Cricket will make the Olympics bigger and better
As the games feature more sports, they should be spread across several cities
The Cricket World Cup, currently under way in India, claims to be the sport’s most prestigious international contest. But it may soon face competition for that title. From 2028, cricket could feature in the Olympic games. On October 15th officials from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), meeting in Mumbai, are expected to ratify cricket’s inclusion at the Los Angeles games, along with lacrosse, squash, flag football and baseball (for men) or softball (for women).
The additions feel radical. Cricket has featured only once in the Olympics, in Paris in 1900. (In a mockery of an international match, a minor English touring side, who happened to be in France, beat a French team made up mostly of English expats. They were the only entrants.) Squash has never featured, despite a clamour for its inclusion for decades. Flag football, a miniature version of American football, is barely played outside America. But radical inclusions are becoming more common. The games in Paris next year will feature breakdancing in a line-up of 32 sports. When the five new sports get ratified in Mumbai next week, Los Angeles 2028 will showcase 33. By contrast, the first games in Athens in 1896 had just nine.
Those first few games resembled parochial carnivals more than international sporting contests. In 1900, for example, the Belgian contestant bagged gold in the live-pigeon shooting, after blasting 21 birds out of the sky in a day. The event too was mercifully put out of its misery. As was the tug-of-war, which was pulled in 1920.
As the Olympics gained seriousness and size, so did its array of sports. The IOC has been determined not to miss out on new sports, although some of them can barely be called that. Its criteria for events in Paris next year was that they should be “inclusive, gender-balanced and youth-centred”. Hence the selection of breakdancing, skateboarding and surfing. Similarly Los Angeles wants sports “to engage new fans and athletes”.
Less platitudinously, more sports mean more money. That is understandable given that most Olympics make a loss. New sports are one obvious way to boost revenues. Take cricket. Its inclusion in Los Angeles is expected to bring in more viewers from the Indian subcontinent. The Indian broadcast rights for the Paris games are reportedly worth $20m; cricket’s addition in Los Angeles is expected to add a nought.
The sports stand to benefit too. The Olympics are the biggest platform for niche endeavours, such as archery and wrestling, and a necessity for their financial survival. They get a share of the Olympics’ sponsorship revenue and funding from governments hungry for medals. At home and abroad, the games also shine a light on little-known athletes. Nationalism makes people do silly things, like tuning in to dressage.
Even mainstream sports can benefit from the Olympics. The presence of American basketball stars at the Barcelona games in 1992 increased the game’s global appeal. Since then the number of foreign players in the NBA, America’s and the world’s biggest league, has grown steadily. The governing bodies of cricket, which is played by a handful of countries, and American football (in essence, just one), are hoping for a similar effect from Los Angeles.
There are, of course, costs to a broader Olympics. A diverse selection of sports requires more specialised venues. Finding places in Los Angeles to play flag football should be straightforward; less so cricket grounds. The recent Olympics in Tokyo is estimated to have set the local organisers back $35bn. A significant chunk went on building new venues (including a national stadium that cost $1.4bn but sat empty during the games because of the pandemic). Cities are increasingly loth to take up such burdens. Paris and Los Angeles were awarded the games because no other city wanted them.
To make the prospect more enticing the IOC has allowed local organising committees to propose local sports (hence flag football in Los Angeles). To prevent bloated games, it has instituted a cap of 10,500 athletes. That will be met in Paris, but is unlikely to be in Los Angeles. So far the Los Angeles organisers have only cut breakdancing from their programme. Once sports are in the Olympics, they tend to stay. When the IOC mulled ditching wrestling at the Tokyo games, it sparked outcry.
There is a simpler solution: spread the Olympics across cities. Only tradition mandates that the games be hosted in one place. It is far better for the burden—and honour—to be shared across many cities in a country, or even the world. Lacrosse in Montreal, football in Manchester and cricket in Mumbai would require much less investment from each host, and would make the Olympics a truly global event. Fans who attend the games are unlikely to complain. Those travelling to Paris next year to catch the showjumping are unlikely to shuffle over to watch breakdancing. In a fractious world, the Olympics provide a rare shared celebration. A bigger selection of sports allows more to join the party. There is no reason why it has to be in one place. ■
