WHAT WOULD you consider satisfactory compensation for sporting achievements on behalf of the country or the region?
This matter has come to the fore again following comments by arguably the greatest opening pair in the history of international cricket and the lament of a sprinter who now stands to earn Olympic gold, along with three teammates, following the disqualification of the Jamaican team that crossed the line first in the men’s sprint relay at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Speaking to Ed Kemp of the All Out Cricket publication while representing Barbados at the World Travel Market in London last November, Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes, in an interview reproduced on the ESPNCricinfo website, left the distinct impression of regret that more was not being done for outstanding servants of West Indies cricket, especially those players who preceded that incomparable era of dominance.
“I honestly feel that the contribution of people like Sir Garfield Sobers, Sir Wes Hall, Sir Everton Weekes . . . I think the Government of Barbados should be paying all of their utility bills,” Haynes was quoted as saying.
“They should not be worrying if someone is going to turn the water or electricity off, because of the contribution that they made. That’s only my view.”
There were also references to what modern players earn from the game despite their comparatively modest records while, in his preamble to the actual interview, Kemp highlighted comments by both Greenidge and Haynes which suggested that they were less than enthusiastic to be giving interviews to a commercial publication without being paid.
Then there are the observations of Trinidad and Tobago sprinter Richard Thompson, who issued a statement on behalf of the 4 x 100-metre relay team on his Facebook page after it was revealed last Wednesday that the confirmation of Nesta Carter’s failed drug test meant that the entire Jamaican quartet, including Usain Bolt, would be stripped of the gold medals.
While a number of protocols are to be observed and the Jamaican Athletic Association will no doubt challenge the decision of the International Olympic Committee, Thompson and his teammates are now in line to have their silver medals from the event of more than eight years ago upgraded to gold.
While berating the political directorate, and especially Minister of Sports Darryl Smith, for failing to fulfil promises made to athletes in relation to the ongoing elite funding programme and also financial and other substantive rewards for medal-winning performances at international competition, the senior sprinter asked the question: “As we move forward, what does this medal mean for us, the men who have literally sacrificed our livelihoods to represent T&T?”
Two questions arise here: Does a nation actually owe anything to anyone chosen to represent the country or the region and who has excelled in that endeavour? And is it correct to elevate such representation to the status of a sacrifice? In both cases the answer must be the same – no.
This is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that individuals who have brought pride and honour to this nation and the wider Caribbean by their exploits in the world of sport are not deserving of appreciation, tangible or otherwise.
But to suggest that this should somehow be mandatory, that there is now an obligation to provide some form of compensation based on actual achievements, actually demeans the honour of representation, which is a privilege not an entitlement.
Yes, honour and privilege don’t pay the bills, and indeed many private citizens and corporate entities are inclined to offer financial rewards anyway. However, to perpetuate the notion that the State is required to compensate anyone for national representation beyond what is normally accorded is entirely misplaced.
As for this notion of “sacrifice,” well, this is nonsense beyond compare. There is nothing in the essentially trivial arena of sport that can be equated to a sacrifice in the manner that ordinary men and women are called upon to make on occasion.
Yes, there are often regular references to so-and-so sacrificing this, that and the other on the field of play or by the time and effort devoted to training in pursuit of world-class performance. Still, at the end of it all, sport, or anything related to sport, is not a sacrifice but a choice.
There is always the option of not participating or pursuing a career in a particular sport, so this notion of some sort of obligation towards those who have chosen to prioritise sport over all else is entirely ludicrous.
Are we saying therefore that someone excelling with a bat or ball or on the athletic track has made a greater contribution to the nation’s welfare than the conscientious police officer, the committed teacher or the edicated parent?
We love our sport, but let’s put it in perspective.
Fazeer Mohammed is a regional cricket journalist and broadcaster who has been covering the game at all levels since 1987.