The local sports news over the last few weeks has been dominated by reviews of the various disciplines of sport for the year of 2016, and the announcements of dates for the holding of AGMs of the controlling bodies of the respective sports. Observers of the local sport scene are noting the continued disturbing trend of declining standards of performances both on and off the field of play, across the board. The under-performing administrators somehow manage to get themselves re-elected at the AGMs, or just stay on in office without bothering to hold the AGM. Very few disciplines have escaped this pattern of behaviour. This the question how did we get to this point?
In the past, participation in sport was mainly for recreation and enjoyment, and the various sports organisations were run by volunteers who did so out of the love of the game. The advent of television and the demand for programming material on a 24-hour basis has seen the rise of virtually every competition in which a score of some sort can be kept. Former pastimes such as darts and snooker now command huge television viewership, attracting the mighty sponsorship dollar, which has filtered back to international controlling bodies. Sport today can be regarded as purely business and entertainment.
The two main local attractions, cricket and football, are the recipients of large sums of money on an annual basis from their respective international ruling bodies, the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and The International Federation of Association Football (FIFA). The latter’s annual stipend of US$250,000 has recently been changed, and the local Federation can apply for up to as much as US$1,500,000 per annum for the purpose of the development of the local game. The former’s dealings with the WICB are not privy to public disclosure. The two local controlling organisations, the GCB and the GFF have attracted the attention of the media over the past several years with their wranglings, bending of rules, and modifications of their constitutions to suit their czars.
It took the direct intervention of FIFA (ironically) to take control of the local football scene and install a normalization committee in October, 2014 for one year, and their eventual observation of the elections of the subsequently purged house. Efforts to effect a similar coup d’état of the local cricket board by means of an Interim Management Committee (IMC) installed by government was effectively blocked by the WICB’s refusal to recognize it; while the passing of the Cricket Act into law in August 2014 was stymied by a court challenge, resulting in the granting of an injunction which has effectively left the control of cricket in the hands of a select few individuals until the case is heard.
This virus of clutching on to the reins of power in perpetuity by all means, despite the rumblings of the respective constituents, bears no boundaries. The incumbents fight tooth and nail to defend the hallowed turf they have taken possession of and seem to consider it their personal fiefdom. The controlling body of local cricket has gone as far as to form a private company and transform the assets of the former board into their personal names.
The President of the Guyana Cycling Federation resides overseas and vows to remain in office as long as his term permits, despite the recent attempt by seven out of the nine affiliated cycling clubs to form an IMC. The Guyana Chess Federation has not held an AGM since February, 2014. The President of the Guyana Olympic Association (GOA) has just been returned to office for a sixth consecutive four year term, despite the failure of Guyana to achieve any significant international accolades during his term in office. His nominator was returned to the office of President of the Athletic Association of Guyana last Sunday, for a second four-year term, despite having no development plan for the future of local athletics.
How have these monarchies come into being whilst the trophy cupboard lies bare? Why do they linger in office? Could it be the lure of first class air travel and five star hotels are too much to resist; lest we forget the courting by the rich international federations who seek their precious vote for the hosting of events or the acquisition of even more attractive international positions on the ruling bodies? Does the satisfied horse trader by way of exchange then turn a blind eye to local indiscretions?
Transparency and accountability are often words of a foreign language when some local sports organisations are the subject of the matter. Whilst the administrators enjoy the benefits and perks of the winner’s row, the sportsmen and athletes are deprived of their justifiable rewards for the long and hard hours spent in preparation and training, and are left in the squalor of the also-rans, or in some cases, not even allowed the privilege of participation.
Yet, there are glimmers of hope. The Guyana Squash Association (GSA) stands out like an oasis in a desert. The organisation’s standards of performance on all levels have to be examined closely to be believed. The primary focus on the development of players through coaching and running of tournaments is exemplary. The fact that Guyana has won the Junior Caribbean Squash Championships for the past twelve years is no mean feat and speaks volumes of the local body. The talent pool of any sport dries up after a period of time, and luck runs out, so something else is obviously at play here. Dedication of time and effort, morals and integrity, woefully absent on the horizon of the local landscape, are in plain sight here.
Vaclav Havel, the first post-communist President of Czechoslovakia who brought moral authority and prestige to a position of power, springs to mind when contemplating a solution to this depressing trend. Are the Havels of Guyana willing to step forward and offer their services to future generations of sportsmen? The Constitution of the GSA is prescribed/compulsory reading for all volunteers. It can be readily had and could be the template for all local sport associations to emulate.
Here is an extract from the GSA’s constitution: Article 6: Executive Committee, Line 6.4 reads: “The same member cannot hold the office of president for more than four (4) consecutive years.”