It was quite an ecstatic moment even from across the TV screen, as the badminton women’s final match came to a close around dinner time in India. Watched by an Indian audience of 66.5 million, PV Sindhu became the first Indian woman to win the Olympic silver! Some were quick to point out that she lost the gold, but the millions who watched her play knew that she won us the silver. Who would’ve thought an Olympic badminton match would’ve kept us on the edge of our seats?
But then again, sport has a way of surprising us all and indeed pulling a nation together to forget its differences. Our athletes deserve the praise and attention, whether or not if they bring medals for the country. Yet time and again, their laurels have put a cover or rather deflected attention from the poor organization and management of our sporting bodies. For all the reported indifferences and callousness from Indian officials at Rio, the determined performances of our athletes proved to be face savers.
Nevertheless, despite the reports, it would be insane to blame the Indian contingent officials for the poor medal tally at the Rio Olympics. Certainly our athletes need to be trained better, have strong supporting institutional structures back home, and enough exposure before they are able to compete successfully at mega events such as the Olympics. So how does a nation of 1.2 billion people produce medalists?
As PV Sindhu’s final match, it is not the differences in objectives or values that divide us – we all wanted her to win. In the same way, all of us want India to produce medalists. It is the process of undertaking that enormous task that brings out the differences.
To begin, what is the ideal institutional architecture that would promote sports in our country? Is government the best agency or does private enterprise prove to be more resourceful? Under the Government of India, we have the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports whose primary role is “to create the infrastructure and promote capacity building for board-basing sports as well as for achieving excellence in various competitive events at the national and international levels”. Sports promotion per se is the domain of the various National Sports Federations which are autonomous. The question that instinctively comes to one’s mind is whether the responsibilities should be reversed – the Ministry deals with sports promotion, and the sports federations deal with the infrastructure and capacity building. Surely sports federation for specific sports manned by experts will have better understanding and capability to manage affairs of the sport, lest we believe they are only suitable for promoting the sport? Alternatively, to expect that the generalists that staff the Ministry, to manage the various sports with equal zeal, is even stranger.
Supposing the Ministry is the starting point for the unsatisfactory management of sports nation-wide, what sort of ideas are we talking about?
First, let’s strive to reduce the bureaucracy that administers sports in our country. Despite the multitude of associations/federations/bodies, our performance has been left wanting for more. Such agencies have largely become intermediaries for funds dispersal, and it is no surprise that politicians, and not sportspersons, chair sports federations of their respective states.
The key findings of a new report, Governance of Sports in India 2016 by In Govern Research Services, show that from the 38 national sports federations, only one has a former national athlete as president. Only nine have former or present players in their governing bodies, and only two have any kind of plan for the future.
Indeed it may be a difficult proposition to get rid of state associations or sports federations, and so perhaps we could start with a relook at the Ministry itself and its utility. Some plausible suggestions could be that it cuts down on the officialdom by rationalizing its schemes and programs, promote and encourage private participation and management of sports infrastructure (eg. Buddh International Circuit in Greater Noida), and perhaps most importantly, significantly enhance its scholarship pool and reach. This way you incentivize new actors to enter the sector, build quality infrastructure and democratize participation.
Second, instead of dispersing funds as per states or administrative divisions, release the money based on sport. The multiple layers of government authorities, sporting federations, and state associations (not to mention the political meddling) have resulted in a complex system wherein the money is lost in administration and secretarial services. At this point one cannot find out how much was cumulatively spent on say badminton by the government in a year. Without such basic information how will policymakers understand the outcomes of their decisions? Let the accounting reflect the money spent on each sport.
Third, encourage corporate social responsibility (CSR) spending on sports. Olympic sports promotion is one of the activities already notified by the central government under the mandatory 2% CSR contribution by corporates. Fourth, invest in sports infrastructure. Not piecemeal or prior to major games, but systemically in combination with prudent financial planning. Lastly, consciously invest in human capital – coaches, trainers, and support staff. One doesn’t need to elaborate on the last suggestion.
As I revert back to the common ground where disagreements disappear, let’s once again take a moment to applaud the efforts of our athletes. It is truly amazing how a sportsperson, or generally a sport, can pull a nation together. We saw that at the Rio Olympics. I was certainly moved even if it was just two medals. Let’s ensure that the next generation of athletes inspired by the feats of Sakshi and Sindhu have the complete backing of our sporting institutions.
(The author is a policy analyst. Follow on Twitter @rohitrrs.)
