I think that's an absolutely staggering notion, Amit. The megabucks that big-time (male) cricket in India attracts should be used to benefit all levels of the game, right down to grassroots level and not just "domestic (interstate/zone) cricket". This includes the women's game.

The greater the support for *all* participative cricket in India, the better the overall health of the game will be.

We're in the 21st century now. Gender discrimination should, like racial discrimination, be a thing of the past.

Cheers
Rick

It isn't gender discrimination, Rick. Men's cricket and women's cricket are fundamentally two separate sports, with their own commercial universes. Just as there is no reason for money generated by cricket to be used to promote football, hockey or basketball, there is no reason for money the men's game generates to be used to promote the women's game. Everyone should pay their own way, regardless of gender.

If men's cricket made no money and women's cricket made tons of money, I'd hold that women's cricket shouldn't subsidise men's cricket. It's an economic and moral principle: no hand-outs. Gender has nothing to do with it.

"No hand-outs."
If everything has to make economic sense (profits, more profits and mo mo profits)as per what you say - it is your choice. But then, as you are well aware of Mr Varma there are a lot of things in life that is way beyond the idea of profits.

One of the reasons why female foeticide is high in India is because many Indians still consider their children as a business which is worth only economic profits.

In the first place, your question is so wrong. "subsidised" is a very loaded word today.

Women's cricket is not asking for any charity. It needs support - we all know that.

It will be a good idea to see the world through your mom's eyes - at least once in a while.

If you assert that men's cricket and women's cricket are "fundamentally two separate sports", then gender does have everything to do with it. Commercial universe? What commercial universe does the Indian women's cricket team have?

The truth is that women's cricket - not just in India, but everywhere that cricket is played except possibly for New Caledonia - has been held back through centuries of discrimination, and needs a lot of development and support to bring it up to something even resembling a level playing field with the men's game. And that means, in part, that some of the profits from the elite men's game go towards developing the top-level women's game.

This is one reason why the BCCI must step into line with the rest of the world and merge with the WCAI.

Maybe one day when women's cricket has received some semblance of a fair go at becoming commercially viable on its own two feet, then and only then should your vision of a free-market libertarian utopia come into play.

A question for you, Amit: should the revenues from television/new media rights to major Indian international (men's) cricket go towards subsidising schoolboy cricket?

Santhosh, women's cricket and female foeticide? Come, come. Not supporting women's cricket does not take anyone's life, and nor does it abrogate anyone's rights, for no one has a right to charity, which is exactly what subsidies would be.

And seeing it through my mom's eyes would make no difference: she doesn't like cricket. Now you see why women's cricket makes no money?

Rick, every sport has a commercial universe, some very small, some huge. That universe consists of all the people who derive value from the sport. If very few people derive value from women's cricket (which is why it makes little money), why should it demand the support of others outside that universe? My eyeballs go towards men's cricket, and I want more of it and better: why should the money you get from my eyeballs go towards something else?

If you and Santhosh like women's cricket, you're welcome to give it your eyeballs and, if you're a rich philanthropist, your money. Why should others?

Also, there is as little "gender discrimination" in men's and women's cricket being considered separate sports as there is in having separate public toilets for men and women. Differences don't necessarily amount to discrimination, and, to state this again, if the women's game made more money than the men's game, I would be against subsidising the men's game. The economic and moral principle matters to me, not the gender.

And your question towards subsidising schoolboy cricket is already answered in my post with regard to domestic cricket: anything that acts as a feeder system for the men's game is entitled to money from the men's game. Schoolboy cricket and domestic cricket do, and any money poured into them is an investment in the future of men's cricket. Women's cricket, like basketball or kabaddi, is outside this universe. I would like it to thrive, but on its own merit.

Also, if I may ask a question, do you guys watch women's cricket, or are you supporting it in the abstract but not in the concrete? (If you do watch it, apologies for the impertinent question!)

Amit, my background in reporting, watching and living women's cricket (of which my five years at CricInfo was just a part) is probably too long to go into here. I, like you, would like to see the women's game thrive and survive on its own merit, but it needs help getting there - as women do in many, many aspects of society.

At least, under your socio-economic model, those women and girls who do get to play in men's teams at club level will derive some benefit from the trickle-down from BCCI megabucks.

I think, at the end of the day, we're going to disagree on the fundamental philosophies surrounding the generation and distribution of wealth. But I think you're going to have a hard time defending your assertion that this example is not a case of gender discrimination.

Rick, yes, we'll just agree to disagree there. But not only is this not a case of gender discrimination, it's not even a case of discrimination. It would be if some third party, say the government, decided to give a certain amount of money to cricket and the women got none of it. But we're talking about people spending their own money here. Women's cricket has no entitlement to money from men's cricket. Everyone should earn their own way, regardless of gender. There is no lack of opportunity for them, just a lack of audience.

