Money should not be bigger than the game

[1]

It is an eye-opener in more ways than one to compare the days when I started playing the game and the way youngsters go about their job today. In the mid-1970s cricket was still an amateur sport and I can only talk for myself here as I took it up for the sheer pleasure of going out and having a good game. Accolades and money came later but unless an athlete enjoys his sport, no amount of wealth will be enough to satisfy him.

The way the game is run has also undergone a sea change. It was more like a family those days where everyone was accommodated and the general atmosphere was cordial. That cannot be said of the way things are today. In a way it is a reflection of the bigger commercial interests that have crept in. It has also affected players.

There can be no bigger example of glorious longevity than Sachin Tendulkar. My 100th Test was his first and after 21 years of hard grind he still enjoys the game like a schoolboy. This was the biggest impact of the amateur era. The focus was solely on playing the game for pleasure. At the same time we never compromised on giving our best. The pride in performance remains the same whether it was the ’70s or the present day.

For any professional, performance will be the sole judging factor and again the situation Sunil Gavaskar and I had to face was slightly different. Sunil was always regarded as the world’s greatest opener and I was bracketed along with the other famous all-rounders my era. For our teammates, the pressure was on performing and keeping their place in the side while for Sunil and me it was beyond that.

It was an additional responsibility, and we were forced to address a different set of demands altogether. But we never complained as the basic idea was to enjoy the game and enjoy the victories. Sponsors, media commitments and saleability were all things totally unheard of then.

Our biggest commitment was to the fans. Television was just coming in and fans still thronged the venues and it was their hard earned money at the gates that formed the backbone of our payouts. Now a sense of detachment has crept in because there are not that many people at the venues.

Money in the game is very good and I have never been against it. In fact, the more the money, the better for all. But at no stage should money become bigger than the game.

I have to add here that the administrators and the way the game is being run is ruthless. It’s all a business. I feel there should be scope and space to bring more people into the loop to make things better. The fraternity that has the interest of the game should be kept happy.

I don’t want to bring up names but every administrator has been tarnished when a new team takes over. The Indian Cricket League (ICL) was one such idea that was aimed at improving cricket from the grassroots and to enrich the livelihood of the players, but it was misunderstood. It’s a mix of the amateur era and the modern day professionalism that is best for the game. Each small step leads to grater things in life and it’s the balance that ultimately counts.

Some of the good points of conservative times were:

* Small was beautiful — Indian cricket was like a family
* Athletes seemed to enjoy their sport more
* Commercial interests were there but not overpowering
* Pressures were less on individual sportsmen
* The greater connect with the genuine fans of the game

Some of the things that must change for progress:

* It’s possible to run sport as a business without having to be ruthless
* The attitude of taking revenge on administrators once they step down must go
* An all inclusive atmosphere in which the expertise of all former players is used must be encouraged
* There is so much money now no sportsman needs to fall in love with it; wealth cannot help a cover drive flow
* The professional should not lose his love for the game.

Under legendary all-rounder Kapil Dev, India won the Prudential World Cup in 1983