This year?the two major out-of-season football tournaments may have inadvertently become more important than before.
I think they will be very useful in helping to build greater community spirit and keeping a vulnerable section of the masses entertained as we tackle economic adversity.
The tournaments will serve as a sweetener while we continue to swallow bitter pills prescribed to help heal the country’s dire financial ills.
Some of the very players may also be victims of Government’s budgetary cuts, so football might provide a temporary haven to alleviate the true burden of their existence.
It might be like an opiate they are happy to try because it could numb the effects of austerity.
Practitioners of partisan politics in particular and even neutrals may pose what they consider to be the question of the year.
Should the David Thompson Memorial Constituency Councils Football Classic be maintained by Government in harsh economic times?
The question was placed on the front burner since the Budget and as expected has become a political football.
The Opposition Barbados Labour Party questioned Government funding of the tournament from its inception in 2011 when the global economic crisis had already kicked in. They felt it was adding to public spending at a time when we could least afford it.
So they have been consistent in this respect but more adamant now in getting answers about how Government can afford to spend $800 000 on a tournament when times are supposedly harder than before.
Minister of Social Care Steve Blackett, pointing to the positive impact the tournament has had in the constituencies, said there was never any consideration to stop it because of the frail economy.
As far as I am concerned, the tournament always had its relevance if the true motive was to have it crafted in memory of the late Prime Minister, who was known to be a big football fan, and not as an afterthought to rival the LIME Pelican Challenge which was unveiled first by Opposition Leader Mia Mottley.
Both competitions are branded as having a political agenda disguised as social engineering with the main aim of gaining status and a strong footing among the youth.
After all, it is perceived that public flirting with social programmes could result in extra votes for the major political parties.
True or false, that’s the perception which is difficult to change.
As a layman, I love both tournaments because they keep footballers constructively engaged and they have touched the soul of the country.
Further, I don’t believe economic austerity means that you have to abandon all social programmes. Even though you have to prioritise, I think the Thompson tournament qualifies to stay because it enhances community spirit and is good for vending, too, just like the LIME Pelican.
Plus, in hard times people need to be entertained to ease some of the stress that is induced by a challenging environment.
On reflection, I believe that because it has been very successful in the first two years, the David Thompson Classic is a brand that should have attracted interest from the private sector by now and ease the weight off the treasury.
The investment in the social capital is the important thing because for a six-week period several unemployed footballers can still look forward to getting a stipend while being catalysts for mass enjoyment simultaneously.
I am real and I know it is good politics but the level of enthusiasm and joy spread among the players and the communities at large overides any other motive or hidden agendas.
There is no price too high for empowering the working class who make up the majority of the football clan.
Both tournaments share the same goals in this respect and are actually structured along the same lines to achieve their targets.
Both are functioning this year in the same volatile financial environment and the only difference is that attendance is free in the Thompson competition but there’s an entry fee in the Pelican as it was from the start.
The reason is simple. The Government is covering the cost of their social investment with public funds while the Pelican organizers have to depend on private financing to help offset expenses and balance their books.
They seem to have the most to lose and therefore their approach has to be more prudent.
They will have to be very careful in designing their cost structure for patrons attending the matches at the National Stadium as the price has to be right for teams to play to full houses.
The LIME?Pelican executive must aim for volume and wherever possible avoid midweek games because from my own observation they weren’t well attended in previous seasons.
Given the positives emanating from both tournaments, I hope political posturing is red-carded.
• Andi Thornhill is an experienced, award-winning freelance sports journalist.
