logo
How dictatorship killed cricket's dream and patronised football in Italy and Argentina

How dictatorship killed cricket's dream and patronised football in Italy and Argentina

Italy's Benito Mussolini and Argentina's Juan Peron were dictators in different ideological guises that broke their countries. The Italian instigated war and destruction; the Argentine inflation and bankruptcy. Both used football as a nation-unifying, propaganda tool; and indirectly stubbed out from their fields and consciousness the other major sport that arrived with the English traders and imperialists in their countries. Cricket — the second most watched sport in the world, but with its imprints limited to a dozen outposts of the Commonwealth.
A century later, Italy qualified for the T20 cricket World Cup, even as the probability of missing out on the World Cup that they really care for looms. But cricket in Italy was as old as football. Horatio Nelson's soldiers were the first to play a game on Italian soil, when they anchored in Naples in 1793. A century and unification of the country later, the British traders opened the Genoa Cricket and Football Club in 1893, which dropped cricket from its name but is a Serie A regular.
Italy cricket's grand old man Simone Gambino fishes out the history. 'Italy was unified in 1870 and the English helped a lot to unify. They did pour the mass of capital into industry in the north of Italy. Textile industry in particular. And in Milan, Genoa, and Turin, the three cities in the northwest of Italy, there were many Englishmen who started playing cricket and football. This was the beginning of football,' he says.
The English names the English assigned to the cities remain. But cricket did not. 'Mussolini hated the English. So everything that was English, he kicked it out, and obviously cricket disappeared,' he says. He built grand football stadiums across the country, restructured the league, pumped in money, and hosted the 1934 edition of the World Cup that Italy won but under the shadow of rigging games. The story goes that Mussolini invited Ivan Eklind, the referee appointed to take charge of the hosts' semi-final with Austria, to an exclusive dinner. The next day he awarded a controversial penalty to Italy. Italians defended the crown the next edition, but Jonathan Wilson, in his seminal book Inverting the Pyramid wrote about the manager Vittorio Pozzo 'made full use of the prevailing [fascist] militarism to dominate and motivate his side.'
A decade later in Argentina, Peron too recognised football's infinite powers to galvanise his political narrative. His government granted generous loans to football clubs to construct stadiums and infrastructure. His favourite club Racing received 16,700,000 pesos to build the Estadio Presidente Perón. His wife Eva, though, would play a bigger role wiping the slate of cricket clean.
In 1947, she sought the outfield of Buenos Aires Cricket Club for a fundraising function. The cricket body refused and she ordered the wooden pavilion to be razed down and burned. Cricket historians consider it a symbolic moment when cricket in the country, popular from the late 19th century, met a brutal death, as chronicled fabulously by journalists Timothy Abraham and James Coyne in the book Evita Burned Down the Pavilion.
Involved in the crossfire was Argentina's greatest cricketer, Clement Gibson, son of planters who settled in Argentina in the 19th century. He was a swing bowler with a devastating leg-cutter that pitched on leg-stump and hit the off-stick, and a celebrated figure in Cambridge and Sussex. In a tour game against the touring Australians in 1921, he grabbed six wickets in the second innings to mastermind a famous comeback after England XI were bundled out for 43 in the first innings. A decade later, Douglas Jardine summoned him to attend a camp for the Bodyline series. But he picked up an injury and shortly returned to Argentina with a healthy haul of 249 wickets at 28, to look after the wild sprawling ranches.
After a dispute over his brewery, the first lady commissioned two sets of hitmen to kill him. He had fled to the family's northernmost ranch. They never returned, assumed dead and Gibson lived till he was 76, making occasional visits to his son in England. Cricket, by then, was confined to the few English families that still lived in the country and survived as a relic of the era of British planters. Argentina still plays cricket and in an expanded T20 World Cup format the ICC is envisioning could one day qualify.
But on the whims and vendettas of leaders and dictators hinged the fate of sports. Perhaps, cricket would not have thrived in Latin America or Italy or the Netherlands. Perhaps, the English did not stay long enough. Even if they were, cricket was never the sport of masses, confined to the gentry clubs, in all these countries. Football was the masses' opium in the barrios and favellas. The game did flourish in the nitrate mining communities of Atacama Desert in Chile as well as Mexico, Uruguay and Panama (where West Indies great George Headley was born). Maybe, cricket could not capture the local rhythms as football did, or captured its sensibilities. Or you could imagine, the subcontinent's sport of choice if the English had not lingered too long. Or if it were the Portuguese or the Dutch or the Spaniard. Perhaps it still could have been cricket. But Italy qualifying for the T20 World Cup makes you dwell on conjectures. What if Mussolini and Peron encouraged cricket? Or the princes of India's states patronised football? History of sports is thus the history of empires and emperors too.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Was Not In The Spirit Of The Game': Shubman Gill Blasts England For 'Time Wasting Tactics' During Lord's Test
'Was Not In The Spirit Of The Game': Shubman Gill Blasts England For 'Time Wasting Tactics' During Lord's Test

