Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[fineleg]

Blwe has this on front page - putting it up here for discussion

Akash Chopra writes in his column - Keep that backup degree handy!

“Padoge likhoge banoge nawab, kheloge khudoge banoge kharaab” was what most of us were often told while growing up. I think this adage is soon going to be part of an ancient past.

In the new India, ambitious fathers (and mothers) of newborn sons already have a “foolproof ” career option in mind. Their precious child will be a cricketer. If not a Tendulkar, then a Pathan.

For most people, it isn’t just the money, there’s also the mesmeric pull and glamour of being a cricketer in a cricket-crazy nation. Many reason, you can’t go wrong with cricket. If he doesn’t make enough playing, he’ll make it up with adverts.

Gone are the days of parents forcing kids to be doctors or engineers. My fellow cricketers and I have heard this so often that we figured that almost everyone believes two things: One, that cricket is damn lucrative and two, the returns are far greater than the work put in.

Well, from my point of view, it’s great being a cricketer but conditions apply! It’s great to get paid to play, doing something most of us would do for free but the money is great only if you’re one of the blessed, the 11 out of a billion who actually make it to Team India.

Otherwise, millions dream of wearing National colours but don’t even make first-class level. They spend all their adolescence and youth sweating it out under an unforgiving sun and ignoring everything else, including studies, hoping to be among that blessed XI.

Sometimes a dream can be an obsessive goal with an end in sight, sometimes, the dream may no longer be a dream but you’ve left yourself no other option but to soldier on even as the mirage gets more blurred, even in your imagination. And finally, many realise that playing for India isn’t possible but carry on in the hope of getting a decent job through sports quota somewhere.

Most cricketers know nothing but cricket. Fifteen-odd years at school and college gets you a degree and generally a job, but the same number on the cricket field guarantees zilch.

And what’s worse, most organizations have done away with their sports quota and cricket teams. First-class cricketers across India share the same plight. They’re struggling big time, unlike here in England, where county players (despite cricket not being as big as football) do very well too.

In England, whether or not anyone plays cricket, the culture is such that they start working as soon as they’re old enough to earn. Either a part-time job at Tescos or something else, anything goes. In India, middle-class kids would rarely be caught working counters or waiting tables. There isn’t a job problem here and all the 16-year olds on my club’s junior team are working parttime. So they’re not solely dependent on cricket for a living.

In India, you either play or go the usual routine. Actually, I can’t even imagine what’s happening to mil lions who’ve never even got to firstclass level. Let’s be honest here. You spend decades training before firstclass level and most don’t earn a paisa all those years.

Then, just spare a thought for the career span of an earning cricketer -- about a decade? If he isn’t fouled out through injury that is! There are just no guarantees. So with no other qualification, you have to make enough in a very short span to last a lifetime. And therefore, most that make the cut quite rightly try and make hay while the sun shines.

Over the years, I’ve heard several disparaging remarks on the amount Indian players make. I don’t know why people carp. Any of the top XI professionals in their field in India would probably make as much. So why envy a cricketer’s earnings? They’ve gone through the grind, taken huge chances and got there against all odds. If the odds are stacked, the returns are generally substantial.

But is it worth for a kid from an average middle-class family to take that chance? It’s a tough call. I believe you should chase your dreams. But it’s an unforgiving world. So I suggest, keep a backup handy.

Don’t dismiss that degree.

[22 Yards]

As they say in Croatian, "Ko Zna,Zna" (Who knows,knows)

[Blwe_torch]

As they say in Croatian, "Ko Zna,Zna" (Who knows,knows)

They say something similar in Punjabi too, but like a true lost-soul, I have forgotten it when it matters!

[fineleg]

Back to the topic, I think what Akash says here, makes some sense:
"Over the years, I’ve heard several disparaging remarks on the amount Indian players make. I don’t know why people carp. Any of the top XI professionals in their field in India would probably make as much. So why envy a cricketer’s earnings? They’ve gone through the grind, taken huge chances and got there against all odds. If the odds are stacked, the returns are generally substantial."

I am sure there are other views in the DG - I am interested in hearing other viewpoints - are there holes in this argument?
I for one am not too sure abt this statement - "Any of the top XI professionals in their field in India would probably make as much" - would they?

Prfsr, you have commented on similar topic - do u have any views u can post here?

[22 Yards]

Poondu,
Good observation
Fineleg,
In my opinion, that particular view has some merit. If we take Entertainment and Software industries as two examples, then I am sure the top core makes as much money as, say, Sachin, if not more. Cricketers all over the country put so much effort chasing their dream of playing in national colors. They ignore everything else, their studies, other options of career etc. Most of them miss the boat. Then what would be their future? Lets not go too far from this, lets say, a person who plays for the country may get ignored after a couple of stints for so many reasons, then what would be his option, go back to first class cricket or opt for another career? Its very difficult to be in their shoes as we all agree with that. So having a degree as a backup is not a bad idea after all.
Behind every fortune, instead of saying, there is a crime, lets say, there must be some frenetic effort.

