Why we watch sport
February 22, 2008
This is the first in a series of posts I hope to do on the IPL and 20-20.
It’s time to dispel the notion that cricket fans are too inured to seeing matches between national teams to appreciate a franchise based arrangement. To do this I will resort to making the somewhat nebulous dichotomy between the serious and casual fan (some of this is obvious but bear with me for a bit). The serious fan primarily watches sport for the athletic excellence, skill, performance under pressure and close competition; nationalist pride would be much lower down in the pecking order although he almost always would support his country. This explains why more people in India watch an India-Australia ODI than say an India-Lebanon football game and also why, as a 11 year old, I started watching basketball played in a far away land by men I had no reason to identify with. The casual fan is by definition fickle; his sport watching is dictated by popular opinion or typically whatever the spouse/friend forces on him. I contend that no sport can survive without a considerable base of serious fans: you need to attract people with the skill and athletic brilliance on display for it is these fans who will stick with the sport even when their favoured team performs poorly. But having said that, it is the casual fans who bring in the money through gate receipts and TV ratings for a sport to achieve the sort of financial success the IPL is aiming for. But this separation does not exist in a static equilibrium: the really successful sporting enterprises will achieve a healthy rate of converting casual fans into serious fans.
And that in essence is my pocket sized model. Hopefully, it proves that if the cricket on display is absorbing enough, we will watch irrespective of how the teams are organized. But of course, contests between national teams will never lose their relevance – nobody wants to get rid of the World Cup in football or the European Championships. The question is if cricket has room enough for both the club and nation based models to coexist. I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. Just look around the cricket world. Every form of cricket is being played at a faster pace than ever before and yet half the teams are unwatchable. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, New Zealand, and West Indies are facing a severe talent crunch. Pakistan and South Africa possess enough talent to put together decent teams but do not have players of outstanding skill or ability who can capture an audience. It is only Australia, India, Sri Lanka and England that tick both the talent and watchability checkboxes and any series that does not involve these teams needs a dose of artificial stimulation. So the IPL will only serve to get rid of the clutter that the FTP has spawned – only contests that can bring in the crowds and justify being on TV will remain (the SuperSeries was but a subtle acknowledgement of this). More importantly, it will deliver the ultimate threat to cricket administrators the world over: get your act together or perish.
More: For the three of you that got this far, Rahul Bhatia has related thoughts here and here. Rahul is right on top of the IPL goings-on with his incisive commentary – do visit the Green channel. Update: Not to mention Prem Panicker.
February 23, 2008 at 11:44 pm
The model is probably accurate but I don’t see how it proves that the IPL will succeed. In fact, I see just the opposite. So there are two types of fans: serious and casual. The serious fan watches sport for the contest and skill involved, not so much for nationalist pride.
However, to the casual fan nationalist pride is probably a big part of his sport-watching experience. And it is these casual fans that the IPL is targeting. Well, wouldn’t lack of the nationalist element be a big handicap in capturing the attention of the casual fans?
To make matters worse, the IPL might not even appeal to the complete chunk of serious cricket fans because it’s going to be purely Twenty20 games. It’s a format that tends to mask differences in skill levels more easily. Serious fans might be put off by the fact that a Nathan Bracken or an Ian Harvey is as valuable a bowler as a Shane Warne. It seems to me that the model you suggest needs to be totally inverted if the IPL has to succeed, which is not the case.
In support of my argument that fans are too inured to watching games between regional/national sides, the Superseries can be cited as an example. In terms of skill, you don’t get better than an Aussie team at the top of its game against a team comprising Sangakkara, Pietersen, Lara, Inzamam, Dravid, Pollock, Kallis, Flintoff, etc. These games were played in Australia with Australia doing really well and the stands were empty (for the ODIs at least, as can be seen from the YouTube videos). How can one explain that?
February 24, 2008 at 12:26 am
When explaining a model, I guess clarity should not be compromised for brevity. Since you agree with the model, let’s use that as a starting point. My points are that:
1. 20-20 at its best has enough skill, athletic excellence & pressure packed competition to attract a critical mass of serious fans. I was one of those who started watching the 20-20 World Cup with a great deal of skepticism. But Yuvraj’s and Misbah ul Haq’s batting (no slogging mind you, it was pure talent from the former and intelligence from the latter) and the Indian bowling in the semifinal (Harbhajan, Sreesanth and RP all at their skilful best) changed my mind completely. In fact it was our bowling skill that won us the semifinal as the three of them bowled consecutive brilliant overs in the end. Amit Varma put it best: “Cricket has enough drama in its DNA to be enthralling in any span of time” (His entire article is worth reading).
2. Back to the model. Once you attract a critical mass of serious fans, the casual fans will follow in their wake. You over-reach by assuming that “to the casual fan nationalist pride is probably a big part of his sport-watching experience”. Nation-cheering is no doubt important but I believe that popular opinion and friends’/family’s dictates play a much more important role. For example, when I (with my dad’s prodding) became a serious fan of cricket and tennis, my mom followed us simply because she was forced to watch so much of it on TV. The tennis example is crucial: there is no nationalist element involved there and to this day she enjoys watching a Federer-Tipsarevic five setter.
