Why should India spend public money on sports? Let the goal dictate our strategy

Specifically, why should the Indian exchequer finance participation in the Olympic Games? Let me report on an 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 the 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 important, but we keep the state out of it, right? Right?

Also read: Why India shouldn't host the Olympics—a costly affair with no returns

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 big positive externalities from sports and hence there is a case for a government role. From this angle, the administration 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 curricula, 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 polarized 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 government must invest in winning international championships to strengthen the sense of nationhood and unity. 

Playgrounds and facilities for 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 Olympic medals tally demonstrates national achievement and power to the world, although countries like North Korea and those in the former communist bloc take this too far. 

Also read: Why India must bid for the 2036 Olympics

The second is that seeking medals despite low per capita income is a statement of national aspiration, much like how Nehru supported nuclear, space and aerospace research in the 1950s despite India 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 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. 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 different reasons for public expenditure on sports, each suggests a different goal with a different strategy. Public health calls for the government to promote a sporting lifestyle by providing infrastructure. 

National glory recommends hot-housing world champions by directing resources towards our best bets. Economic benefits will come if we attract celebrity sportspeople and franchises. 

India must therefore choose why it must invest taxpayer money in sports. Else, we will spread our efforts and budgets 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 budgetary allocations. The answer to why public money is spent on sports is “because we did so last year." 

The Union sports ministry’s budget this year is practically the same as the previous year’s. Our public expenditure on sports in general, and on Olympics in particular, is much smaller than that of countries that top the medals tally. 

This strengthens the case for clarity of purpose. Unless there is a substantive policy review that clarifies basic public goals, we will do more of the same.

Finally, a note of caution to those who argue for boosting the medals tally. There is a correlation between Olympic medals and per capita income. 

Also read: Mint Explainer: Can India afford the Olympics?

It is reasonable to impute causality: As we get richer, we will have more resources for competitive sports. No harm then in focusing on good old economic growth. The medals will come, as will better public health and national glory.