I am calling it ‘dismal’ because I am trying to analyse the
demand and supply for badminton which is typically done is one dismal branch of
academics, and not because situation is grim. It must be certainly looking up
and there seems to be lack of dark clouds and only patriotic silver linings. I
would have liked to have some hard numbers at hand to either nip my questions in
the bud or to present them forcefully. In absence of such data, I will make an
attempt to make some reasoned judgments.
I think P V
Sindhu’s silver medal will shift the demand curve for badminton outward, at
least for a while. Are existing badminton facilities are going to become
expensive for the short run? Will we see increase in memberships of badminton
clubs and Yonex purchases? (A cynic in me whispers in my ear that my whole
guess work is outcome of social media euphoria. Are more tweets going to bring
more badminton courts, it asks.) I guess these are interesting questions that
can be answered after few months.
It can be
said that Indian players’ performance at the international level in Badminton
(has it really improved or stagnant is something I do not ponder over!) is
actually an outcome of improved demand-supply scenario of badminton. There is
now a class of parents, residential communities and schools who were able to
spend on badminton facilities and coaching. We all know what has caused this
improvement in purchasing power. The improved demand has brought supply side
improvements, where many ex-professional players and non-professional badminton
players turn to coaching. There are more summer badminton camps. Existing
badminton facilities are packed and it is difficult to get few uninterrupted matches
at many of them. And, all this is bringing better group of players at all
level.
Performance
in any competitive sports will be an outcome of talent and nurturing. Though
some of us do not like to believe so, I assume that talent will have similar
distribution in all socioeconomic classes where magnitude of population below
age 10-14 is not abysmally small. Nurturing, on other hand will depend on
parental as well as society level factors. The parental income level
constraints can be less binding in developed countries where talent spotting
need not be through private efforts. But in countries, where such talent
spotting system is not very evolved, parents’ initiative and decisions are
crucial in early exposure and recognition which can lead to sustained training
and performance.
Here I
worry little about what is an average consumption of badminton in India. I have
some information about the town in which I live. There are not more than 8
badminton courts in my part of municipal corporation region for population of
at least 0.3 million. If 20% of this
population is in the age group which consumes sports in systematic and
continuous manner, it becomes 8 badminton courts for 60000 potential users. I
understand that not everybody is going to play badminton. If we further assume
that only 1000 users are going to use these facilities and these facilities can
be accessed 24 X 7 X 365, then it provides 70 hours per player per year. Since my
guess about badminton courts and usage availability is an overestimate (part of
the numerator) and number of users is an underestimate (or at least something
that should increase in the future!), the hours estimate is actually an
overestimation. (Actually, I do not think there are 1000 users in my locality.
I have unfounded suspicion that badminton is consumed either by above middle income
households or lucky ones who can avail government funded facilities. It
explains why there might be some excellent players despite average consumption
is not high.) One of the question that I think about is to what extent
badminton facility supply will change after this Olympics. And, I see that I
might be even wrong that there is some shift in demand. It all can be a
forgettable storm in ever boiling cup of social media. But, somehow I will push
forth with my intellectual exercise.
The
municipal corporation I live in is not Mumbai, but a dormitory town that mimics
Mumbai due to its proximity. I understand that in higher income localities, restricted
access to more than average level of facilities and coaching that can result in
better usage and results. And, in fact, that’s key premise of my dismal outlook
towards badminton in India.
Like the
schooling situation that exists in India (something which Abhijeet Banerjee has
explained in ‘Poor Economics’) what happens in Badminton in India is as
follows: the access to quantity and quality of badminton will be proportional
to parental income or lucky stroke of consuming government funded facilities
(which in turn might be dependent on social networks. To put this in
inflammable words, relatively less talented richer players will consume more
badminton compared relatively more talented poorer players.
Seen in
this light, Badminton performance by Indian players are reflective more of
parental support and not of any collective input. Again with the fear of
sounding inflammable, Badminton performance reflects more on iniquitous growth.
If we see these patterns at the back of silver clouds of pride, we might see
where we have to act.
And, we can
see that this can be generalized to lots of other sports, may be some
exceptions like wrestling. (Here again, I believe pedigree and networks still
matter a lot.)
I am not
undermining the talent or efforts of India’s sports-persons or saying that they
are where they are not because of their hard-work but merely because they were at right place at right time.
My
skepticism and reasoning is directed towards what has caused this performance
and what could improve it further. I would have liked to have some data at hand
and I would like to see my speculative claims refuted.
I always
thought that how we explain malnutrition and improved sporting performances simultaneously.
One explanation can be, assuming malnutrition actually exists, is inequitable
access to quality and quantity of sporting facilities. In other words, experience
of many sports at school and college level is a luxury or an advantage and its continuous
consumption is possible for very few.
--
I will get
back to where I started. Will I observe more badminton courts popping up in my
part of the town and will there be improved access at reasonable cost?
Certainly township housing patterns allow some provision of sporting facilities
at residential level. If interest of parents along with their income is
forthcoming, then such facilities can increase the exposure. Schools will be
more interested, so as local level tournament organizers. There will be certain
increase in sponsors’ interest. (On that line, do we see now Saina Nehwal
replaced by P V Sindhu is advertisements? J)
The expensive costs of land and rents can be a constraint in improving access
without increasing price. The critical question is will there be enough
increase in demand (which in turn is determined by how many new households
become part of well-to-do or affluent class) which will subsequently bring in rise
in supply. I have chased my question out of the arena I defined. So I stop
here.
Visiting
the question that was eternally ‘de’bated in social media, I will add my own
noise to the din. I guess improving sports facilities at school level is
critical for improved performances. Parental or social background should not be
the major determinant of the consumption of sports.
Cricket and
football have somewhat breached the income barrier. These game can be
customized and there are public grounds and open spaces where one can have
first exposure to these games. Same is true in some sense of Kabaddi. One can
see that Badminton, Tennis and many other games cannot really be customized or
played at available spaces. They need some sort of dedicated facilities and
right from this point onward, a segregation takes place of who can play and who cannot on
the basis of something which has nothing to do with desire and ability to play
that sport.
For
something like gymnastics, I think road is even harsher. The game is not really
spectator sport which might hinder it from becoming widely popular. Like few
other games, it might specialize in pockets. One can hope that these pockets
should not turn in income restricted or regional specializations.
I think it is clear by now why I said dismal
at the start.