Two further points:
a) You say “And it is these casual fans that the IPL is targeting”. If the IPL starts off by focusing on the casual fans first, they are doomed. As I said, casual fans are fickle: they will go wherever their girlfriends and husbands go. The IPL will have to create an excellent cricket product to attract as I said a critical mass of serious fans. Casual fans will follow.
b) You also say “the IPL might not even appeal to the complete chunk of serious cricket fans because it’s going to be purely Twenty20″. Well its serious fan base may not coincide exactly with test cricket’s. It will include a significant proportion of test cricket followers plus others who can still appreciate the inherent richness of the game but who still may not have the time/energy for test cricket. I can think of plenty of my busy British colleagues who are all primarily football fans but are also intelligent enough to understand cricket. I can see them becoming serious 20-20 fans. To give you a framework to think about this, I think serious 20-20 fans will comprise people who enjoy watching Seinfeld. These people are smart enough to get nuance without perhaps the patience for test cricket.
I hope this clears things up. Superseries rebuttal to follow in the next comment in the interest of readability.
February 24, 2008 at 12:52 am
The SuperSeries was a one-off and is not a big enough sample size to rebut the idea of mixed-nation teams. Especially when there were mitigating factors such as:
1. It was played in the cricket off-season when I think Aussie Rules football is very popular. It came off as gimmicky to begin with and they did not do a good enough job of marketing it.
2. The Tradition Nazis in the media started off by being skeptical and there wasn’t enough done to win them over.
3. Most importantly, the World XI players were reluctant and treated it as a hit and giggle. Flintoff started it off by saying he’d rather be home and it showed in their performances. People quickly saw that they weren’t giving it their best and were turned off. This is why I said the IPL needs to appeal to serious fans first and focus on putting up an excellent cricket product. This point is best proved by what happened with WSC and Kerry Packer. It started off just like the SuperSeries with skepticism and mediocre performances. After one such performance, he (Packer) supposedly walked into the West Indian dressing room (or perhaps the World XI’s) and ripped into them for not giving it their best. They got the message and it became very competitive after that. We know the rest.
February 25, 2008 at 4:49 am
[...] 25, 2008 (Again, this started as a response to this post and related comments. Posting it separately in the interest of [...]
February 25, 2008 at 6:01 am
In addition, let me just say that I think the nation-cheering bit is a larger factor for the casual Indian cricket fan than you are assuming. There are many casual cricket fans in India who will watch a full one-day game involving India but are unable to appreciate isolated episodes of cricketing brilliance. This may not be true of other cultures where appreciation for sport is better ingrained than in India. Also, tennis and cricket are inherently different in this respect because one is a team game and the other is an individual sport. Also, India do not have the same standing in tennis as in cricket.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment on the potential of Twenty20 to attract appreciative but time-pressed fans. This, in my view, is a huge thing going for it and is an exciting prospect for cricket.
About the SuperSeries, it’s not quite a one-off. The Afro-Asian and Asia vs. Rest of the World games weren’t successes either. The points you make are definitely mitigating factors but I think part of the reason may have been the lack of the nationalist element.
February 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm
You are not doing enough to prove your point and at times, are proving mine.
1. Casual cricket fans not being able to “appreciate isolated episodes of cricketing brilliance” but watching India matches does not prove that nation based contests are more important to them. I would say that they watch cricket matches involving India because there is a critical mass of serious fans watching the India matches and the casual fans are coopted if not coerced into watching by the friends/relatives who are serious fans in the manner I described. I’m not saying nation-cheering is not a factor, just that it’s much less important than the one I’ve mentioned. Also you will have to come up with a good explanation as to why there aren’t the same number of casual fans watching India – Lebanon World Cup qualifying football matches as after all, the nationalist element is very much present. We are weighing the relative importance of two causal factors here. Your factor might explain the cricket case but does not explain the other situations when an Indian team is playing a less popular sport. [Edited subsequently]
2. India not having a standing in tennis proves my point. That an average middle aged lady like my mother was sold into watching tennis despite not having an Indian interest proves that the effect of relatives (my dad and I) is more important than rooting for a countryman. The teamsport/individual sport dichotomy is not relevant unless you are claiming that casual fans will be naturally drawn towards one form more than the other.
3. The Afro-Asian series was a bigger joke than the SuperSeries. The African time comprised of 10 unwatchable South Africans + Taibu and Tikolo alternating. The Asian side was better but all the Indian big draws pulled out indicating what they thought of it. From the little I watched, it was utterly insipid from a cricket point of view despite the odd match being close. I wouldn’t inflict those matches on my worst enemy. That I am not even sure which Asia vs RoW match you are talking about says enough about the way it was marketed. In sum, the lack of nationalist element is of course a mitigating factor. But if you can put on a decent enough show and do other things right, you can attract fans. If nationalism was the only thing driving people, war will be the only popular form of entertainment notwithstanding its obvious costs.