Women's cricket is in bad shape because no one watches it. Millions of people like me have watched a lot of men's cricket over the last few months, but no women's cricket at all. You're effectively calling that gender discrimination!

Well, I'm with you, Mr. Varma.

Amit, my final word in this discussion is to recommend that you have a chat with Mithali Raj or Shubhangi Kulkarni once the Indian team returns home from New Zealand and see what they think. With any luck you'll change your mind a little.

Cheers
Rick

Change my mind over what, Rick? There are two things I believe with regard to women's cricket, and those are:

1] I would love to see women's cricket thrive and women cricketers become rich and successful.

2] But I only want to see women's cricket achieve this on its own merit, and not have to depend on charity or subsidies. Women's cricket is certainly not *entitled* to help from anyone, though if compassionate individuals like you wish to do so, you're welcome to do so with your own chequebook, instead of making demands of others. :)

Meeting two individuals would hardly change my mind on these fundamental issues.

First off, I agree with you in principle.

What are your thoughts on the upcoming merger of the BCCI with the Indian women's cricket organization? If that comes through, then the goal of the new organization will be governing all cricket in India and not just men's cricket. Do you think this body should then keep separate books for women's cricket and men's cricket?

Further, if this body deems that spending money on promoting women's cricket will benefit the game in general. For instance, one many argue that an increased interest in women's cricket will result in an increase in the viewership of men's cricket because more women will follow cricket.

Amit really is right. If women's cricket needs any assistance, it should be in the area of promotion. My thoughts on this are: If something can't survive on its own merit, does it deserve to? Views such as yours, Rick, are why back here in Western Australia we can't shop in mainstream grocery stores on Sundays or even after 6 pm-all for the sake of protecting small business.

I think if women's cricket needs any aid, it should be in the form of promotion or advertising. But no one is entitled to payouts- it isn't fair to expect large, wealthy organisations to prop up smaller ones. It only puts a strain on everything and sends the wrong message to the organisation being "helped."

Why do people have to mix up economic issues with social ones ?

The point here is very simple - If Mithali Raj is not good enough to hold my attention, then she wont get any of my money; and if VVS Laxman does, then he would get all of it or as much as I would like to part with.

Why is there a moral obligation to support and subsidise somebody who is not fully deserving of my money?

It is not necessary for every thing to make economic sense. Here's why:

One day cricket is much more popular in some countries compared to test cricket. For example people are hardly visible in the stands for test cricket in Pakistan and New Zealand. An argument can be forged that - the two are different forms of the game and each should sustain itself independently. Did test cricket not get a boost because of the one day game? Could test cricket have survived in the 70s, 80s without a one day game?

We have to always keep the larger picture in mind.Sports, wherever it can, needs promotion. A small portion of the money a sporting body earns can easily be used for promoting other sports. It maybe small money for a larger body but for a younger, less developed sport it can prove to be the boost it needs to kick start it's development.

Amit, don't you see it's gender discrimination just to see men and women's cricket as two entirely separate entities? the fact is, that apart from the sex of the players, there are in fact no differences - therefore it is still the same game and as such should get a helping hand.

My girlfriend is from India and she was talking about men like you. How sad that I was mistaken when I thought she was exaggerating.

Ranjit, if the two organisations merge, then it is their prerogative to make whatever investment decisions they feel is in their interest. If they feel it makes business sense to invest in Women's cricket, then who is anyone else to stop them? But this sense that women's cricket is *entitled* to financial support just because of their gender is misplaced.

Marcus, promotion or advertising is effectively the same as payouts, as they cost money. Women's cricket can't demand it of men's cricket any more than baskatball can.

Jethro, excellent point.

Henry, firstly most viewers see men's and women's cricket as separate entities, as evident from the viewership they receive. Is that gender discrimination? (And do *you* watch them equally?) Secondly, men's and women's cricket in India are legally separate, run by separate entities.

And thirdly, there's no need to get personal. (And that's for you too, Marcus: I don't see what's Rick's geographical location has to do with his argument.) Keep it civil and keep the focus on the arguments and not the people.

How often is women's cricket televised? Harldy ever. I bet more domestic cricket is televised then women's cricket. You can't argue that no one watches women's cricket when it isn't shown to any one in the first place.

Zainub, you're getting causation all mixed up here. If there was an audience for women's cricket, you bet someone would broadcast it. No private broadcaster will ignore demand where it exists -- unless its so small that it makes no financial sense. That's just the case with women's cricket.

I'll put in a bet Amit. You sent down this bouncer of a post and then kept that slower delivery of a reply (appearing after the 1st comment) ready as any good bowler (read blogger) would for the batsman's natural response. Sheer bad luck that the batsman, gender incorrect, got stuck in......good match nevertheless.

