NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Smoke signals

The marketing committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India -- the committee which rakes in the moolah for the BCCI, the committee which turned friends Jagmohan Dalmiya and Inder Singh Bindra into foes -- meets in Bombay on Thursday, August 19, to make decisions on two maha-important matters.

Television rights. And team sponsorship.

Not surprisingly, BCCI's managers and their media handlers have succeeded in focusing all our attention on the sexier issue: Which television channel or software production company will get the opportunity to milk the cash cow till its teat sags? Will it be Doordarshan or ESPN-StarSports, Zee or Sony, TWI or WorldTel?

Who cares, if you ask me, if all they're going to show of a Ranji Trophy final is a one-hour capsule, voiced-over by Maninder Singh, the week after? And who cares when the channel's general vision of the game is the same as that of its myopic bosses? Which is, if something doesn't get the cash registers ringing, the turnstiles swinging, it isn't worth it.

We'll let that pass.

Equally unsurprisingly, the Board's bosses have succeeded in diverting all our attention from the more vital issue that the marketing men will take up; a decision on which will affect you and me, a decision which, in a manner of speaking, will affect the nation's wellbeing: namely, which company will get to sponsor the Indian cricket team? And whose logo will the team sport at every match and venue for the next few years?

Will Wills -- WILLS!!-- the flagship brand of the Imperial Tobacco Company turned Indian Tobacco Company, get another chance to circumvent the rules and win over young, impressionable minds through the most shameless surrogate advertising and brand-stretching you will ever get to see? Or will wise heads, in the sport and in government, muster the courage and stand up and say no, enough of tobacco sponsorship?

But first things first: TV rights.

"The rights will go to a network with vast reach and which has given adequate coverage to Indian cricket over the years," BCCI's secretary J.Y. Lele is quoted as saying in one report (the words are his, the emphasis is ours). That should effectively rule out Zee and Sony, but Little Lele and his masters are, if nothing else, an unending source of surprise.

So, in the same breath, he adds, "While awarding the TV rights, the Board will try to ensure that a maximum number of people would be able to see the telecast." Which should rule out ESPN-StarSports, and leave DD the winner, game, set and match. But anyone who has followed the BCCI's intrigues knows better than to expect DD to walk away.

Typically for an organisation which doesn't believe in global tenders, BCCI does not define what in its view constitutes a "maximum" number of viewers. Which is no surprise because last time round, Pepsi got to sponsor the Test and one-day series on the BCCI's guarantee that ESPN's telecast would reach a minimum of 7 million cable and satellite homes. Seven million in a nation of 980 million -- so how does that figure square with "maximum numbers"?!!

Let's face it, this TV rights' business is full of wheels within wheels. Only the foolhardy would attempt to unspool it.

But, really, it's the team sponsorship issue that should be getting us all het up, that we should be bothered about. To put it bluntly, should BCCI take Wills' money at a time when tobacco sponsorship of sport in general is a universal no-no? And when, in particular, every major cricketing nation -- Australia, South Africa, West Indies, England -- has shown the door to tobacco companies?

Your answer is obvious; the BCCI's response this week is less so.

It's probably a reflection on our media -- print more than electronic, since the former subsist on tobacco ads with statutory warnings, which are banned on TV -- that tobacco sponsorship, the biggest issue in world sport aside from performance-enhancing drugs and tainted Olympic dollars, is a non-issue when the mandarins of the nation's biggest sport, cricket, sit down to hawk their wares to the highest bidder.

The reason is not far to seek. For it is on the edifice of cheap tobacco money and even quicker liquor money that the imposing structure of modern Indian cricket has been built. And like an addicted smoker, it's hooked on to it and refusing to let kick the habit.

You won't read cricket correspondents writing about it, because they're probably at this very moment sporting a tobacco-company tee-shirt with a cigarette between their lips and working on a yearbook for the company, with a bottle of free booze by the side.

You won't see magisterial editorials on it because all those island-ads dangling in the middle of the correspondent's copy in newspapers and all those slick back-cover ads and doublespreads in magazines will disappear in a hurry if they do.

You won't hear those "experts" -- cricketers-turned-commentators -- raising their voice against it because it's tobacco money which brought them the only thing they care for: higher match fees. And then, there is that dinner to attend this evening.

Should you also, therefore, pretend that there is nothing wrong with it?

That there is nothing wrong about tobacco companies picking up the tab for Indian cricket? That there's nothing wrong in exposing children, yours and mine, to eight hours of tobacco advertising on every match day? That the "Wills" logo on Indian players's is actually the logo of "Wills Sport" a company promoted by ITC, nothing else? That the "Four-Square" logo on the wicket-keeper's pads is a harmless thing? That the "Red & White" bravery awards are actually awarded for bravery?

