An athlete participates in Olympics for personal triumph and nation's glory; victors are showered with cash incentives by various agencies, on their return. Discuss the merit of state sponsored talent hunt and its cultivation as against the rationale of a reward mechanism as encouragement.

Published: January 22, 2015

Rewarding athletes who were successful in the Olympics and sponsoring a talent hunt are both means of encouraging talented athletes to continue playing their choice of sport. Though the goals of both programs are the same, they each operate in a different manner and have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

While cash incentives motivate the athletes and serve as a reward for their hard work, a state sponsored talent hunt would bring forth and nurture new talent. Training (renting training space etc.), sports equipment, hiring of coach, physiotherapist etc are all expenses associated with training to become a successful sports personality. The costs associated with training adds up to a very large amount that can be afforded only by a small margin of the population. The wealthy athletes can use their winnings and rewards to fund their training, but this can happen only after they register at least a few wins. These costs and resultant hindrances discourage the less privileged sections of the community from seriously taking up sports even if they are immensely talented in the sport. A talent hunt, apart from providing encouragement and motivation, will level the playing field and afford equal opportunities to less wealthy athletes. Also, the talent hunt will help discover talent in rural India. In a country with great inequality like India, a talent hunt will afford more advantages than the incentives program.

Comments