Khelo India effectively filling National Games void

When Khelo India was launched in 2018 in Delhi, it was more as a talent spotting event among the younger generation of the country. Three years later, Khelo India has not only added different age categories as well as sports disciplines, but also given a boost to sports awareness in the country. 

It’s a tribute to the perseverance of the government of the day to push ahead with its vision of cultivating a sporting culture nation-wide. 

And to top it all, the talent it has thrown up has already gone on to claim laurels at the international level, making the entire effort behind organizing the Khelo India Youth Games and the Khelo India University Games worth the while. 

The KIYG has already seen three editions being staged in two different age categories with almost 20 disciplines being showcased. The KIUG was launched only in February 2020 with ginger steps towards giving the sports-persons under the age of 25 another shot at higher glory. 

Being held under the direct supervision of Sports Authority of India, the implementation arm of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Khelo India is here to stay. Quite unlike the National Games, which has a history dating back to 1924 when they were heralded as the Indian Olympics. And most of it has to do with the uncertainty that engulfs each edition of the National Games. 

Originally planned to be held every two years, the last decade and a half have seen only three games actually being held … Assam (2007), Jharkhand (2011) and Kerala (2015). That each of them was exactly in the year before the Olympic Games was no coincidence at all, almost setting the stage for the global competition within the country. 

But now there’s no confirmation if Goa intends to go ahead with the 34th edition of the National Games. And if yes, when? All this while the next two host states - Telangana and Uttarakhand - continue to await their turn in that order. 

The National Games are the responsibility of the Indian Olympic Association, which is itself struggling to keep its flock intact. So there seems to be hardly any enthusiasm about the National Games.

Khelo India, on the other hand, has already declared that the 2021 KIYG would be held in Panchkula, Haryana, after the Tokyo Olympics. The message is quite clear that the focus would not need to shift to youth just before a mega world event but the show must go on.  

Given the present scenario where MYAS, IOA and sports federations seem to be on a collision course ever so often, there seems to be little chance of reviving interest in the National Games. It may be a better option for Khelo India to fill the slot in the national sports calendar. 

ICC's knee-jerk decisions hardly helping cricket

The International Cricket Council seems to be bent upon making the glorious game as complicated as possible with its recent pronouncements.
The global pandemic has already done severe damage to sports right across the board. Not even an mega-event like the Olympic Games was spared. And as cricket limps back to some kind of normalcy with England hosting the West Indies for a three-Test series, comes the announcement of the Super League for one-day internationals as the qualifying route for the 50-over ICC World Cup to be hosted by India in November 2023.
Rather bizarre that the announcement comes right in the middle of the crisis with ICC's own Future Tour Programme already thrown into the shredder. Countries are looking askance at resuming international cricket but there seems to be little headway even for short bilateral engagements at the moment.
Without an FTP it means countries are free to choose their eight opponents out of the 13 participating nations to be included in the Super League tally. Obviously the early months of 2023 could prove rather busy for some of the lower ranked teams as those lagging in the qualifying race would be looking for some easy points.
And India stands to suffer the most. It qualifies automatically as the host and given the highly competitive nature of the side, not many would be looking forward to locking horns with them, especially close to the World Cup itself.
Playing games, at least in the near future, without spectators leaves cricket in all formats dependent upon the kind of audience television networks can draw. Yet again, lower ranked teams are bound to suffer for lack of interest from TV. Thus equal opportunity and a level playing field is denied leaving more than mere elbow room for manipulation. 
Already, the pandemic has put the ICC Test Championship in something of a tizzy with games halted all round. Adding new events merely for the sake of innovation is hardly the answer. Cricket needs to be handled with care in these delicate times!
ICC needs to learn a few lessons from field hockey which nearly suffered an exit from the Olympic fold thanks to its falling popularity due to continuous tinkering with the rules of the game. That FIH needed to fall back upon India to save its Olympic place should serve as an eye-opener for ICC. 
Hurried decisions aren't helping the cause of cricket at all!

