Why cricket should not be an Olympic sport

Performers play cricket during the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games on July 27, 2012 at the Olympic stadium in London.

×Proofread

The MCC Spirit of Cricket lectures over the years have witnessed importunate support for the inclusion of cricket and subsequent participation of teams in the Olympic Games. Iconic figures in the sport like Adam Gilchrist, Steve Waugh, Kumar Sangakkara, Sourav Ganguly and Stephen Fleming have, at some point of time or the other, voiced their opinions in favour of adding cricket to the existing roster of Olympic sports.

While an Olympic medal happens to leave an indelible mark of achievement in every athlete’s career, a deeper introspection suggests that the excitement surrounding the hallowed piece of golden metal would turn out to be a mere hyperbole in the life of a World Cup winning cricketer.

How important is an Olympic medal?

In cricket, the significance of the Ashes, the 50-over World Cup, and, even the World T20 Championship, to be honest, is far greater than that of the Olympics. It would be of extreme folly to evaluate a cricketer and an Olympian athlete on similar grounds. While the pinnacle of athletic glory lies in the number of Olympic golds, the measure of cricketing grandeur would encompass an assorted list comprising of World Cups, ICC Rankings, etc.

Even then, that assorted list would be restricted to determining the achievements of teams rather than individual feats.

The Olympics had been founded with a vision for recognizing and celebrating outstanding physical execution of individuals. If a cricket team with a handful of underperforming players happens to win courtesy a couple of brilliant knocks and match-defining spells – and that, for a fact, isn’t all that infrequent – it would not only question the fairness of it all but also dishonour the spirit and ultimate goal of the Games.

Globalization is a double-edged sword

One of the foremost arguments voiced by the likes of Gilchrist is the tremendous opportunity for the globalization of the sport. The Olympics, as is rightly believed, attempts at uniting the entire world under a single banner of sports. It therefore, as logic demands, must be an excellent platform for globalizing a sport that enjoys remarkable followership in the sub-continent.

What kindles a dilemma is the fact that, although cricket boasts of a billion plus fans, it is chiefly regarded as nothing more than a passing interest in the larger portion of ICC Associate and Affiliate nations. Nepal, for instance, does not have a cricket stadium yet, despite having participated in top bracket international matches.

Apart from administrative expertise, cricket demands a high level of proficiency in preparing stadiums and pitches. That would translate into a gratuitous burden for organizing committees of non-cricket-playing host nations. If the financial investments fail to generate as much enthusiasm and revenue with regard to viewers actually attending Olympic cricket matches, the sport may be easily looked down upon as more trouble than its worth.

An addition to the already overflowing calendar

The Olympic Games hardly span a few weeks. Attempting to squeeze cricket into the already packed list of disciplines would entail the shortest format of the game to be used. The physically arduous Test cricket that comes closest to the Olympian notion of athleticism, quite ironically, would have to miss out.

Further, including cricket in the Olympics would mean a superfluous addition to the already hectic schedule. Not only would this increase the players’ susceptibility to injuries and stress fractures, thereby effectively shortening their careers, the repercussions may also extend to monotony among regular viewers owing to an overdose of the sport.

With the calendar being so crowded, it should be understandable if the players and the cricket boards fail to exercise the same amount of concentration and application at the Olympics that they would in World Cup matches. Frankly, if the Games were to be intended as mere preparatory camps for oncoming international tours, then the IOC would do well without cricket.

Revenue problems and political quandaries

The inclusion of cricket in the Olympics would necessitate the presently biennial World T20 Championships to shift to a four-year cycle, thus incurring a huge amount of loss in revenue. While the global viewership is an unquestionable aid to the sport, the financial scope at the Olympics remains leagues behind that of the T20 Championships.

Further, cricket at the Olympics would have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales playing as a single team under the banner of Great Britain. This calls for a politically and diplomatically sensitive selection that’s bound to invite controversy, especially since England remains one of the three strongest nations in the International Cricket Council.

Likewise, the Caribbean nations of Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Antigua would no longer be able to afford the luxury of playing as a single West Indies cricket team. The pressure of alliance for the British or the tension of competing against each other for the Caribbean islands may disrupt diplomatic harmony and upset the subtle balance existing between these states. Why would we want to risk something like that?

It may superficially seem bizarre to some that such a popular sport as cricket continues to remain out of what is considered the greatest sporting festival in the world, but a closer study of the issue reveals the disadvantages and practical shortcomings of the argument.

The amateur group of Englishmen who had won the first and last Olympic cricket match back in 1900 against a 12-member French squad comprising of English expatriates had, certainly, not conceived the debate that would ensue in the following century.

The Olympics can never eclipse the World Cup as the summit of a cricketer’s ambition, and that is precisely why cricket need not be recognized as an Olympic sport in the near future.