis of it’s predicament would be more appropriate.

For an enterprise like the ICL to be successful there are two alternatives, offer the highest quality of an existing product or offer something entirely new and groundbreaking.

In the first case the ICL is laid in a dead stymie by the BCCI – ICC nexus which ensures that they don’t get within arm’s length of any high profile player barring the ones they already have. Kapil Dev can sermonize all he likes about the league’s purpose being to give young talent a chance, but if giving them a chance effectively ensures they never play for their country, it can hardly be counted as the league’s raison d’etre. And whatever good they do for young cricketers is entirely dependent on their ability to remain a commercially viable proposition. Not even Lt Col Dev Nikhanj would suggest that the league is an exercise in altruism.

It may be argued that the ICL does fulfill the latter criterion; they came up with the idea of regional teams in India to generate localized fan bases, the idea of turning the whole game into a sort of song and dance carnival, the idea of mixing players from different nationalities.

But all this is entirely nullified by the fact that the IPL does it much better. The ICL in comparison looks distinctly second grade. Pushing for survival through improvement on these fronts would be an effort in futility.

But perhaps there is a different way for the ICL to capture the headlines again. An avenue unexplored thus far. When it is said that it is impossible for the ICL to sign a good high profile player from anywhere in the cricketing world, it is easily forgotten that what is being spoken of is only half the cricketing world.

Yes indeed. Reason it out carefully, what stops the ICL from signing Claire Taylor, Isa Guha, Mithali Raj, Charlotte Edwards or Jhulan Goswamy?

At this point you are probably thinking the writer is suffering from a touch of the sun. I will therefore offer a complete explanation. The recent women’s World Cup, despite being treated with only tepid interest by the media, served to bring women’s cricket into the public eye. The cricket, while evidently lacking the forcefulness of the male version certainly wasn’t a joke. Indeed, it had in spades the subtlety that has largely disappeared from the men’s game.

We could argue endlessly about whether the women have the ability to mix it with the men. Or we could try and find out. Cricket has long been stifled by the stuffed shirts of the English administration who have firmly refused to consider the idea of allowing women to compete alongside men. But if the last few years have shown us anything it is this: giving the so called purist’s views the bum’s rush is a sound and prudent move.

And the ICL is ideally placed to make it happen. The ICC would disapprove strongly. Let them eat cake! After all the trouble they’ve given the ICL the opportunity to give some back would, I’m sure be welcomed. Certainly, the ICL isn’t legally bound to follow the ICC’s rules in any way.

The ICC would try and prevent players who join from playing for their countries, but they could never compete with the still substantial monetary power of the ICL. The women cricketers are nowhere near as well paid as their male counterparts and an opportunity to participate in such a groundbreaking experiment in combination with healthy contracts would certainly tempt plenty of them. Perhaps as a starter, two or three women players could be assigned to each team and a stipulation introduced that every starting eleven must have at least one woman in it.

From a commercial point of view the thing is certain to be a runaway hit. The media would leap on it with relish. Heated debates would ensue. Imagine Jhulan Goswami forcing Brian Lara to defend, or Claire Taylor comfortably negotiating anything the bowlers can throw at her. Who wouldn’t want to watch it ? Desperate attempts are being made by the IPL to capture a female audience through concerts, women anchors and whatnot. Putting the women on the field would achieve that more effectively for the ICL, even without the accompanying circus.

And the icing on the cake would be that the IPL, being an ICC recognized competition could never replicate it. The laws just wouldn’t allow it. And if it were to be legalized, that would be a paradigm shift not just for cricket but for sport in general. Ultimately, and more than a tad ironically, it could provide a huge fillip to the globalization of the gentleman’s game. And the ICL would have left quite a legacy. 

The beginning of the end of Test cricket is here

The following is something I wrote over a year ago at the time of the inaugural IPL auction. Special thanks to Messrs Gayle and Tait for making it somewhat relevant again.

It is not without irony that the announcement by the English Premier League of plans to play an extra round of fixtures abroad should come so soon after the launch of cricket’s Indian Premier League.

As testament to modern sport’s impending submersion into the quagmire of opportunistic capitalism, no finer instances can be had than these. Yet the sheer brazenness with which these ‘revolutionary concepts’ are introduced, the ludicrous explanations of the need for these monstrous afflictions and the final realization of the ultimate greed driving them leaves one gasping for air.

Economists and business-people exclaim that it’s been coming for ages and then proceed to sound off about demand and supply, the quality of the ‘product’ and maximization of revenue.

A ‘product’?

To those guiding it’s destiny today, sport it appears, is no different from toilet paper or a sharp knife. It is a product, to be bunged into boxes, marketed and sold in whichever way as to maximize profit. Beautiful, capricious, uplifting sport is being methodically, mercilessly squeezed, it’s essence collected, adulterated and sold by the bottle.

So who stands to gain the most?

Fairly obvious, really. Let us look at the case of the Indian Premier League. The common cricket fan is by no means a stakeholder in this venture. The only cricketers who stand to make a sizable packet are the already grossly overpaid ’superstars’ of the Indian team and the handful of foreign imports. But mostly the cash generated will serve only to further inflate the bursting coffers of the BCCI and a handful of individuals who are scarcely in dire need of the stuff.

And what of the effect on the game itself? If the IPL grows as the ‘all knowing ones’ predict and the BCCI throws some of its loose change at the other cricket boards, it could well take up most of the cricketing calendar. Money will dictate that all cricketers become Twenty20 specialists and Test cricket will be given a swift burial, mourned by all.

The character of the game will irrevocably change and, in a decade, flashing lights, bright colours, wildly swinging bats, three-hour games could well be all that cricket will be reduced to.

And what price the English premier football league? Predictably, a very stiff one. It is the most successful football league in the world (here read success = $$$$) whose revenue figures move steeply upwards every year. Apparently not steeply enough. Hence the contemptibly absurd idea of playing an extra round of matches outside the British isles.

Any pretence that this idea is about anything other than money is ridiculous in the extreme. Again in this case, the only people who stand to make any substantial gains are the premier league and particularly its big clubs. None of the club’s fans back home will see a dime and football in England below the premier league will remain entirely unaffected.

So then, if they start playing one fixture abroad, why not two? Then again, five is a good figure. Heck, why not just call yourselves “The Scudamore Circus” and hit the road. One night in Tokyo, the next in New York! Of all the nonsensical dim-witted plots ever hatched, this one’s numero uno. Thankfully it seems football’s governing bodies still maintain some vestiges of sanity and have opposed the idea. So maybe the circus won’t be rolling into town after all.

It is of course essential that people involved in sport full-time make a decent living out of it. But when the primary purpose of sport becomes monetary gain, things go too far. It’s a thin line between the sufficient and the excessive which we would do well to stay within.

For by crossing it, we rob sport of its considerable glory and leave ourselves much poorer for it, whatever anyone’s bank balance may say.