BY MOSES MANOHARAN
India’s media, which performs admirably when standing up for the underdogs in many areas of society, may need to take a second look at some aspects where excellence is required. It must not confuse the parochial for the international.
Where it is defence or sports governance, it should be in accordance with international practices and trends, though our commentators often support the localized approach. Time and again, the media has not paid enough attention or backed the country’s players against international opinion, whether it was the case of superstar cricketers refusing to allow their governing authority – the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) - to follow the (WADA) code for out of competition testing on the specious plea that it would violate their privacy and endanger their lives or the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) refusing to punish its highest officials (who had gone to jail) for wrongdoings during the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, despite instructions from the highest Olympics authority, the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
The media, by and large, is at it again in the sordid tennis saga being played out for the second time in less than 12 months, with its best players again holding the national governing body to ransom before a major competition. Just as they did before the Olympics in London last year, now it is defiant ahead of a vital Davis Cup tie against South Korea next month.
With few exceptions, the media has stood by the players, against what it believes is an unjust and uncaring All India Tennis Association (AITA), that arbitrarily appoints officials for the national teams and unfairly pockets a major share of what it receives from the International Tennis Federation (ITF). To support the victim of violence or corruption is one thing, to campaign for tennis players demanding higher payments to play for their country because their earnings are low from poor performances in competition is quite another kettle of fish. Much of the media missed the essential point here - that the players wanted the All India Tennis Association (AITA) to compensate them for their mediocrity.
The media, by and large, again missed the point that the leader in the revolt was Somdev Devvarman, ranked over 600 in the world, though his sharp slide was due to injury. He was thrashed at the London Olympics in straight sets in the very first round, leading many to believe he sneaked into the team by subterfuge, without having to prove his fitness inside or outside competition. Yet, he now leads the campaign for the dealings of the Indian tennis administration to be transparent and conducted with integrity. His team, with the exception of Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi, comprises a bunch of relative novices in the Davis Cup, ranked between 230 and 350. Their demands include change of captains, team doctor and other support staff.
But the kicker was their insistence on a higher share of the grant the International Tennis Federation (ITF) gave a national association for a Davis Cup Tie. The rebels’ reasoning was that their failures ininternational competition stood in the way of their earning higher amounts of cash, hence the need for a greater share of the ITF grant.
Much of the media had little time for the fact that whatever be the reputation of the association, the fact is that it would now be reserve players who would represent the nation in the international tie.
Far greater players - such as Grand Slam winners in the Russian team who opposed their federation over Maria Sharapova’s selection in the Fed Cup team - have failed in opposing the authorities. There are numerous instances around the world of such abortive rebellions from golfing greats opposing the choice of Ryder Cup golf captains or World Cup winning soccer players opposing their governing bodies’ choice of captains. The governing bodies almost invariably win.
It is a fact that tennis players worldwide, both male and female, have to forego lucrative prize money tournaments to turn out for their country. But they do. Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Feder and Serena Williams all turn out for their respective nations as a matter of honour.
Our rebellious players have fallen between two stools in their demands. Either they should stand on high professional reputations and to demand rightful wages or meekly urge the association to recognize their plight as under performers who do not earn enough. To lack achievement and then demand as a right more cash is unreasonable and illogical.
To further claim to reform a sport where they have little to show in terms of competence is downright absurd. A Prakash Padukone in badminton or an Anil Kumble in cricket have a legitimate right to take a lead in attempting reform, but even these greats showed no dissent with their sport’s governing authorities in their playing days.
The media, whose memories are short term, have after an initial outcry, failed to adequately comment on the sports officials who have contributed greatly to the current state of disrepute as well as a succession of ministers in the government who held the sports portfolio and proved too weak to govern or were ignorant of the ways of governing bodies - both national and international - of different disciplines to deal with the mess. The media will do well to support and keep informed the government’s current Minister of State with independent charge for Sport, Jitendra Singh, who has shown some courage in cleaning up of sports bodies, but lacks the wherewithal to tackle the sophistry and sophistication of modern sports governance or to deal with international sports politics.
He could make a bold start by resolving the tennis situation, with the media reassessing their response to both association and players, in accordance with international practices.
With globalization, even sport, and by association, the media, must follow suit, comparing what sportspersons and sports bodies do internationally. To do otherwise will expose us to ridicule and the rule of the mediocre.
(The author, formerly of Reuters, is CEO, TV 99)
