Recently have read a couple of interviews of/ columns by Suresh Kalmadi. the chief of the commonwealth games in Delhi. Also have some insight into the process of putting the event together as someone in the family is employed by the games.
Firstly I am extremely skeptical of Mr Kalmadi's claim that the games are revenue neutral. Can sponsorships, ticket sales and TV rights support all the costs incurred, even the direct ones. I contend not. Firstly most of the disciplines are not popular in India, so why do we expect Indians in large numbers to come out and watch the events, that too for a price! Secondly, USA and China (the two major Olympic medal winners)along with many European nations, are not part of the games, so apart from Australia and public service broadcasters in Great Britain and Canada, there may not be much gained from sale of TV rights. With US, China etc out the star power of the games considerably goes down which results in sponsors not finding the games as attractive.
Now if these games do not generate profit, Mr Kalmadi claims that they help inculcate a sporting culture, provide a push to the sports programs of various Olympic sports.I fail to see logic in this claim. If all the development of venues is concentrated to the capital, how are the various national and local sports' associations benefiting. Will the games encourage more Indian parents to encourage children to pursue sport seriously or schools to take sports more seriously, very hard to establish causation.
In my opinion, a country should host events of such magnitude when it is 'organically' ready for them. China hosted the Olympics after it had established as a sporting powerhouse. For instance, hosting the hockey world cup makes sense for India, but not hosting a Rugby world cup.
If all the money spent on these games was spent on training and development of indigenous sports-persons, India could have the right reasons for hosting the games 10 or 20 years from now.
12 years ago
Posts
