Success in hockey is more about the power games than actual play and technical aspects

Hockey writing usually engages actual play and the technical aspects of the sport. While factual reports on games are the most common, analysis of tactics is done occasionally, and coaching manuals are also published. However, it is also important to explore the subtle twists of power and influence in the sport’s governing bodies that shape outcomes.

For example, India has done well by winning back-to-back silver medals in the Men’s Champions Trophy (2016 and 2018), and back-to-back bronze medals in the Men’s World League Finals (2015 and 2017). There is a system settling in, with results to show.

But is this system merely about sporting acumen and process? Can success be explained only in terms of management, coaching, nutrition, fitness and psychological conditioning? Or would other factors also be in play?

Let’s rewind into history. Hockey had a Europe-led forward march in the nineteenth century and as the rest embraced the sport, hockey was seen as benign and not an intrusion. Nevertheless, it was a statement of soft power — a one-way dialogue and not a conversation.

Link hockey to the international system, and we can understand its evolution better. Sulking Europeans obsess about their decline in the sport, but this fall is from a high base, which still leaves Europe considerably ahead of the rest. Since others are climbing from a low base, Europe will remain ahead in the coming decades, even with a stagnating growth. This might explain Europe’s (and Australia’s) domination of hockey.

Since 1988, in the men’s game, Europeans have 7 of 8 Olympics gold medals. In the women’s game, they have 9 of 10 titles since 1980.

Conversely, when Europe was in turmoil between the two World Wars, others had the opportunity to unseat them, as India did, with 6 Olympics title victories between 1928 and 1956. Once Europe recovered with post-war reconstruction, its position on top was restored. After the Second World War, India no longer could score double-digit goals. Both India and Pakistan, the former powerhouses, have not won a medal at the Olympics or World Cup since 1994.

But lately, India, with its growing power, has had its moments. Its stellar history and playing style have international admirers and hockey without India is not the same.

Lamenting India’s decline, Leandro Negre, the former FIH chief, once declared that India’s success is crucial to the future of hockey. His predecessor, Els van Breda Vriesman, had controversially intervened to clean up India’s fractious hockey bodies, in a mission to revive the game. This move might have caused Vriesman’s fall. Negre and Vriesman were speaking for an India in the midst of double-digit growth.

With India’s steady rise to power on the global front, its influence in hockey was also bound to rise. Seen in context, Narinder Batra’s election in 2016 as the first non-European and Indian president of the FIH (International Hockey Federation) was novel. Batra won by offering a plan to make hockey commercially sustainable.

Is there a backlash from a smouldering Europe?

In May, the FIH Replacement Disciplinary Commissioner issued a warning to Batra for his “inappropriate” Facebook post against English law enforcement agencies, in which Batra criticised their investigation of a sexual harassment allegation against Indian player Sardar Singh. Batra might have been less combative if it had been the 1960s, when Britain was a more influential player.

Yet, a caution by the FIH to its highest-ranked official is unusual.

On a formal plane, it affirms the FIH’s internal democracy and transparency, being an extreme intervention to enforce the dignity of the FIH’s highest office.

But remember that Batra was the outsider, who successfully challenged European domination of the FIH. The Europeans were rocked by Batra’s victory over David Balbirnie, the Irish candidate.

Introspection at a European Hockey Federation Executive Board meeting in December 2016 yielded “disappointment for the lack of support from within Europe for the European candidate.”

After Batra was humbled by his own organisation, Balbirnie, responding to Batra’s election as president of the Indian Olympic Association, while continuing to remain president of the FIH, tweeted: “I fear the FIH will suffer.”

Who knows whether this was a defeated candidate’s rejoinder, or a larger discontent? Remember that Batra is surrounded by European insiders in the FIH’s corridors.

A culture of entitlement pervades the international institutions of hockey. Between 1966 and 2016, all five FIH presidents were European. Between 1950 and 2008, all the secretaries general were either European, or of European origin. Leaving aside five representatives of continental federations, four of the remaining nine members of the FIH Executive Board are European, the highest number for a continent.

The honorary awards under FIH’s Global Stars have built-in checks against FIH outsiders. Since FIH officials are mainly European, most FIH honorary awards also go to Europeans. It is like a cartel running its course in cycles. 15 of 30 FIH Members of Honor awardees are from Europe. Only five are from Asia, three from the Americas and two each from Africa and Oceania.

Likewise, the FIH headquarters has always been in Europe, in Brussels until 2005, and in Lausanne since then. The Hockey Museum is located at Woking, England, not in India or Pakistan, who have a rich hockey history. Consider that the United Nations is in New York, and the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C., while London hosts the International Maritime Organisation.

With majorities on the FIH board and other FIH bodies, it would be logical for Europeans to work for Europe’s gain. In an age of evangelical democracy, weightage to numbers is morally persuasive. An altruistic approach would be for saints, which hardened sports managers are not. With a potent voice in the FIH, why would Europeans not work for favourable outcomes in play?

As in other sports, hockey, too, has its virtuous circle. With control over management, Europe enjoys more success in play. With better play, it gains control over management.

Hockey’s governance structure mimics the conservatism of international institutions, which are slow to adjust to change. China is now a near-peer of the United States but does not enjoy commensurate influence on international financial institutions. Even as the world’s third-largest economy in purchasing power parity calculation, India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. Privilege does not yield to pretenders. With history behind them, why should we expect the Europeans to make way for the rest on hockey’s governing institutions?

But power in the international system is changing hands. The New Development Bank of the BRICS is located in Shanghai, not in the West. As China and India gain global influence, they might win the right to host some of hockey’s management centres. Argentina, Korea, Malaysia, Japan and Pakistan could make inroads into the sport’s management.

China and Korea’s women’s teams challenge the established hockey powers because these nations are powerful. If it backs up financial muscle with performance, India could augur in the diffusion of power in hockey. The rich Hockey India League has gained India influence, earning it the right to host and play major tournaments and better teams, improving play. This explains the success in the World League and Champions Trophy.

Hockey is tied to international politics as much as to its technicalities. Only, we don’t see this clearly, because we look at sport as spectacle, not a power game.

Jitendra Nath Misra is a former ambassador and vice president of Jawaharlal Nehru Hockey Tournament Society.