BENGALURU: After nearly two years of no international sporting events, last Sunday provided fans with a number of sporting spectacles. For those who appreciate the nuances of lawn tennis, the Wimbledon Gentlemen’s Final took place amidst genteel claps and cheers. But if you were the more bloodthirsty sort, there was also a prize UFC match featuring Connor Mc- Gregor – the Irish sportsman who behaves like an Indian news presenter. For soccer fans, Sunday witnessed not one, but two intracontinental tournaments in the form of the Copa America and the Euro Cup. I have been following cricket for a few decades, and have written about the sport in this column over the last few years.
This was the first time I followed a soccer tournament intently from start to finish. The Euro Cup is truly the Colonisers Confederation Cup – a tournament played by nations that ruled the world a 100 years ago. Since I came with no baggage, my loyalty lay with no particular country. For example, I supported Wales because of Princess Diana, and Portugal due to their relaxed attitude towards substances. I did not support France because I feel they take undue credit for others’ achievements (French fries, French kiss!). The differences between cricket and football were apparent from the first day.
A match of soccer would take less than half the time of an innings in cricket. In cricket, the constant breaks between overs transformed the commentators into philosophers and poets - constantly reminiscing about older times with stories and anecdotes. In soccer, even a second that was lost could mean the match changing forever. The commentators have to be on their toes for the entire duration. While the Euro Cup was played between ex-colonisers, Sunday also witnessed the final of the Copa America. The tournament is played among South American nations like Brazil and Argentina - that were introduced to the beautiful sport by colonisers, but who added their own beauty to the sport.
Which makes one wonder - why hasn’t India not taken to soccer like other nations of the world? The most common logic is that the British introduced Cricket to us. But England is also the home of soccer. The oldest club – Sheffield FC – was established in the year 1857 - the year of the revolution in India. As a developing nation, why did we not take to soccer - which needs just a ball in terms of resources? Why instead did we choose a sport like cricket – where to play a match you need a ball, two bats, six stumps, and four umpires? How come soccer only caught on in two states of the country – both Communist states? I’m no historian, but I have a theory nonetheless.
My theory suggests that for centuries, India was a nation of kingdoms, rulers, landowners and zamindars. And cricket truly is a sport for the upper class - hardly a surprise that the most revered ground is called ‘Lord’s’. And there’s no greater zamindari sport than cricket. Where 11 people toil under the sun so that one man can hit the ball around and make merry. The thought of 22 men running around the ground, chasing a single ball – must have been beneath our ancestors. That is why cricket is more popular in India than soccer. Soccer might be the most beautiful sport, but who wants to run around all day after a heavy lunch of rice and sambar? We ignored soccer - the beautiful sport, and chose cricket – the comfortable sport!