[fineleg]

Fineleg,
In my opinion, that particular view has some merit. If we take Entertainment and Software industries as two examples, then I am sure the top core makes as much money as, say, Sachin, if not more. Cricketers all over the country put so much effort chasing their dream of playing in national colors. They ignore everything else, their studies, other options of career etc. Most of them miss the boat. Then what would be their future? Lets not go too far from this, lets say, a person who plays for the country may get ignored after a couple of stints for so many reasons, then what would be his option, go back to first class cricket or opt for another career? Its very difficult to be in their shoes as we all agree with that. So having a degree as a backup is not a bad idea after all.
Behind every fortune, instead of saying, there is a crime, lets say, there must be some frenetic effort.

22,
Having backup degree idea is fine - no questions.

The question is whether there is disparate spread of wealth for certain professions, and professions like teachers/educators/scientists are not able to generate comparative economic benefits.


You may want to browse this thread for some past discussions ( i kind of made a few arguments similar to akash's in that thread, but others bring in valid points too):
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=2571.0
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=2571.msg35769#msg35769
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=2571.msg35975#msg35975

[22 Yards]

Thanks Fineleg. Will go through those posts.
Work calls, later.

[prfsr]

Back to the topic, I think what Akash says here, makes some sense:
"Over the years, I’ve heard several disparaging remarks on the amount Indian players make. I don’t know why people carp. Any of the top XI professionals in their field in India would probably make as much. So why envy a cricketer’s earnings? They’ve gone through the grind, taken huge chances and got there against all odds. If the odds are stacked, the returns are generally substantial."

I am sure there are other views in the DG - I am interested in hearing other viewpoints - are there holes in this argument?
I for one am not too sure abt this statement - "Any of the top XI professionals in their field in India would probably make as much" - would they?

Prfsr, you have commented on similar topic - do u have any views u can post here?

I do, thanks fineleg

First of all the argument is not true, literally speaking. Schoolteachers, college professors, janitors, drivers, farm workers, scientists, researchers.....

I am guessing it was made to be true metaphorically. Even then, there are very few professions where the top XI people make an average of 5 cr a year for 10 years or so,
TAX FREE. This is averaged -- so SRT makes more, Kumble may make less.
Heck take soccer -- is there one star who makes 10 crores? (Only talking of Indians -- not people paid in dollars). Movie stars are the only ones comparable, as are enterpreneurs. Movie acting is a profession, enterpreneurship is not (IMO).

Cricketers are uniquely placed in the country, thanks to marketing and popular preferences.
Why not acknowledge this, make money, enjoy life and be grateful?

The other funny thing in this argument is that people like Chopra (who presumably make less money; I actually have read that Ranji players make a LOT of money these days) always justify why SRT et al should make more money!! Why not argue that BCCI should inject more money into domestics so that it is more equitable? Why does the failure of many entitle SRT to earn 20 crore a year tax free? I mean, either he deserves it or does not, right?

-P

PS: No software engineer staying in India makes crores a year, UNLESS he/she is an enterpreneur and starts a company. In the latter case, I classify them as enterpreneurs. Other enterpreneurs in real estate and clothing and possibly every other industry make as much money. I do not call these salaries, although some might.

[fineleg]

Diff between enterpreneurs and salaries is a good point. Need to think bit more abt it.

[prfsr]

BTW, I think the following, while just an example of the grass being greener on the other side, is really far from the truth.

"Fifteen-odd years at school and college gets you a degree and generally a job, but the same number on the cricket field guarantees zilch."

First of all for most city kids, 15 years of school gets you past XII (assuming no flunking  ). Even assuming that Chopra was referring to XII + 3 (Bachelors) -- what is the current rate of unemployment in India? In my days, a Bachelors would usually get you little, forget a guarantee. I have many many relatives who could not get any job with a Bacleors degree. Some ended up self-employed or menial jobs (one is a weaver, one is a tram conductor) where they did not need the degrees. May others are unemployed. In addition, as I mentioned before in another thread, sports quotas or not, most Kolkata club cricketers (Div I) get jobs. Now you can argue that it is hard to play for a first division club and I agree. By the same token many people cannot go to college because they did not get enough marks in the XII examination.

-P

[flute202020]

BTW, I think the following, while just an example of the grass being greener on the other side, is really far from the truth.

"Fifteen-odd years at school and college gets you a degree and generally a job, but the same number on the cricket field guarantees zilch."