There's one not-so-small point that I would make here. Most babies would not survive and grow into healthy adults if their parents do not help them to start with. That does not prevent the parents from helping them out anyway. Tt is only if the child depends on the parents after growing up that his survival becomes questionable.

Women's cricket can do with some encouragement - mostly promotion - as Marcus says. But going by the majority opinion, it is going to be the street urchin that is destined to bring herself up:)

amit verma,
i guess you're no different from the hundreds of other vermas, chopras, and bawejas in india.
people who always play the same lame bollywood game "there is no market for interesting, mature, enjoyable cincema, so lets go on making crap like Koi Mil Gaya and Kal Kyon Nahi"

and don't get me wrong- i'm not enraged by your callousness--i'm just too amused by your baniya mentality. hat tip.

on second thoughts, i do think i went a bit overboard there. apologies, not meant to be so personal.
just that i see so many moneyhungry brokers running the game today, it saddens me to see every cricketing debate being settled on the logic of 'what makes money' and such like.
The "women-vs-men game" debate shouldn't be about money. it's about the game, its future, which is dearer to me than anything else.

it's the same "doesn't make money sense" that is put forth so shamelessly by those who support making flat decks just for tv money.

but i guess my previous post had
crossed sarcasm and afridi-ed its way into disgrace. i'm just having a bad day seeing england waste their chances, i guess. it's all freddie's fault...

Angshuman, parents bring their kids into the world and are thus responsible for them. That relationship does not exist between the BCCI and women's cricket.

Bichismart, I'm a big fan of indie cinema, but Nagesh Kukunoor does not demand that Yash Chopra subsidize his films. He makes them on his own steam, and full credit to him for that. If Yash Chopra does someday choose to fund a Kukunoor film, it will be voluntary: Kukunoor is not *entitled* to Chopra's money.

Amit,
Let me be very clear where I stand right at the start. It makes sense to pour in some money into womens cricket to popularize it.
You use the words "subsidies" and "charity" as if some kind of immorality is attached to them. And that may be your worldview . But even if you just think only from the profit maximization point still it would make great sense for mens cricket to promote womens cricket. It's one of the ways in which cricket will increase its audience and bring in more money. For eg womens tennis is now as popular and profit making as mens tennis and that is the only reason why there is equal prize money for grand slams. Now even if you argue that womens tennis grew popular without any help from mens tennis still the point is that today it makes money and it would be pretty irrational for a corporation like ICC to ignore this analogy. So build it up and sell it : -).
Also you say that "But this sense that women's cricket is *entitled* to financial support just because of their gender is misplaced." I think you are mistaken. The reason womens cricket may be entitled to financial support is not because of the gender, but simply because they play cricket. And you would agree that it would be one more feeder system to fill the coffers of ICC.
And yes, i think there are pretty strong moral reasons for "subsidies" and "charities", but then, thats another discussion.

Sunil, subsidies and charity are perfectly fine, indeed desirable, when it is *voluntary* on the part of the party whose money is being spent. So if you or qny of the other commenters here wish to subsidise women's cricket with your own money, then by all means do so. Nothing immoral about that. Immorality comes in with coercion.

Regarding your other point, I don't disagree with you. If the BCCI sees "profit maximisation" and a future revenue stream in promoting women's cricket, then by all means let them invest in it. But that is their decision to take, because it is their money. Not anyone else's.

Amit,
You are loosing me here. Your question is "Should women's cricket be subsidised by earnings from international men's cricket?". And the answer you give is "No". Obviously no "coercion" is involved. And obviously, it is their money. All these are self evident.
But now it seems to me that the question you are answering is " Should the BCCI/ICC FORCED to subsidise womens cricket?" . And you also seem to take the position that since its the BCCI's decision, no one outside can even talk about it or have an opinion about it?
Also will your opinion change if the BCCI "voluntarily" subsidised womens cricket ? After all as you say "But that is their decision to take, because it is their money. Not anyone else's."
Are you confused or am I not getting it :-)

Amit,
I made a comment yesterday following the discussion. But I dont see it. Have you deleted it ? And if so, can I ask why?

Sunil, apologies, all comments have to be moderated on Cricinfo's blogs, and I'm the only person who moderates comments for this particular blog, and sometimes I'm a bit slow doing it. So sorry for that!

Good question in the comment before that. The confusion arises from the use of the word "should", which is often used to make demands on others, so let me clarify my stand: there is no ethical imperitive on the BCCI to subsidize women's cricket, and any demand that they should/must do so is misplaced. However, if the chaps in the BCCI feel that it would be a good investment for the future, they're free to put their money there. But they're not doing anything wrong or inethical if they don't do so.

Is that clearer? :)