February 26, 2008 at 6:05 am
I’ll try to be thorough here:
1. The India-Lebanon case is easily explained by the fact that India do not compete effectively on the world stage in football. A contest that’s so low down in the world pecking order weakens the nationalist element considerably. The same goes for other situations when an Indian team is playing a less popular sport because India do not compete at the world level as they do in cricket (leave aside the fact that only 10 countries play cricket). For cricket, our historical background might have strengthened the nationalist element further with the whole colonial bit.
2. About the casual cricket fans I mentioned, I was thinking of people who watch India games zealously of their own volition. Possibly the initiation was via friends/relatives but that does not explain sustained following of the game. These are not serious fans because, as I said, they are unable to appreciate isolated episodes of cricketing brilliance or great games between other teams. What keeps them watching?
3. I think team sports lend themselves more easily in creating the nationalist hype than individual sport. Especially in a team like India where issues like national unity, integration, etc. can be played up. Thus, the relative importance of the two casual factors gets skewed a bit. Your coercion factor probably has a bigger role in individual sports than team ones (especially where India does not have a standing). Let’s put it this way: potential casual fans whose temperamental makeup allows nationalism to be a bigger influence than friends/relatives’ coercion will gravitate more towards team sport than individual sport, all else remaining equal. Consequently, team sports will have a larger proportion of ‘nationalist’ casual fans than individual sports.
4. Agreed that the SuperSeries/Afro-Asian/RoW contests do not tell us much given the mitigating factors you had mentioned. I was merely trying to draw from precedent. Not enough of it to allow concrete conclusions.
February 26, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Are you actually saying that the nationalist element is important only when the Indian team in question competes effectively at the world level? If so then we are not far apart. The problem is that you treat the ability to compete effectively at the world level as an exogenous variable (determined outside the system; sorry for being pedantic and verbose). An athlete or a team can compete at an international level only when they possess skill/athleticism/talent at par with international standards. Once you possess this skill, then you are able to compete internationally. The ability to be competitive is thus a function of and is derived from the skill and talent I was talking about. So skill is the causative factor and the true starting point; international competitiveness merely provides a signalling mechanism and is a link in the chain. So just to recap my point, it is the skill level of sportsmen that brings a mass of serious fans to a sport and there is one group of casual fans that are then coaxed into joining in by the influence of the serious fans. If you say that there is another group of casual fans whose interest in a sport is determined solely by nationalism, my counter is that by your own admission this nationalism is relevant only when there is international competitiveness, which in turn comes only from skill. So if you keep tracing back, it is skill that drives the nationalist cheering of a sports team (indirectly), and absent of skill the nationalism factor becomes irrelevant. I’m guessing you’re not going to be upset about that.
Note that through all this I am not saying nationalism is always unimportant or irrelevant . When there is enough skill involved (leading to the requisite competitiveness) and the sport become popular first through serious and then some casual fans introduced through them, the nationalist element may indeed bring in an additional mass of fans to the sport. This is part of the reason why despite the institutionalised nature of club football, international football is and always will be popular. All I am saying is that, even without a nation based arrangement and the extra patriotism fuelled fans, a high level of athleticism and talent alone can build for you a significant serious fan base and casual fan base (in the manner I have repeatedly described) that can keep the sport viable. Here’s the kicker: If the franchise in question assembles enough multi-national talent so that it develops a fanbase in many countries beyond its immediate market, might the extra-national fanbase compensate for the lack of nationalism driven fans? Related thought: Which entity do you think has a larger number of followers: the English national football team or Manchester United?
February 26, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Splitting the comment to make it just a little less unreadable. Sorry about all the edits.
An example that might prove the point I am making: Club volleyball is played at quite a good standard in Madras (and India) and I have been to quite a few matches. If you talk to some of the old fogies in the crowd, they will endlessly lament the loss of popularity of the sport. They claim, and I have verified this from several sources, that at one point of time crowds of 20,000 were quite common for those matches. Even if you account for the fact that there used to be fewer sources of entertainment in those days, 15000-20000 is a serious crowd. (To give you an idea, NBA franchises run viably with crowds of between 16000-18000 for 41 games a year). So why did people flock to these matches? Simple answer: an unbelievably talented group of players who graced the club scene then. The people I talked to would rattle off the names of a whole cast of these guys all of which I have shamefully forgotten save for one: Jimmy George. In his heyday, this guy was considered one of the best attackers in the world. He was the first Indian to play for a club in Italy and was so popular there that apparently the Italian crowds were known to break out into Jimmy chants when he was spiking ‘em. (He died in a car accident aged 33. Links on him: 1, 2, 3). I narrated all of this just to prove that even absent of a national team to root for, if you put on a good enough show, people, whether we call them serious or casual fans, will flock.
P.s.: Tangential trivia: The Indian longjumper Anju George married Jimmy’s younger brother.
March 6, 2008 at 7:30 am
From one of Srivaths’ comments..
“As I said, casual fans are fickle: they will go wherever their girlfriends and husbands go.”
Are you implying what I think you are?!
March 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Nice catch. Among my other embarrassing gaffes have been asking a male colleague who was playing the part of a woman in an office skit, “Have you ever played a woman before?” I’m still trying to live that down.
Oh and thanks for reading through what I assumed were impenetrable and unreadable arguments.