Surfing television channels the other day, I chanced on a story on the coronavirus that included a football tournament being played in Nicaragua. It was part of a ‘news package’ to show how this Latin American country, unlike most others in the world, wasn’t buckling to the threat from COVID-19. Admittedly, there are conflicting theories about COVID-19, but in the circumstances, it seems prudent to err on the side of caution.
The spread of the virus, and the toll of lives it has already claimed, is too substantial to ignore and deal within cavalier fashion. But to come back to the football match in the news clip. This was being played to an empty stadium, which on the face of it looked ‘spoofish’. But as the English subtitled scroll on the footage explained, this particular match and the tournament was being followed extensively, and with passion in Nicaragua.
All good, but moot question, however, is whether such an approach is sustainable, even in the short term? Will fans be satisfied to consume sport in the quiet of their own rooms, with maybe one or two companions, minus the high-octane energy that one can feel when at a stadium? Even if you are a couch potato who watches sport essentially on TV, will you get the same high if the stands are bereft of fans and the brouhaha? For fans to be involved, they need to have the company of other fans, directly (being together in the stadium) or indirectly, by joining those in the stadium through TV.
And what about players, how will they cope with performing in front of bare stands? While live audiences do add pressure on a sportsperson, they also inspire excellence. In fact, most of the greatest performances in sport — the remarkable milestones and records — have come in front of huge audiences, not in isolation. It will be argued that more fans (by far) access sports events from locations outside the stadium. This is undoubtedly true.
For instance, even the new Sardar Vallabhai Patel Stadium at Ahmedabad has a capacity of just over 1,00,000. But a match played there involving India would have an audience touching 35-40 times that number. The argument about how the impact on players when they have to play in front of zero live audiences could also be countered.
For instance, doesn’t this happen for domestic cricket matches – some would say even Tests – already all over the world? Does this reduce the importance of these matches, or the commitment of players? Already, some attempts have been made to make the best of the circumstances. The first match of the recent ODI series between Australia and New Zealand (in mid-March) was played only for a TV audience.
The other two matches were cancelled by mutual agreement of Cricket Australia and Cricket New Zealand as the pandemic gathered strength. Australia’s National Rugby League persisted longer – again for a TV audience – before mounting criticism compelled the administration to shed its earlier defiance. By this time, COVID-19 had swamped the US, creating international panic, and the numbers of those infected were growing rapidly in Australia, too.
This hasn’t prevented administrators and even players from seeing major sports events being staged just for TV audiences if COVID-19 lingers longer than expected. For instance, India off spinner Harbhajan Singh feels that IPL should, if necessary, be played without live audiences because so much rides on the tournament.
Harbhajan argues that so many livelihoods depend on the IPL that scrapping it could exacerbate the hardship for thousands. While a tournament for TV is hardly ideal, it would provide succour to so many. Briefly, even the Tokyo Olympics were being considered as a TV event rather than not being held at all. Finally, the Olympics were deferred till 2021. A decision on the IPL is still awaited (remember, it was suspended till April 15), but what this will be is hardly in question now that the Indian government is contemplating an extension of the lockdown.
However, a lockdown is an extraordinary situation in which a great many things willy-nilly have to be adjusted by all concerned. The question of livelihood for all those associated with a sports event – not just players – runs into thousands.
All these people have had to take an enforced break. But what is the period of time that can be passed off as ‘extraordinary’ before something starts to give way? If the threat from COVID-19 does not diminish substantially to allow resumption of events, what is the recourse available for those associated with sports? Indeed, when sports do resume, what are the changes one can expect? For instance, it is commonplace in cricket for bowlers and fielders to use sweat and spittle to give the ball a shine.
In the aftermath of COVID-19, will there perforce be a change in this ritual? There are several questions swirling around with no clear answer. For the present, the biggest issue is how quickly the pandemic declines, for life and sport to come back on the rails. Fingers crossed! The writer is a senior journalist who has been writing on the sport for over 40 years
