IBL can be the answer to badminton’s troubles

Badminton stands on the edge of momentous change. It’s hard to think of one event that can have so many implications for the game.

There have been few turning points in the 100-plus years of badminton. Perhaps the first of these was the ‘Go Open’ movement in the late seventies, which saw badminton players demanding a share of the prize money. Although the term ‘Open’ initially meant opening a tournament to participation from players of other regions or countries, it gradually started to assume other connotations. By the late seventies, inspired by the example of million-dollar purses in golf and tennis, badminton players began to demand similar treatment. Finally, at its AGM (Annual General Meeting) in Jakarta, 1979, the International Badminton Federation announced that badminton would finally go ‘Open’.

The word ‘professional’ had been a dirty word for long, and so a ‘licensed’ player category was created. The ‘licensed’ player could accept cash prizes exceeding the amateur 300 pound prize limit, get advertising contracts and greater support grants. However, they were still under the control of their national federations – the prize money would be deposited with the federations. The licensed players could not take part in multi-sport events such as the Asian Games.

The first such Open tournament was the Friends Provident Masters in London, 1979, with a then-unheard-of purse of 20,000 pounds. Incidentally, that event was won by Prakash Padukone, who won 3,000 pounds as prize money. (The money had to be routed through the national association.)

The Pro-Kennex Grand Prix circuit started in 1983, and top badminton players of the eighties could make – according to one report – around 40,000 pounds a year.

The second major turning point was in 1992, when badminton became an Olympic sport. Badminton rapidly became a more global sport thanks to the Olympic movement.

The third major turning point was the introduction of the Superseries circuit and a simultaneous change in the scoring system in 2007. The old 15×3 (men) and 11×3 (women) had the one drawback of unpredictable match duration, with matches easily capable ofrunning to two hours. With the ‘rally’ system of 21×3, the average duration was brought down to around one hour. The Superseries circuit helped distinguish the important tournaments from the not-so-important ones, and it has improved the profile ofbadminton. In terms of prize money too, the sport has seen a dramatic improvement. The richest tournament, the Korea Open Super Series Premier, offers 1.2 million USD as prize money (USD 90,000 for the singles winner!).

But the one undercurrent throughout the history of badminton has been the control national associations have had on the sport. Although this system does have some advantages, it’s less flexible than truly professional circuits such as the ATP or PGA. Badminton got a lot of bad press at the London Olympics due to the ‘match-throwing’ scandal. Such an eventuality would have been inconceivable if national associations had not the authority over players that they currently exert. This control essentially comes because of badminton’s development in socialist countries, where the state takes the responsibility for identifying, developing talent, and paying for all career expenses. A player’s identity comes solely because of his national association, which has to forward his entry to international tournaments and spends on his participation. This system has its merits – for instance, it makes a player’s fortunes less dependent on the market, and more on his ability – but it does have its negative side too, as a player is always subservient to the national interest.

What is good for the association need not always be good for the game, as the Olympics incident showed.

It is in this context that a worldwide league can shake things up. Players must begin to represent themselves. To borrow an imaginary situation from tennis – it would be unthinkable if Stanislas Wawrinka were to under-perform in a US Open or Olympic final against Roger Federer, just because they are both Swiss.

IBL’s challenge will be to place as much emphasis on the goodness of the game as its marketing. The game should be the IBL’s centrepiece, and not cheerleaders or Bollywood stars. The IPL has set a bad example for sport, with its politics, its intrigue, its inscrutable commercial contracts, and its emphasis on glamour over cricketing merit. One hopes the IBL will be able to utilise its historic opportunity to turn badminton into a healthy spectacle.