Europe cannot do without big English football clubs

English Premier League football is done and dusted for the 2019-20 season, despite the enforced break from mid-March due to the global pandemic. And with it is also settled which clubs will figure in the European competitions in the 2020-21 season, all the big names making the grade much to the relief of UEFA.
How valued is the presence of English football clubs in European competitions can be gauged from the fact that as many as seven gain automatic berths in the continent. That is the highest number allotted to any country by UEFA which makes its own evaluation of various national leagues, based on factors like popular and widespread support among other things.
Countries like Spain, Germany, Italy and France all have equally competitive football leagues but what makes the English Premier League more valuable is the fan following it enjoys outside Europe. 
Former Biritish colonies and the spread of English as the most widely accepted international language finds the clubs from England attracting far wider audiences than even say newly crowned Spanish La Liga champions Real Madrid who are the most successful club in European competitions.
German Bundesliga champions Bayern Munich despite the string of legends among its current and former stars or famous Serie A names like Juventus and Milanese duo AC and Inter are unable to match the draw of England.
Fans as far away as Asia and the Americas closely follow the fortunes their favourite English clubs on television and with the current scenario making sports solely dependent on the eyeballs for the near future at least, it seems obvious that UEFA would like to draw maximum viewership for its games.
English clubs on the other hand value the continental competition due to the rich cash dividend offered by UEFA. Arsenal serves as the prime example, having profited from a record 19 successive appearances in UEFA Champions League starting from the 1998-99 season to pay off its debt that it incurred to build its swanky new stadium replacing the old Highbury facility.
Little wonder that the club and its fans look upon then manager Frenchman Arsene Wenger as something of a demi-God who seemed to wield the magic wand both on and off the pitch with crucial buying and selling of players as much as keeping the UEFA Champions League spot well in sight.
Manchester City's successful appeal against the two-year ban for racist chants by its fans finds them moving to Europe along with more popular city-mates United and London powerhouse Chelsea.
At the end of the day, its all about balancing the books. UEFA needs the popular English clubs as much as they need the cash from Europe.

BCCI master-stroke fills void in world cricket calendar

The Indian Premier League, richest and most popular domestic cricket tournament in the world, will stage its 13th edition from September 19 to November 8 in the United Arab Emirates.
The disclosure by none less than Brajesh Patel, chairman of the IPL governing council to a popular cricket web portal hints at the Board of Control for Cricket India working hard behind the scenes to somehow make the event happen, rather than let it fall victim to the global pandemic.
The dates and venues have been announced without the formal approval from either of  the governments involved, India and UAE. Even the IPL governing council has yet to formally approve of the change, which also needs the go-ahead of the BCCI apex council.
So why the tearing hurry?
First things first, BCCI wanted to to ensure that once the International Cricket Council announced the cancellation of the T20 World Cup scheduled to be played in Australian during the same period, there was no bilateral series announced by the members board. It ensures that the best players from around the would be available to feature in the IPL without a hitch.
Of course, logistics need to be worked out given the current restrictions placed on international travel due to the unique conditions prevailing all over.
Given the muted reaction from boards and franchises, it appears that the BCCI powers that be ... president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah ... did not spare any effort in working the back channels to ensure that things were in place before the ICC announcement. All this when their own position hangs in balance, awaiting the nod from Supreme Court to the amendments to the BCCI constitution that would let them stay in office for their full three-year terms. Added to that is the fact the CEO Rahul Johri had already put in his papers and so has general manager (cricket operations) Saba Karim.
In fact, ICC's delay in the calling off the Australia event almost looks like buying time for BCCI to get its act together and prepare the ground for the IPL to rush in and fill the void in the world cricket calendar.
Holding the event outside of India hikes costs all round. Not only to do franchisees and broadcaster must spend more in the UAE but there are fairly large savings too! TV needs only a single crew since there are only two venues. Plus there will be only a handful of double-headers which can easily be staged at a same ground itself. Air-travel is not required by broadcasters and franchisees within UAE, and there are plenty of practice / training facilities available to keep the players in shape.
For UAE, of course, it will be a new experience altogether. Preparing pitches that last the rigour for more than 50 days despite the tough conditions, especially given that matches are most likely to have an early evening start with Indian prime time viewing in mind.
All in all it is indeed a masterstroke by BCCI to ensure that it had everything in place to jump in when the opportunity presented itself.
IPL is not merely about money any longer. Its about BCCI showing its clout to the cricket world and it has done that in no uncertain terms.

