Cricket on a sticky wicket

Legalised betting can bring transparency to the game

From the novelty point of view, the latest match-fixing scandal involving some Pakistani cricketers should surprise no one. For one, it merely confirms what everybody’s been suspecting for years. For another, Pakistani cricketers have been indicted before — Shoaib Malik and Saleem Malik are two names that come to mind. Let’s face it, cricket stopped being the “gentleman’s game” at least two decades ago and the money that now pours into the sport has inevitably created the kind of cycle of corruption that has afflicted other, more popular sports worldwide (basketball and Formula 1 being two prominent recent examples). The sub-continent in general and India in particular now dominate the administration of the sport globally. It is also this region that has proved the hub of betting scandals in the past — l’affaire Cronje, the incident that first exposed the shadowy world of betting to public view, had its epicentre in India. As the Indian Premier League (IPL) has shown, the big money is here.

One solution would be to legalise betting, especially on the subcontinent where cricketers tend to be poorly paid and, therefore, vulnerable to other inducements. Every other significant global sport allows it and it goes a long way in forcefully minimising players’ proclivity to influence the outcome of matches. That’s because legalised betting makes things transparent — everyone and not just one bookie can bet on, say, Mohammad Amir bowling a no-ball on the first ball of the third over, and the odds of him doing so can be measured. Indeed, the argument for legalising betting in cricket is even more urgent. The nature of the sport is such that it allows players to fix matches by deliberately bowling no balls (though this admittedly requires some talent and both Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif undoubtedly are extremely talented), throwing their wickets or dropping catches. It is difficult for a footballer, basketballer or a hockey player to deliberately muff a goal or a pass as these sports are fluid and fast-moving.

Cricket is also uniquely positioned for maximum corruption because of the historically nationalistic lines on which it is organised. Unlike other sports where private capital has come to matter for more, the main buyer for cricketing talent is still the state. That it is a poor professional choice can be judged from the number of young West Indian men who are opting for the NBA as a career choice instead of cricket. In a sense, the IPL was considered revolutionary for the history of the sport because it created a healthy alternative and competitive market for cricketers. It is a pity that the IPL is mired in all manner of financial scandal because the notion of cricket teams bankrolled by private capital would have done wonders for a game that has been steadily losing viewership in the busy developed world. If the ICC promoted similar leagues in other cricketing nations like Australia and the UK and organised inter-nation club tournaments the way Fifa does, cricketers will automatically find a more viable way to make a living than their state boards can provide. And the proclivity to illegally make money from the sport will be overtaken by the natural sportsman’s visceral urge to perform well.