A question about India

[WideRight]

So I was talking sports with a friend of mine, World Cup, Olympics, and is suddenly occured to me that with the exception of Cricket I cannot think of a single sport in which India has a significant presence.

I cannot remember them ever having a significant presence at the Olympics, and they really don't have a noteworthy team in world soccer, nor in rugby.

It is a huge country, shouldn't they be as omnipresent as China, Brazil, etc?

How do much smaller developing nations like Morocco, Kenya, Cameroon, Paraguay, Costa Rica have a more prominent sports profile around the world than India?

Is there another country in the world with such a large population and such an absence of sports footprint? Is there a political reason for this? An economic one? A cultural or even religious one?

I am not criticizing, I am just curious. Any thoughts?

[yh]

Interesting observation. The only major Indian sports figure that comes to mind would be 80's tennis star Vijay Amitraj.

India is indeed one of the most populous nations in the world, however the vast majority of its citizens live well below the poverty line and thus lack the resources to participate in organized team sports. The recent emergence of India as a tech support and call center base might pump some more money into the economy, but let's face it, the reason why the nation is emerging as a tech support and call center base is because labor is very, very cheap. Therefore, you're still not going to see a lot of disposeable income floating around and disposeable income is what ultimately fuels organized sports.

[WideRight]

I thought that too, but I ask myself if that is it. I find it hard to believe that the poverty in India is that much greater than in Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay, Cameroon or Morroco, all of which have a much stronger sports presence.

[NYBadshah1]

Its actually a mix of all the reasons you stated. Politically, the bureaucracy is so messed up that the sporting organizations can never develop their potential. yh stated the economic reason. India is comparably poor. And a cultural reason is that not much emphasis is placed on sports. Parents want their children to grow up to be doctors and engineers. Even here in the States and Canada no Indian-American has made a big impact on any of the upper levels of a Big 3 (or 4) sport. Don't get me wrong though, they do play and watch a ton of sports over there besides cricket, tennis, and field hockey. They have a national soccer league and also a national basketball league. Their basketball teams fare pretty well in the Asian Club Championship, and they will host the 2010 Commonwealth Games and going to bid on the Olympics within the next 10-20 years. But the bottom line is that sports are not a mean of upwards mobility as it is here and in many other countries.

[ProvidenceRI]

India is an excellent example as to why the Olympics are unfair.

I cannot believe that cricket and rugby are not Olympic sports. They are certainly more global than baseball, curling, basketball and any freestyle skiing.

Just my random 2 cents.

[Swiss]

Basketball is more global the rugby.

You can find basketball being followed and played in all the South American countries, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, etc... a loooong list of countries...

Rugby isn't in that same situation.

[NYBadshah1]

India is an excellent example as to why the Olympics are unfair.

I cannot believe that cricket and rugby are not Olympic sports. They are certainly more global than baseball, curling, basketball and any freestyle skiing.

Just my random 2 cents.

I think cricket isn't in the Olympics for 2 reasons; significance and logistics.

It won't have the significance as the World Cup, like soccer, and there are no "U-20" teams or anything.

The biggest reason is logistics. The one-day version, which they would play in the Olympics, takes 6 hours or so to play.

[VitaminD]

I cannot believe that cricket and rugby are not Olympic sports. They are certainly more global than baseball, curling, basketball and any freestyle skiing.

While I agree with your premise that cricket and rugby should be added to the Olympics, to say that either is more popular than basketball worldwide is utterly delusional.

[ProvidenceRI]

Basketball is more global the rugby.

You can find basketball being followed and played in all the South American countries, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, etc... a loooong list of countries...

Rugby isn't in that same situation.

Yes professional basketball is played around the world, and the rosters are mostly full of Americans.

RUGBY is huge. I don't like it or follow it, but it is.

[Discrim]

most basketball leagues abroad tend to have rules prohibiting how many Americans you can have on your roster (similar to the CFL's import rule), so that argument doesn't hold water.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

And a cultural reason is that not much emphasis is placed on sports. Parents want their children to grow up to be doctors and engineers. Even here in the States and Canada no Indian-American has made a big impact on any of the upper levels of a Big 3 (or 4) sport.

Could part of the answer to the education problem in this country partly lie with that statement?

[The_Admiral]

Well it isn't as if the whole country wants to go paly in the NBA, but in that at-risk sector of urban blacks, absolutely. Why study when you can ball?

[DEAD!]

I think it's a combination of money, priorities and culture. Money and priority are very much related. As for the culture, India is obsessed about cricket, which is not an olmypic sport. If cricket would ever be an Olympics sport, it would be in the Twenty-20 format (20 overs). There is, though, a world-class female Indian tennis player, Sania Mirza. Unfortunately, if don't you know about her story already, you could also see that there may not be as many female athletes as there could be because of religous beliefs.

[WideRight]

Whoa, we have moved off topic, but that is cool.

I think US emphasis on Sports, especially at the HS level, is amazingly overdone.

In my local area (Eastern Iowa/Western Illinois) they show HS kids signing letters of intent on TV. Not just star football players going to U. of Iowa, or ballers headed to Illinois, they show girls from the soccer team who are "signing" with a division 3 school or, my favorite, a boy who is signing to play golf for an NAIA school. Not once do you see who from local schools is off to Harvard, Yale or one of the Military Academies.

It shows how skewed our priorities are. The dorky kid in the back who is headed to CalTech, or the artsy girl headed to Vassar are far more likely to be successful, even important figures in our world in the future than the guy destined to bat .207 in AA after a stellar career at Northern Iowa or the girl who leads her team in assists at Butler. Not that the latter might not turn out fine, but I am betting on the other kids first.

Quite frankly, I think it is because so few folks in this area go to college that they worship HS sports. As someone who follows an NFL team feverishly and attended 2 Big Ten schools, I just can't get excited about it. I'd rather we let the kids be kids, and tone down the hype a little.

[Swiss]

Basketball is more global the rugby.

You can find basketball being followed and played in all the South American countries, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, etc... a loooong list of countries...

Rugby isn't in that same situation.

Yes professional basketball is played around the world, and the rosters are mostly full of Americans.

RUGBY is huge. I don't like it or follow it, but it is.

Sorry man, but I think you are wrong. In Argentina where I'm living in right now, the basketball national federation has alots of federated boys playing that sport.

And pro rosters have few Americans. Same thing with Brazil.

Rugby is too played in Argentina, oh yes, there are the Pumas. But... the rugby is a sport for elite people, not for everyone (like Australia or NZ) that is why the national team has lots of troubles for reaching more high level of its playing. Basketball hasn't that situation and won the gold medal at Athenas.

In Europe there is a strong European league across the continent. Rugby is strong only in UK, Ireland and France.

In Africa rugby is not huge but in South Africa. And you can find basketball with a decent level in various African countries.

[WJMorris3]

What about the Indian hockey team? I could have sworn they've done excellent in the Olympics.

[NYBadshah1]

What about the Indian hockey team? I could have sworn they've done excellent in the Olympics.

Yeah, they do. Indian field hockey is good. They are also good in the shooting and weightlifting competitions, but always underachieve.

[gojetsgo]

Cricket is number 1 in that part of the world and barely anything other sport matters. I have a friend from Sri Lanka, and he says that when their team loses, people literally die. Not by commiting suicide, but the grief is so bad that people just keel over and die! Now that's what I call a committed fan!

I think he may have been exaggerating though.