Olympic Games getting too expensive for its own good

The announcement of the competition schedule for the Tokyo Games next year by the International Olympic Committee is a welcome move indeed. For the first time in its modern journey, the Olympics will be held outside of a leap year, thanks to the global pandemic that has put the entire world in a tizzy.
Obviously the delay comes with a cost. The original budget for Tokyo 2020 was a whopping 12.6 billion US dollars and the deferment is expected to add another $ 3.3 billion to the bill. While the IOC bears only a small part of the expenses, the games organising committee, local government and city administration share the bulk.
It is no small achievement that Tokyo 2020 organising committee has managed to retain the Olympic programme unchanged for next year. It means that all venues were re-booked for the fresh dates, previous bookings having been ditched or bought out, so to say. Plus the entire staff must be retained for an extra 12 months raising the wages bill alone by several million dollars.
Athletes' accommodation still presents a tough challenge for the organisers as most of the units had already been sold off as luxury bay-side apartments.
And yet despite the announcement of a virtually unchanged schedule for 2021, there is no certainty whether the Games will be held at all, given the current scenario of travel restrictions and growing infection numbers each passing day.
So the additional $ 3.3 billion that the delay is expected to cost has, with good reason, left the organising committee and sponsors a bit worried. The amount works out close to half of Tokyo city's annual revenue.
If a developed nation like Japan finds hosting the Olympic Games an expensive proposition, what chance does the rest of the world have? 
Since its launch in 1896, the Olympic Games have quite expectedly grown by leaps and bounds. The pomp and grandeur associated with each edition leaves the host city / country with a hefty bill that organising committees are finding increasingly tough to clear. 
Though infrastructure creation is one of the biggest hurdles given the vast array of unique requirements for each sporting discipline, there appears no way the IOC could apply the brakes on the scale of competition. And with newer disciplines crying out for inclusion, the quadrennial jamboree can hardly be hoped to shrink.
Its a conundrum that IOC must address before it finds itself running out of options for host cities. Television remains one of the primary source of revenue and already the IOC has split the rights into several platforms, including digital media, to maximise the scope. But that can stretch only so much.
Perhaps, Tokyo 2020 would be a lesson in toning things down a bit, like keeping the opening and closing ceremonies simple. 
With just under a year to go for the revised Tokyo Games to take off, it remains to be seen if the organising committee manages to balance its books. If not, Olympics could just become a behemoth with few takers!

Sports ministry needs to relook at cooling-off period for NSFs

Three years is a long time. And to be away from it all for this period may not be the best way to maintain continuity as far as sports administration is concerned.
The contentious mandatory cooling-off period after completing six years in office by top functionaries of national sports federations may not be the right fit. It works for the bureaucracy to move on ever so often but sports is a completely different kettle of fish. 
The idea behind the move is praise-worthy indeed as it seeks to break the stranglehold certain individuals held over NSFs, making it well nigh impossible to function without their consent. Over the years there is hardly any dearth of instances of such near-feudal control of NSFs that the move on the face of it does appear justified.
However, as has been pointed out by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, terms of office-bearers at the state associations should not bar them from stepping up to the national federation and both periods be treated as separate. Though BCCI awaits the Supreme Court's approval of it proposal as cleared by its annual general meeting of December 2019, there seems a strong argument in its favour.
State associations are indeed the stepping stones for office-bearers in the national federations. So barring them for any period during the transition may not be the best idea since there is every chance of losing touch at various levels from sports-persons to sports ministry.
A bar on how long a person can remain in a particular post in welcome indeed. Yet again BCCI provided the lead with a five-year cap since inception in December 1928 that slowly but surely paved the way for rotation of power and prevented attempts at even regional, let alone individual, domination. 
One-size-fits-all does not really work, more so in the field of sports where mere technical management is far less than managing humans who are endowed with special talents. 
Even though NSFs at the moment are on a "pause" mode, thanks to the directions of the Delhi High Court on the annual recognition granted to them by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, it may also be the right window of opportunity to revisit the National Sports Code of 2011. 
The sports code is, without doubt, a laudable initiative to rid NSFs of individual domination but mindless application of rules can do more harm than good. 