First of all for most city kids, 15 years of school gets you past XII (assuming no flunking  ). Even assuming that Chopra was referring to XII + 3 (Bachelors) -- what is the current rate of unemployment in India? In my days, a Bachelors would usually get you little, forget a guarantee. I have many many relatives who could not get any job with a Bacleors degree. Some ended up self-employed or menial jobs (one is a weaver, one is a tram conductor) where they did not need the degrees. May others are unemployed. In addition, as I mentioned before in another thread, sports quotas or not, most Kolkata club cricketers (Div I) get jobs. Now you can argue that it is hard to play for a first division club and I agree. By the same token many people cannot go to college because they did not get enough marks in the XII examination.

-P

prfsr, Tend to agree with you. We cannot enirely explain  cricketers lop sided earnings by citing their efforts without guarantee. While degree cannot guarantee a job, the risk cricketers take is much more , but still I think the returns are way too high compared to other professions. Obviously, if a guy risks his all on hockey, he may not get the same amount of returns even if he makes it to national team. I guess it is a combination of market economics and risk involved.

As for SRT, I guess he got into the team before he gave up education, it doesn't mean he did not put effort into it. Of course ,his is a special case with spark of genius identified early.

[prfsr]

Flute,
I think SRT and SG took less risks than others -- SRT's talent was spotted early enough so that it could be predicted that he would do very well. SG had his father's business to go back to. People like RD or VVS who came from salaried parents and were not earthshaking talents (at 16 I mean, compared to SRT) perhaps took more risk. But as you said there are similar examples for soccer. A good first division soccer player playing for the top 3 clubs in Calcutta probably earn in the order of 10 lakhs a year. Lower first division team players do not earn 10% of that. The risk is just as high. In fact in Bengal, more people gambled on soccer than cricket until maybe 10-15 years back.

As I have said before, cricket is a colonial hangover and has been marketed very well. It also fits our personalities better -- much more amenable to armchair analysis and more things to analyze while lazily bumming out day after day -- soccer by contrast is a quick, fast slam-bang sport 

-P 

[fineleg]

The returns in cricket if u succeed at the top are indeed way too high compared to the risk (proportionally when compared to most other occupations) - but as i mentioned elsewhere market dynamics plays a part.

Lets for a moment keep aside the "salary" that cricketers get from BCCI. Lets talk abt other forms of revenue for them...such as sponsorship, ADs, etc etc.

Now, how do these companies afford to pay the millions and millions to cricketers who endorse their products or the company? (Sponsors) - becos they get so much in return. I'd like to know how?

Do you buy a product just coz SRT, or SG or RD uses the product on TV or Print? I don't. Some may.
So, not sure that "selling the product" more is directly due to the cricketers. But, indirectly they gain recognition and mind-share maybe? Not sure.

Why is it that corporations shell out millions and millions to (top) cricketers to get them to endorse? What monetary benefits does it bring to the corporations?

[prfsr]

Now, how do these companies afford to pay the millions and millions to cricketers who endorse their products or the company? (Sponsors) - becos they get so much in return. I'd like to know how?

Do you buy a product just coz SRT, or SG or RD uses the product on TV or Print? I don't. Some may.
So, not sure that "selling the product" more is directly due to the cricketers. But, indirectly they gain recognition and mind-share maybe? Not sure.

Why is it that corporations shell out millions and millions to (top) cricketers to get them to endorse? What monetary benefits does it bring to the corporations?

I have often wondered about this myself. Maybe some MBA-types can step in here and answer this. My best guess is that advertisers pay by the audience size (e.g., # hits on the web) as this is easier to measure than actual sales increase/decrease. After all they advertise simultaneously in different places, so how do they know why the sales increased?

My guess is they have statistics that say something like "for every 1000 people who see an ad, 30 are likely to try the product" etc. So it is not so much that people buy it because Sachin says he uses it -- it may be true for some. For others, they may notice it more (less likely to flip the channel if SRT is on, say) and this satisfies a target of advertising -- name/brand recognition.

I am sure there are better explanations....

-P 

[fineleg]

Recognizing who is in the AD could cause less flipping of channels - but there has gotta be something else seriously lucrative for these corporations.

[feverpitch]

Poondu,
Good observation

Poondu?!?!?!?!

Poondu=Fineleg/22yards?

 

[poondu]

Poondu,
Good observation

Poondu?!?!?!?!

Poondu=Fineleg/22yards?

 

i am sorry, i don't get this

[ramshorns]

Poondu,
Good observation

Poondu?!?!?!?!

Poondu=Fineleg/22yards?

 

i am sorry, i don't get this

Did you post on this thread.  I do not think so right.  So probably Fever was making a lighted hearted comment when 22 Yards was referring to Blwe as you.  May be Fever will clear that up.

[22 Yards]

Oh...I get it now..I guess Poondu's observation was removed. My reply was to that post.