India.com

time40 minutes ago

  • India.com

'Was Not In The Spirit Of The Game': Shubman Gill Blasts England For 'Time Wasting Tactics' During Lord's Test

India skipper Shubman Gill has slammed England for their time wasting tactics during the third Test at Lord's, while saying that it was not in the spirit of the game. With the series tied at 1-1 ahead of the Lord's Test last week, the closely fought third Test between England and India witnessed plenty of drama on the field. This included an animated flare-up between India skipper Shubman and England openers towards the end of the third day of the Test. After managing to equal England's first innings total of 387, India wanted to squeeze in two overs in the remaining six minutes of play. However, that wasn't possible as the English openers took their time to get ready, and the India captain got involved in a heated discussion with Zak Crawley and then Ben Duckett. Addressing the pre-match press conference, India skipper cleared the air on the incident between him and England openers. "Let me clear the air. We had seven minutes of play left, the English batters were 90 seconds late to bat. Not 10,20 but 90. Yes, we would have also liked to bat less in the same situation but there is a manner to do it. I feel what happened was not in the spirit of the game," said Gill. "It's not something that I am proud of, we had no intention of doing that but there was a build-up to it," he added. The 25-year-old Gill also confirmed that Rishabh Pant will be keeping the wickets in the 4th Test, after an injury saw Dhruv Jurel replace the left-handed batter in the field at Lords. With India now trailing 1-2, many are wondering whether Karun Nair's fairytale has come to an end. In what has been his first series since 2017, the right-hand batter has only amassed 131 runs across six innings with a high score of 40. With both Sai Sudharsan and Abhimanyu Easwaran itching to go, Gill confirmed he is hopeful that Nair will turn around his form and help the team. "We have had conversations, we think Karun is batting well. He did not play at his number in the first game, It is difficult to make a comeback in a series like this. It is about getting that click, you score a 50 and then can go on to make a big score. We are hopeful he will turn it around," said Gill.

The ICC: A members' club with a very small number of members
The ICC: A members' club with a very small number of members

The Hindu

time40 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

The ICC: A members' club with a very small number of members

Writing in the Wisden, Gideon Haigh characterised the International Cricket Council (ICC) as 'an unloved beast that is ostensibly a global governing body but too often looks like a forum in which the representatives of national monopolies come to split the spoils of cricket's commercial exploitation.' In one of his more mellow moods, an ICC official once said that 'if we sold the television rights to ICC board meetings, we would make a fortune…' Another thought meetings of the ICC Executive Board are almost pointless, since 'Everything has been decided by the time they take place, on the basis who owes a favour to whom.' How did cricket get to where it is today? The glib answer is, the greatness of its players, from W.G. Grace to Virat Kohli, guided by a benevolent international governing body which has had only the game's interests at heart. If only. But while there are numerous biographies of Grace and Kohli, we haven't had someone getting into the nitty gritty of how the ICC ran the sport. Until now that is, when an Australian, Rod Lyall has, after deep research into primary sources published The Club: Empire, Power and the Governance of World Cricket. This is what the ICC has always been, 'a members' club, with a very small number of members', says the author. Today it is seen as merely an events management company, the real power being in the hands of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Changing times From colonial power to money power, from exclusivity to inclusion, from being a Commonwealth preserve to welcoming the wider world, from being seen as the MCC's Foreign Desk to an extension of the ruling BJP, and the possible take-over of the game by corporates, the journey of the ICC has been unique. No single country has the kind of clout India has in cricket in any other sport. Brazil might be football to many, but they don't rule it. The skewed position was built into the ICC from the start. As Lyall writes, the central objective (of the ICC) had been to 'concentrate power in a small number of hands, and to protect the interests of that small group at the expense of anyone else….the administrators had been consistent in their exploitation of race and class to maintain their grasp on power.' The eagerness with which the ICC is wooing the United States is ironical considering they were kept out for not being in the Commonwealth. 'The US might have been invited to join in 1909 but had been kept out by that unfortunate War of Independence back in the 1770s,' comments Lyall drily. The ICC has been chary about dealing with the big issues: corruption, politics, on-field changes, but has defended its turf keenly. By the 1930s, when the original three members had expanded to six with the inclusion of New Zealand, West Indies and India, it proposed that the founding members would have two votes and the newcomers just one each. It was only in 1947 that a First-Class match was defined. ICC meetings were 'the usual mixture of platitudes and procrastinations.' India's attempts to shake the grip on the game and its administration from England and Australia began with the shifting of the World Cup to the subcontinent in 1986-87 after the first three had been held in England. A few years later, the founding members lost the power of veto, and Jagmohan Dalmiya, speeded up the eastward shift. When the ICC shifted its headquarters from London to Dubai, one newspaper headline said simply, 'ICC Moves Closer to Money'. Dalmiya's membership drive not only gave India greater influence thanks to the votes the new countries had, it also hastened the acceptance of cricket into the Olympic fold. India's argument has been, since the time of N. Srinivasan, that when England and Australia were calling the shots, no one else had a say in matters but now it was India's turn. Srinivasan became the ICC's first chairman in 2014, and set about establishing India's suzerainty in the sport. Is the ICC a necessary evil or an unnecessary do-gooder or a mix of the two depending on the situation? The Club gives us the background to decide for ourselves.

