& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Cronje, Cricket, Corruption

The Real Game is Money

Praful Bidwai writes from New Delhi
****In cricket-in-action, three processes are played out simultaneously. There is the sport, of course. Then, there is the money game. And there is the reproduction and perversion of values that define our elite. Cricket's popularity is explained partly by the aesthetics of the game, and partly by voyeurism. Many people without great athletic prowess play the game and can substitute themselves for the players. That popularity is also driven by glamour, and by cricket's function as a vehicle of nationalism.****
THE latest allegations of match-fixing involving South African players have sent shockwaves through the world of cricket. Hansie Cronje's confession that he apcqpted $15,000 to pass on information" to a bookie has shell-shocked fans who admired him as an honourable. God-fearing man.
And yet. Cronje has not come completely clean. The idea that a racket could be run by bookmakers only for match ■forecasting," not match-fixing, defies credibility.
The ongoing debate should silence those who refuse to believe that “wholesome", proper middle class or wealthy people playing a "gentlemanly" game cannot indulge in corruption which is associated with the unwashed masses lacking in education and samskara or with the Laloo Yadavs. All evidence—and there is a good deal, including telephone tapes— points to the opposite.
Clearly, a no-holds-barred international investigation into match-fixing has become necessary. This must be conducted in the face of stiff resistance and gung-ho nationalism associated with sports.
An organised international racket involving speculators, bookmakers and top-class cricketers seems to have been in operation for years. Its first signs appeared' in 1981 when Rod Marsh and David Lillee openly betted against their own side! 'Since then, there have been serious match-fixing disclosures by Manoj Prabhakar. Shane Warne and Tim May. Chris Lewis. Wasim Akram and Salim Malik.
One-day cricket betting per match in India alone is said to involve Rs 1.000 crores, or 100 times more than gambling on the Derby. Bookies offer multiple options: side-bets, sub-bets, spread bets... Attempts to cover
up murky dealings, including the Chandrachud inquiry, have only damaged the inquirer's reputation. No one can now pretend that cricket is clean or lily white—if it ever was.
Such cleanliness as there might have been disappeared when the white flannels of slow five-day tests were replaced by luridly coloured uniforms emblazoned with corporate logos. For a quarter-century, commerce has ruled cricket.
Long ago. cricket burst upon the ex-colonial Anglophone world as a spectator sport. In the words of C.L.R. James. West Indian scholar and pioneering theoretician of the sport, cricket has been “first and foremost a dramatic spectacle. It belongs with the theatre, ballet, opera and dance."
That opened cricket to commercial interests, especially with the spread of television The decisive change came with Kerry Packer's efforts to detach the game from test matches, and quicken its pace. Television freed cricket from its locational dependence, providing a better view of dramatic moments than the naked eye.
One-day cricket greatly increased the availability of the sport as a consumable commodity. Its audience ballooned into scores of millions and became
the advertiser’s prime target. Corporate sponsorship became the “natural" form of business incursion into cricket. Cricket’s Internationalisation with Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka coming in raised its visibility, audience and commercial profile.
Cricket offers enormous scope for "star" performances. So it becomes especially amenable to commercial exploitation not just through sponsorship but also gambling.
The exceptional importance of subjective and intangible factors — individual skills, weather and ground conditions, and other "glorious uncertainties" — also facilitate speculation. From here, it is but a small step to corruption. Bribery is nothing but business "by other means".
Many cricketers too have become models of greed, ready to
violate the collective interest for personal self-aggrandise-ment. The dramatic rise and equally dramatic decline of Sri Lankan cricket is the story of sheer greed ruining the game.
Even more malign has been the influence of cricket control boards. These are the preserve not of genuine patrons of the game, but of devious powerbrokers. They too are more susceptible to corporate manipulation.
In all this, cricket reflects or mimics the evolution of the Indian elite, with its growing cor-poratisation. avarice, amenability to influence, individualism, and moral debasement. Like other elite institutions such as stockmarkets, exclusive schools or posh clubs, cricket structures also dutifully reflect compromised values.
If you embrace the geed
creed, and buy your membership of the gymkhana with Rs. 10 lakhs in black money, then what's wrong with making a few lakhs through corruption? As Manoj Prabhakar says: "Why will anyone want to win a match for a mere Rs. I lakh when they can earn 20 times more for losing it?"
In cricket-in-action, three processes are played out simultaneously. There is the sport, of course. Then, there is the money game. And there is the reproduction and perversion of values that define our elite. Cricket's popularity is explained partly by the aesthetics of the game, and partly by voyeurism. Many people without great athletic prowess play the game and can substitute themselves for the players. That popularity is also driven by glamour, and by cricket's
function as a vehicle of nation-
The commercialisation of sports has three major consequences. It makes sports universally vulnerable to mal-¥ radices , like, match-rigging, his means sports mus.t be decorporatised and limits placed on sponsorship and fees/bonuses.
Secondly, we have unwittingly become victims of the controllers of the sports business and media. They decide which game to promote and how. They ran down a great game like hockey, while hyping up golf. Tomorrow, it might be the turn of polo or baseball. We'll still be consuming whatever is promoted — passively.
And third, sports will increasingly lose the two things that make them attractive to ordinary people. The first is the thrill in using one’s physical and mental skills in controlled and innovative ways. Winning a game is as important as playing it well — even while losing. The second is the unique ability of sports to do "poetic" justice. In real life, the underdog loses. On the playground, s/he can win.
Continued corporatisation of sports will leave no room for such role reversal, for imagination itself. That would be a far graver tragedy than match-fixing!.