If you do, congratulations, the Board of Control for Cricket in India is looking out for good samaritans like you.

If you do, sorry, the rest of the cricketing world no longer sees tobacco money in such kind light, and with good reason.

Australia, which pioneered all that Dalmiya and his boys have done, told Benson&Hedges to pack up and go three seasons ago, which is why an airline company (Ansett) is now sponsoring the Tests. England did the same, which is why insurance companies (Cornhill, Prudential), blade companies (Gillette) and phone companies (Vodafone) have got into the act. Which is why a beer brewery (Castle) is doing duty in South Africa, and a cellphone company (Cable & Wireless) in the West Indies.

But what do we have here? The World Cup is named after Wills which sponsors the team, Four-Square is endorsed by players, Red & White awards are announced on TV, Charms underwrites tournaments, McDowell sponsors Tests, Kingfisher has players cavorting, KnockOut and Thunder and Southern Comfort and you name it -- rum, gin, vodka, whisky -- are on national TV at all hours of the day and night.

It's almost as if the government doesn't care what's happening as long as it gets the excise duty, it's almost as if the players don't care about the damage tobacco smoking can cause, it's almost as if newspapers and magazines don't care as long as they get the ads, it's almost as if the cricket board doesn't care about the message they're conveying as long as the players don't complain of poor fees, it's almost as if India is functioning in an ethical vacuum.

Is India the reason why British-American tobacco majors so willingly agreed to pay damages in the United States?

It's nobody's case that banishing tobacco companies' logos and brand names on cricketers' sleeves and sports channels is going to curb smoking, and bring down the attendant diseases. Heck, no, nothing of the sort. People are gonna do what they gotta do. And in the absence of advertising avenues, tobacco companies are going to exploit anybody who comes to them with the begging bowl.

The point is that the crown jewel of Indian sport allowed itself to be painted into a corner in this fashion, and that Indian cricketers instead of being epitomes of health and fitness are touting what is universally acknowledged to be a very dangerous thing. And the point also is that our officials, our government, our sportsmen, our media are doing nothing about it.

Sachin Tendulkar's agent says his client will never endorse ciggies. But will the "Little Champion" say that on TV?

Two months ago to the day, on June 17, Britain outlawed tobacco ads and sponsorship, complying with European Union directives. Sports competitions were told to cut their tobacco sponsorship by at least a fifth every year, and get rid of it altogether by 2003. The government also warned tobacco makers against "brand stretching" their products by promoting other goods such as clothing and footwear. The aim, said Britain's health secretary, Frank Dobson, was to protect children.

Yes, children.

"Every year, tobacco advertising is one of the most powerful influences in persuading children to start smoking. Every time they walk down the street, wait at a bus stop, watch a match, switch on TV or open a magazine, they're exposed to pro-smoking propaganda. That must stop, and it's going to stop," he said, even as the tobacco companies warned of massive job losses.

Whither such leadership in India, where beedi-makers masquerade as national leaders? Where the media banks on money from the huge adspends of cigarette companies? Where ambitious sport bosses will sell anything for a few crore rupees more? Where players do not bother where their money is coming from as long it keeps coming?

Tobacco companies will, of course, argue that it still isn't proved that smoking kills. They will complain of job losses if they are shut out of business and advertising. They will also say that denying them a forum to publicise their product will be tantamount to censorship and a violation of individuals' right to information about a legally available product.

That is precisely the point a recent Public Interest Litigation filed by former Congress MP Murali Deora makes.

Due to improper publicity of the harmful efects of tobacco in India, it states, "two crore children below the age of 18 years are addicted to tobacco, and nearly 55,000 children take to smoking everyday." How much of the blame rests on the shoulders of Jagmohan Dalmiya and Co? And how much on the shoulders of Sachin Tendulkar and his boys?

Advocate Indira Jaising, who is arguing for Deora, says that the statutory warning regime is shamelessly flouted by tobacco majors which resort to every possible measure to make the warning inconspicuous, including resorting to surrogate advertising and brand stretching.

The Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 1975 made it mandatory for manufacturers to display boldly the statutory warning. Companies like ITC, VST, GTC and Godfrey Philips are using cricket to circumvent the law, by sponsoring teams and eponymous tournaments, man of the match awards, and selling cricket yearbooks, sports gear, the works.

Will the Board of Control for Cricket in India allow them to do so again?