August 12, 2024 ☼ The Intersection ☼ public policy ☼ international relations
Where we uncover one basic reason against and a three big reasons in favour of government spending on sports
This is an unedited draft of The Intersection column that appears every other Monday in Mint.
Now that the 2024 Olympics have come to an end, it is a good time to reflect on sports policy. The most important question is almost always left unasked: why should the Union and state governments spend public funds on sports? More specifically, why should the Indian exchequer finance participation in the Olympic games? Let me report on a very animated discussion we had at Takshashila last week. There were multiple points of view and I isolated a few ways of answering these questions.
The zeroth response came from my libertarian colleagues. It says that government should not spend public funds on sports. Doing so would both be a violation of individual liberty and an undue state intervention in society. This does not mean sports is unimportant, only that government should keep out of it. Leave it to society. Most citizens consider religion as important, but we keep the state out of it right? Right?
The public health argument, in my mind, successfully makes the case for government involvement in promoting sports. The more people engage in sports, the fitter and healthier they will be. This will contribute both to public health and reduce healthcare expenditure. There are massive positive externalities from sports and hence there is a case for the government to play a role. From this angle, the government must ensure there are playgrounds, sports facilities, gyms, stadiums and swimming pools within easy access to citizens. It could require sports to be included as part of school activities, with kids getting enough time and opportunities to engage in sporting activities. However, the public health argument does not require the government to finance sportspeople to compete in the Olympics, World Cups or other international championships.
The social psychology argument contends that competitive sports is essentially a substitute for warfare and offers a way to create higher-level unity in a diverse, fractious and polarised society. External competition provides a superordinate incentive for internal unity. One of the few occasions when Indians in India identify as Indians is when we cheer for our national sports teams. Ergo, the reason for the government to invest in winning international sporting championships is to strengthen the sense of nationhood and unity. Playgrounds and facilities for the common citizens are nice to have, and important to the extent that they contribute towards the quest for gold medals and championship trophies.
There are two variants to the social psychology argument. The first is that the medals tally demonstrates national achievement and power to the world, although countries like North Korea and those in the former Communist bloc can take it too far. The second is that seeking Olympic medals despite low per capita incomes is a statement of national aspiration: much like how Nehru supported nuclear, space and aerospace research in the 1950s despite the country being desperately poor. We remind ourselves and the world of where we think we belong, regardless of where we are right now.
Beyond public health and national glory, there is the utilitarian argument. Sports can be a source of economic activity, growth and development. Around the world, many cities have invested in massive sports facilities and Formula One circuits to attract visitors who will spend on hotels, shopping and tourist attractions. Odisha’s investments in sports facilities have the potential of becoming a growth vector to the state. The success of premier league cricket, football and kabaddi point to the economic potential of sports. The utilitarians argue that the government must invest in infrastructure, facilities and training for the sports economy to flourish.
Here’s the thing though. While we have three reasons for government to invest in sports, they each suggest a different goal and different strategies. Public health calls for government to promote a sporting lifestyle by providing for sports facilities. National glory recommends hothousing world champions by focusing resources on our best bets. Economic benefits will come if we focus on celebrity sportspeople and franchises. You can’t have all three, especially so if you have budget constraints. In other words, India must choose why it must invest taxpayer money on sports. Else we will spread our energies and our budget too thin to make a serious impact towards any one goal.
In practice, government expenditure tends to be driven by bureaucratic incrementalism, both in goals and in budgetary allocations. The answer to why the government spends money on sports and Olympics is “because we did so last year.” The Union sports ministry’s budget this year is practically the same as that of the previous year. Our public expenditure on sports in general, and on Olympics in particular is much smaller than that of countries that lead the medals tally. More the case for clarity of purpose. Unless there is a substantive policy review that clarifies fundamental public goals, we will do more of the same.
Finally, a note of caution to those who argue we must boost the medals tally. There is a correlation between the medals haul and per capita income. It is reasonable to impute causality, that as a country gets richer it’s society will have more resources to allocate to competitive sports. No harm then in focusing on good old economic growth. The medals will come, as will better public health and national glory.
There are many more The Intersection columns here
If you would like to share or comment on this, please discuss it on my GitHub
Previous © Copyright 2003-2024. Nitin Pai. All Rights Reserved.