The exercise of trimming a jumbo contigent

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has always been known for its persuasive powers, especially on matters related to contingents for multi-discipline games.

Since 2010 when the Government started putting more and more control into the functioning of the IOA and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) these persuasive powers have dwindled. The suspension by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) only added to the weakening of the Olympic Movement in the country.

The four-yearly debate over the size and composition of the Indian contingent for the Asian Games has to be viewed this time in this backdrop. It is no secret the IOA has twisted the criteria to its advantage through the years in order to swell numbers.

Norms diluted

The third-place criteria that was adopted by the Government for two decades was diluted by it in 2006 to allow sixth place even as the IOA had agreed to fourth place in the 2002 Games. The IOA should not be saying now that the criteria had been sprung late in the day by SAI. If it did not sit with the SAI/ministry beforehand to know the modalities of approval, then the fault lies equally at the doors of the IOA and the SAI.

Ideally, it would have been logical for the SAI to convey to the IOA and the NSFs at least six months in advance that teams that were invariably finishing outside the top eight or had not even managed a decent win-loss record in the previous games or last Asian championships might be axed, irrespective of whether such teams were provided foreign exposure or not.

To think that the women’s handball team that finished eighth and last in the last two games has been cleared once again only shows how the IOA can manoeuvre and how badly SAI had handled the subject. To say that this is only a one-time exception does not help.

In sport like sepak takraw and taekwondo the situation is not vastly different from handball. Yet they have found their way in.

The threat by the OCA about penalizing India in case it withdrew from team events after confirmation also mattered, it would seem, in the end.

Numbers, at least in IOA’s reasoning, project ‘development’ and development, real or imaginary, in turn, provides the NSFs the bargaining leverage in a variety of spheres even as those numbers provide the NOC with a chance to pack the contingent with coaches and support staff.

It is true everyone wakes up rather late in this ‘numbers game’. For the IOA, the ploy has been found to be advantageous through these past three decades and more. The IOA officials used to send letters on a daily basis to the Sports Ministry in the past to get someone cleared or added to the list once the official clearance for the bulk of the contingent was received.

The 'no-cost' formula

The “no-cost-to-Government” formula eventually used to help the entire lot go and compete in the quadrennial games, irrespective of whether a team had any standing or not. Mostly the funds were drawn from government organizations, making the “no cost” formula meaningless at least for athletes.

The final results quite often told the miserable state of particular sports but four years from then such sports would invariably get back and project an “improved” image.

The “no-cost” business has been shot down by the PMO this time.  It “shall not be a consideration”, said an official release on September 9, 2014, while clearing an Indian contingent of 679 including 163 officials and support staff. That the clearance came with just 10 days to go for the opening ceremony of the Games was a shame. A bigger shame was the fact, mentioned in the release, that the IOA submitted its list on August 21, against the stipulation of 90 days.

The elimination of the “no-cost” formula has its plus and minus points.

Why should any particular component of an Indian contingent be cleared at ‘no cost’ to Government? Are not all sports equal? This is a good argument to support the removal of the ‘no cost’ system. There is pride in representing the country and the country bears the expenditure without grudge to back the “sweat and toil” of the athletes the previous four years.

Ignominy

On the minus side is the poor returns plus the ignominy of either finishing last or near the bottom or ending up with just one win or an all-loss record in a team event when ‘also-rans’ are fielded at Government expenditure on the argument that anyone who represents India need to be funded by the Government.

Should public money be spent to gain the wooden spoon? More importantly, should such teams be approved at all?

 Claims are made every four years but the end result in a number of disciplines remains disappointing if not scandalous. If the Sports Authority of India (SAI) had recommended axing 14 disciplines including football, basketball, taekwondo and handball, it was perfectly justified since  results in these disciplines had been abysmal for long.

On the other hand, the question of course comes up about the popularity of games like football, basketball and volleyball and the need to encourage these sport if only to sustain them as sport contributing at least towards a healthy nation and needing only modest investment and the necessity to spread the Olympic Movement.

Yet, the very same people who today argue in favour of clearing all teams at Government expense will ask the question after the Games “was there any need to enter a 900-plus contingent at Government expense for such meagre returns?”

This is the dilemma of the SAI and the Sports Ministry.

Disappointment for fencing, triathlon, rugby 7s

There surely will be disappointment among the sportspersons in ten pin bowling, fencing, rugby 7s, modern pentathlon, soft tennis, triathlon and beach volleyball, the disciplines that have been dropped while clearing a contingent of 679.

Disappointment will also be there for the six women swimmers who formed the medley relay team, a couple of divers and weightlifters Rustam Sarang and Kavita Devi,  some sailors, cyclists and a few badminton players.

A question will also come up why, for example, should some weightlifters  (Sukhen Dey, Ravi Kumar and Vikas Thakur) be approved even without the minimum selection criteria (sixth-place of the last Asian Games or Asian championships whichever is higher), while a couple of others were being denied.

This phenomenon is not just confined to weightlifting but across sports, prompting the accusation that the ministry had been “selective” in excluding certain sports and individual athletes. And even in approving some managers!

The question of a large number of officials not being cleared is a matter of concern for several teams. And this is where the policy of clearing only on “cost to government” might need a review.

Policy on managers

For the past two decades or so managers were not being funded by the Government since a large majority of the NSFs could not adhere to the original stipulation of the ministry that individuals should have spend a considerable period of time with the campers_one forgets the specified period_to be eligible to get Government support.

In 2010, when the Government approved a contingent of 843 (the latest PIB release claimed that last time a batch of 933 including 324 officials was cleared) including 609 athletes, 127 coaches, 44 managers and 33 other officials, 43 of the managers were cleared on “no cost to Government” basis.

You may not require two or three managers for a sport, but in a majority of sports, if not all of them, managers do perform a function that if entrusted to a coach would mean the latter would be burdened beyond his duties on the field.

Something that the SAI and the ministry could have explored (and still can) was in clearing a few coaches as coach-cum-managers, a practice employed in the past by the Government so that  the impression that the post is being utilized just to “reward” some office-bearer of an NSF or a state association could be removed.

Cutting it down from 942 to 679 is an achievement by the SAI and the ministry and one cannot but appreciate the firm stand adopted by the SAI Director General, Jiji Thomson, and Secretary, Sports, Ajit Sharan.

As posted in an earlier piece here, China entered  647 athletes in 37 sports in the Doha Asian Games in 2006 and topped the medals tally with 316 medals, 165 of them gold.

That only showed a country need not enter 800 athletes to earn over 300 medals. You might say China is an exception and one will have to agree with that argument.

The numbers in Incheon

But look at the numbers for Incheon. Going by what the OCA released on Aug 26, 2014, China heads the list with 899 athletes, followed by the host, Korea, with 831 and Japan, with 716. India was fourth at 658.

That number was what the IOA had submitted to OCA, not what was eventually cleared by the Government. At 516 now, India will be fifth, behind Thailand, by just one entry!

It is worth noting that two countries which finished ahead of India (14 gold) _apart from the ‘big three’, China, Japan and Korea_at Guangzhou in 2010, Iran (20 gold) and Kazakhstan (18) have entered 285 and 472 competitors respectively this time.

In the week left for the Games to begin, the IOA is bound to press for more clearances. The ‘managers issue’ is a serious one. “Let-us-do-away-with-no-cost” and dump managers cannot be an ultimate solution to contingent-trimming.