TOPS decision to ‘maximise benefits for those who merit it’ baffles talented athletes

Are those who are not in the Target Olympic Podium Scheme lists being told that they are unworthy of support and have to secure Olympic qualification on their own before inclusion in the hallowed lists? A news report based on a chat with the TOPS CEO Col. NS Johal (retd.) and some unnamed Mission Olympic Cell (MOC) members answers that in the affirmative. 

These doubts were confirmed when two-time Olympian Srihari Nataraj, who made it to the finals of the 2022 Commonwealth Games, spoke with the Hindustan Times. “It feels like they (TOPS) have lost faith in us,” he said wistfully, pointing out that basing decisions on an athlete’s ups and downs did not seem right. 

It is clear that the MOC has been persuaded to ‘maximise benefits for those who merit it’. And it sends baffling signals to a bunch of talented athletes across disciplines. To make it worse,  many were left to discover from some media reports that they have been dropped entirely from the TOPS support or will get  reduced support. 

There must be a better way for a World record holder to find out that TOPS’ criteria are too stringent to be met and secure a berth in the Core Group. Surely, there must be better ways for the best athletes in respective disciplines to figure out why someone else who is not in the national reckoning is in Core Group rather than Development Group.

Worse, a member of the Mission Olympic Cell (MOC) – just as well that this one remains anonymous lest be the subject of ridicule by fellow members – has been quoted as saying that the Core Group is for the short term goal of the next Olympics and the Developmental Group is for hopefuls for the Olympics after that (2032) and perhaps even the one after that (2036).

This anonymous MOC member seemed to have forgotten that only a few days earlier, he was party to a decision to relegate at least 20 athletes from the Paris2024 contingent, including a two-time Olympian, to the Development Group. Now, most certainly, he is not talking about these athletes as possibly being hopefuls for the 2036 Olympic Games.

While it is important to learn lessons from the earlier Olympic cycle, it is more important to have a continuity based on a system. Instead, each time a new leader has come from outside the TOPS system, a bid has been made to reinvent the wheel and impose new thinking. The urge to leave an indelible stamp can be overbearing but it can hurt the system.

Also, it is just as well that the TOPS sub-committees were rejigged to include available members with expertise in each particular discipline. Earlier, a recipe for chaos was being made when the attempt was to disregard experts available in a domain and entrust that job to athletes or officials unfamiliar with a particular sport.

It would have been a travesty to not have the insights and advice of the like of Gagan Narang and Anjali Bhagwat in shooting, P Gopichand and Aparna Popat in badminton, Kamlesh Mehta in Table Tennis, Adille Sumriawlla in Athletics, Cyrus Poncha in squash and MM Somayya, Viren Rasquinha and Arjun Halappa in hockey. 

Interestingly, while a 30-member committee chose athletes from 11 Olympic disciplines and Para Sport in the TOPS lists, nobody from the sports of Archery, Boxing, Rowing, Swimming, Weightlifting and Wrestling is in the respective sub-committees. Most representatives of sports NGOS and sports boards have surprisingly not found a place in these sub-committees. 

Then again, there has to be something wrong in the thinking if the belief is that spending more money on a select group of athletes will help India rise in the Olympic Games medal table from its 71st place in Paris with one silver and five bronze medals. The day India casts its support net wider and with better purpose, there would be a greater chance of winning medals.

Meanwhile, there could be a battle between some Federations and athletes who seek TOPS funds to employ personal coaches and support staff and decide their own training schedules. The thinking within the TOPS leadership is to let athletes identify their coaches while Federations believe that athletes are not in the best situation to make these decisions.

Let’s look at sport in which personal coaches played a role in securing medals in the last Olympic cycle – Dr Klaus Bartoneitz who worked with javelin  thrower Neeraj Chopra and Jaspal Rana who coached pistol shooter Manu Bhaker were in Paris while Deepali Deshpande guided rifle shooter Swapnil Kusale.

Contrast that with the number of athletes in women’s wrestling, most notably, as well as in badminton and table tennis who chose their own coaches but were unable to make it to the podium and you will perhaps veer around to the view that it is not always the best decision to let the athletes feel that they are not answerable to their National Sports Federations.