Should Badminton Get Rid Of National Teams?
Exploring the pros and cons of badminton’s nationalized structure.
Badminton is a highly nationalized sport.
At the elite level, most players are trained, salaried, and entered into tournaments on behalf of their respective national teams, which are funded by national federations. The exceptions are known as “independent” players, who go about their business without that support system. This path resembles that of a tennis player or golfer, and is much more common for individual or pair sports.
So why does badminton go the other way? And is it right to do so?
Pro: Greater security
Choosing to go pro comes with a lot of financial uncertainty. How will I afford coaching? entry fees? travel? living costs? equipment? If those costs are covered, that gives players a lot less to worry about, and frees up more time and energy to hone their craft.
Con: Not all federations are made equal
While there are close to 200 BWF member federations, the majority of these are not equipped to subsidize athletes’ costs or provide great facilities. This comes down to a variety of reasons, the most common being a lack of funding from above (i.e., the government), often a product of a lack of competitive success that causes public interest to stagnate. Without that safety net, it can become very unattractive for talented players from many countries to go pro. But, if they still choose to take up badminton, they’ll effectively be independent players in terms of how they manage their finances. Meanwhile, due to their greater financial position, well-established teams can enter more players into higher-level tournaments and supercharge their players’ development.
Pro: National identity
When the national team is at the center of a country’ experience of a sport, that sport becomes an institution. In turn, this creates a strong sense of identity not just between team members, but between the team and the public. That tends to bode well for developing new talent as well as commercial interest. It also skews the badminton viewing experience in a way that invites fans to support countries over individuals.
Con: Segregation
In other sports, it is common for athletes from different countries to team up for major events or tours. In badminton, this is only possible between independent players. And even then it’s pretty rare due to financial or lifestyle considerations (e.g., relocation).
Pro: Competitive culture
Typically, national teams train together, and will take on more players than they intend to keep in the long-run. These conditions create a competitive culture that exposes athletes to a range of training partners, and allows for the brightest talent to emerge.
Con: Conflicts of interest
Beyond having their costs covered, many players wish to bolster their income via third-party sponsorships, or pursue training opportunities beyond what is provided by the federation. In some cases, federations aren’t amenable to this, meaning that players have a tough choice to make. In some high profile cases — Malaysia’s Lee Zii Jia comes to mind — star players have gone independent due to such conflicts of interest.
What Does This Mean?
To answer the headline question… no!
Fundamentally, there are plenty of benefits to be had from adopting a centralized national team approach. However, that is only an effective and worthwhile option for federations with healthy endowments — think China, India, or Indonesia.
I appreciate this is not the most satisfying conclusion, but hopefully it sheds more light on the need for less-established badminton nations (cough cough USA) to disrupt the cycle of underperformance by taking a punt and increasing funding so that federations can improve facilities, hire better coaches, and better develop their players in the hopes of creating their own strong badminton institutions.
And in the US context, we can only convince people to do that if we convince them that badminton is a worthy cause.