Cricket needs to review DRS operation

The Board of Control for Cricket in India and then Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni had faced plenty of flak due to their long-drawn opposition to the Decision Review System rolled out by the International Cricket Council. 
More than a decade has gone by since it was first introduced in Test cricket, though it was made to wait until November 2017 it to be made mandatory in T20 internationals as well. But the system seems have raised more questions than answers it was expected to provide!
The welcome return of international cricketing action at Southampton saw West Indies claim a most deserving victory over a shaky-looking England side, but the biggest talking point from the needle contest was the abysmal standard of umpiring. And that too by members of the ICC Elite Panel. 
It was only made worse by the ridiculous interpretation of the DRS rules, leaving the game the poorer for it.
Thin edges and leg before are the two types of dismissals that see the maximum use of the DRS, apart from the run-outs and stumpings where umpires seek help from technology to arrive at a decision rather than players seeking a review! 
Added to that the fresh salvo fired by ICC to let the TV umpire call the no-balls which all but makes the role of the on-field umpires just a bit farcical!
On so many occasions the "hot spot" technology, borrowed from games where only point of impact counts, has been found wanting when the naked eye and the sound waves both show connection between bat and ball. That often raises unnecessary doubt, mostly leaving sides fuming for being denied justice.
Leg before and the umpire's call bit is far more perplexing, possibly even to the officials themselves. 
There are two things in the leg before decision review that are beyond the purview of the match officials.
First is the pitch mat which designates the stump line. It is fixed by the TV production crew and appended to a fixed camera at each end. But even a millimetre's deviation on the camera lens, out in the open exposed to the elements, can wrongly mark the landing spot of the ball within or outside the legitimate area!
Then comes the more controversial ball tracking which essentially is guessing where the ball would have gone if it had not made impact with the batsman's pad! Again the production crew holds full control of the computer simulation that decides whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps at all. And if yes, how much of it would have made actual contact!
All in the dimension of speculation which again leaves one side less than satisfied!
After all, the side denied a favourable verdict when reviewing a decision has reasons to feel aggrieved when the matter rests on the "umpire's call". A review may not be lost but the fact remains that the side opting to use the DRS was not satisfied with the decision in the first place. So when the same is retained for want of clear evidence, then calls for improvement become inevitable.
The current scenario where cricket is forced to be played behind closed doors, TV becomes the only medium to reach fans. And when decisions, despite extensive use of technology  do not meet approval of all parties concerned, its about time the authorities woke up to reality.
It will yet be some time before the neutral umpires start officiating in international contests due to the travel restrictions worldwide. ICC must get its act together and prod the owners of the technological aids to provide better solutions.
After all its a question of credibility

Indian cricket must avoid sinking into a vacuum

International cricket is back on the field, albeit with its familiar hide and seek game with the July weather in England. Even as the rest of cricket world watches with bated breath the action unfold at the Agean Bowl in Southampton, Indian cricket finds itself caught in a tangle of its own.
Board of Control for Cricket in India has a nine-member apex council as its highest decision making body, as per the recommendations of the Lodha Commission. As it turns out the same reforms, according to which the BCCI working committee was replaced by the apex council, are now coming in way of continuance of several members including the president, secretary and joint secretary. With the vice-president having already resigned, the apex council seems to be total disarray.
BCCI president Sourav Ganguly's term ends in July, secretary Jay Shah's term ended in June itself and joint secretary Jayesh George must demit office in August. All three must serve the cooling off period, as per the reforms, after having served six straight years at the state/board level. 
The BCCI in its December annual meeting had passed a resolution separating the periods served at the state and national levels, thus doing away with the cooling off periods for all the three office-bearers in question but the decision awaits ratification by the Supreme Court. In its wisdom, BCCI has also added the Covid19 lockdown as yet another reason to allow the present set of officials to continue in their respective posts till 2025.
However, the apex council meeting of July 17 assumes great significance as BCCI has decided to treat the matter as sub-judice and hence maintaining status quo. In the absence of a specific stay order from the SC, it can be safely argued that BCCI may be in contravention of the laws, as has been already pointed by one of the apex council nominees .
It will be interesting to see how things unfold in SC as the BCCI plea has not even been listed for hearing.
Despite its battery of high profile legal luminaries giving advice, BCCI cannot be seen as defying SC rulings and face contempt proceedings. Not very long ago, a similar situation had drawn the SC's wrath leading to large-scale re-constitution of BCCI right up to the top with a Committee of Administrators looking after the day-to-day functioning for a considerable length of time.
Another slip and BCCI could find its stocks slipping further, especially when world cricket needs leadership. 
Sports all over the world has been put on the back-burner and, as life limps back to somewhat near normal, bringing cricket back on the field should be a priority. Rather than push for extended tenures for its officials, BCCI could simply follow the norms as laid down by the SC order till the matter is heard.
Pushing the envelope with the highest court of the land may prove counter-productive. And challenging its order could draw consequences which the BCCI may find hard to swallow, given that the SC had earlier taken a dim view of the long-drawn defiance of the Lodha Commission reforms.