Is there a clear plan for the return of sport?

Dingilizwe Ntuli, Sports Editor

WHEN the Covid-19 pandemic engulfed the globe in 2020, it struck both the rich and poor with equal ferocity, societal classes quickly began to show, as each government around the world responded to the crisis.
Most governments imposed national lockdowns, forcing people to stay at home in a bid to stall the spread of the coronavirus.

There was unity of purpose by all countries as they hatched ways of either eradicating the pandemic or controlling it like has been done with previous outbreaks of pandemics in the history of humankind.
It seemed as though we were in it together until the inequality gaps created by humankind began to take centre stage.

Dealing with a crisis in the form of the Covid-19 pandemic was always going to be dependent on resources, and it was obvious that countries with vast resources would emerge quicker from the national lockdowns, while most poor countries sought divine intervention.

At one time, back pages of newspapers and sports sections of websites remained sports sections, but with no sport.
Globally all sport was frozen and it was almost as though we are in this together due to all our ‘sportslessness’. But again, reality struck and soon all rich countries resumed sporting activities under the “bio-secure bubble” concept.

A bio-secure bubble is an environment cut off from the outside world. Basically everyone involved in a tournament, including players, support staff and match officials are limited only to a few places.

The objective of such a bubble is to minimise the risk of contracting Covid-19 through limited contact with the outside world.

A key element of the bio-bubble is that players and officials are not permitted to have access to families, visitors, friends and relatives for the duration of a tournament.

It all started with training sessions in small groups in the big football leagues of Europe, the German Bundesliga, the Spanish La Liga and the English Premiership, and soon all countries with sport backed by solid TV rights and other sponsorships resumed group training.

Suddenly full blown training and competitions resumed, but with no spectators.

Such is the strong financial backing that fans are not really needed for competitions to be staged.

In fact, this new normal has proved that fans simply add more excitement to competitive sport in those countries but are neither central nor relevant to its successes.

Next door across the Limpopo River, sport also resumed in full throttle under the same bio-secure bubble concept without fans allowed in stadia due to strong financial backing the sport industry enjoys in South Africa.

In contrast, in Zimbabwe some pockets of sports administrators and sportspersons have been clamouring for the return of sport, but is there a clear sustainable plan in place?

Since gatherings remain banned under the current lockdown, have those calling for a resumption of sport employed enough thought into their demands or they are simply doing it to be in the news?

Our problem has always been that of comparing ourselves to other countries and hence without much thought, we believe sport must be allowed to resume without saying how.

It’s no use pointing at other countries surrounding us because they adopted ways that suit them and not Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe sports administrators need to come up with a resumption plan that suits locally-based sportspersons and not try to adopt a Zambian or South African approach because it will simply not work. Our economies and structures of our sport are way too different.

The countries we like comparing ourselves to take sport as an industry, while we treat it as a frivolous form of entertainment through how it’s administered.

We select administrators by the loudest noise they make and not administrative skills, hence the general absence of a vision for our sport to emerge from this pandemic.

We elect administrators and then start to ask who they are instead of asking who they are when they are seeking office.

Applying for a waiver for clubs to resume training is different from starting competitions.

Competitions require huge financial resources, more so when they are to be staged without fans, particularly our biggest sport football.

Our football clubs virtually depend on gate takings to survive in the absence of sponsorship and have those that are calling for the league to resume without fans taken this into account.

After all, most clubs struggle even with fans, and what more in empty stadia.

It’s understandable that players want the game to resume in a safe environment, but have they considered that the winning bonuses most have mentioned they survive on come from gate takings?

Resumption of football activities without fans will spell a death knell for most clubs and this is where unity of purpose by all national sports associations is required to plot a feasible unity of response to the pandemic.

As long as national sports associations act individually, sport will remain in limbo until the national lockdown is completely lifted.

The national sporting associations must present a united front to the Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) by submitting a plan that covers every sport instead of the current situation whereby each association goes it alone.

For now, only Zimbabwe Cricket can afford to act alone because its funding is directly from the International Cricket Council and the funding covers wages of all contracted players as well as office staff.

The truth of the matter is that in its current form, Zimbabwean sport cannot survive without fans and any proposal the football fraternity presents without spectators will be at best futile.

If we had turned our sport into an industry, debate would have been about the return of fans to the stadia rather than struggling to put in place a plan on resumption.

There is strength in numbers and if only the national sports associations can come together, their submissions to the SRC will carry more weight.