Ind vs Eng 4th Test: Can India script an injury-time comeback?
Ind vs Eng 4th Test: Can India script an injury-time comeback?

Economic Times

time40 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Ind vs Eng 4th Test: Can India script an injury-time comeback?

Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel England don't just hold the 2-1 lead in this series going into the fourth Test at Manchester, they seem to have the rub of the green as least when it comes to injuries. England announced early that they were making only one change to the team that won the third Test, bringing in Liam Dawson , the veteran left-arm spinner, into the eleven in place of Shoaib Bashir, who injured a finger on his left hand while fielding. Dawson will be playing only his fourth Test, at the age of 35, after eight years in the cricketing wilderness. Dawson has had decent returns at the domestic level over the last few seasons and was thought to be the best person to play a role in Bashir's absence. His first three Tests yielded seven wickets at an average of nearly meanwhile, have plenty to think about when it comes to team composition. Shubman Gill, the captain, confirmed that both Arshdeep Singh and Akash Deep were unavailable. Nitish Reddy has already been ruled out of the rest of the meant that Jasprit Bumrah would certainly play — and logic dictated that anyway with the series being on the line — and that Anshul Kamboj, the 24-year-old from Haryana, was likely to make his Test debut. Kamboj has played only 24 first-class matches, but he has 79 wickets at an impressive cost of 22 per scalp and is also handy with the other option was to play Prasidh Krishna, but he has not lived up to the billing thus far and offers little with the bat. India also confirmed that Rishab Pant was fit to keep wickets and Gill backed Karun Nair to come good, suggesting that all he needed was one decent score to turn things England wore a settled look, India were swirling a touch, but it was in similar circumstances that they pulled off victory in the second Test. So, they will not feel hugely disadvantaged. What was a bit unusual, however, was Gill's invoking of the spirit of cricket. Gill is only three Tests old as captain, one of which included his now well publicised exhorting of Zak Crawley for time-wasting tactics.'A lot of people have been talking about this, so let me clear the air for once and for all. The English batters on that day had seven minutes of play left. They were 90 seconds late to come to the crease,' said Gill. 'Not 10, not 20, 90 seconds late. Yes, most of the teams use this tactic. Even if we were in a position, we would have also liked to play fewer overs. But there's a manner to do it. But to be able to come 90 seconds late on the crease is not something that I would think comes in the spirit of the game.'This is a supremely slippery slope to be on. After all, the rules exist for a reason, and umpires are at hand to enforce them, even if perhaps they are not always as proactive or strict as they can be. When Gill says there's a 'manner' to do it, which would be acceptable, this is problematic. Different teams will see different things as acceptable, based on accepted practices growing up playing the game and cultural Gill was only stating his position to get under the skin of the opposition, that's a perfectly legitimate approach. After all, England made it clear that they had engineered a mindset shift of their own in this context. 'It was good fun, ' Harry Brook said of the fracas with Gill. 'We watched the Indians go hard at Creeps (Crawley) and Ducky (Duckett). We had a conversation, we thought it was the perfect opportunity to not be the nice guys that we have been in the past three years, to go out there and put them under more pressure than what they have probably had before.'Brook pointed to how this had come from within the set up. 'He (McCullum) actually said a few days before that we are too nice sometimes, and I brought it up the night before the last day: 'Baz said the other day we're too nice, I think tomorrow is a perfect opportunity to really get stuck into them'.England used this sense of outrage to funnel their aggression in the pointed end of the third Test and it worked for them. But, only because they did so from a place of calm, and as a strategy. If Gill is doing the same, there's no reason India can't be similarly galvanised. But, if he genuinely believes that it is the world against him and his team, it may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store