The pros and cons of cricket in the Olympics

Leaving aside the justification for and validity - or lack thereof - of the reasons the ICC BCCI and ECB have proffered in an effort to explain their reluctance to have cricket in the Olympics (loss of revenue and "member autonomy"), we have put together the following more genuinely important pros and cons to be weighed when considering the issue.

1. Pro: The cricketers will have to stay in the Olympic Village. At the very least, the rest of us will get to revel in some delicious schadenfreude at the thought of our precious cricketers having to slum it, for once in their cosseted lives, in the relative ghetto that is the Olympic Village. Perhaps, we will think wishfully, it will do some of them a world of good, that Olympic participation is just the tonic the game needs in this era of club-over-country.

Con: They won't last more than a day there. Alas, it is doubtful in the extreme whether they will last very long living in the Village. Forced to sleep on standard-issue beds in standard-issue rooms, and eat the same standard-issue Chicken McNuggets as everyone else is not going to go down well with most. Imagine, if you can, IPL-pampered stars sharing the same digs as the Mongolian women's weightlifting team, or having to stand in line for food at the same Olympic Village cafeteria behind the Turkish national buzkashi team. Imagine, if you will, Yuvi's sulking face as he's forced to use a stall next to Yuri in the common bathroom. Yeah, it's just not going to happen. Expect, by hook or by crook, early flights home.

2. Pro: Cricketers getting to experience the spirit of the Olympics, best expressed by its creed: "The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

Con: Attempting to explain the above to Virat Kohli.

3. Pro: Getting to see our cricketers ascend the victory podium. There are few sights more moving in sport than witnessing one's sporting heroes overcome by raw emotion as they step up to receive their Olympic medals on the podium. More importantly, there are few sights rarer and more satisfying than seeing the likes of Chris Gayle, Praveen Kumar, Sunil Narine, and other similarly blinged-out cricketers who represent roughly half the gold industry's worldwide customer base being forced to wear something made of silver or (shudder to think) bronze.

Con: Years after it first appeared on a cricket field and was hopefully brushed aside as a harmless passing fad, the ever-lurking danger of a spontaneous breakout of Gangnam Style dance-celebration continues to haunt the game. So far, the rest of the world has been spared the sight of this most gruesome of cricket's secrets; were it to be broadcast to an international audience at the medals ceremony of the Olympics, it would be a shame most difficult to live down.

4. Pro: American interest in the game should pick up. Perhaps the validation of being a part of the Olympics is what it will take to get the Americans to take cricket seriously, providing the spark that will finally kickstart full-fledged development of the game in that country.

Con: USA! USA! I think most of us here can agree that there is just something fundamentally and uncomfortably wrong about having to see semi-comprehending fans screaming "USA! USA! USA!" at an old-world sporting event like the football World Cup... and then having to suffer the further ignominy of seeing their team go on to actually win a few games. Well, imagine the same scene above happening at a cricket match. An Olympic cricket event. Is global expansionism really worth such horror? Something to ponder, for sure.

5. Pro: Renewed Chinese interest in the game. Similarly, you can bet your bottom dollar that no sooner is cricket announced an Olympic sporting event than the Chinese will speed up development of the game in their country. A five-year plan for cricket will be formulated, with the aim of engineering a perfect superbreed of cricketers, poised for world domination. All so they can corner the market on gold medals at the Olympic T20 cricket event.

Con: While all this will be great for increasing the "profile" of the game, ask yourself what manner of hell is going to break loose when they find out that the term "chinaman" is still in use.

6. Pro: Getting to see cricketers walk out in the opening ceremony as part of the general contingent. It will be good for our cricketers to rub shoulders with other athletes, a demonstration of the unifying spirit of the games.

Con: Getting to see MS Dhoni lead the Indian contingent out during the opening ceremony (or Afridi leading the Pakistan contingent, or some guy who plays cricket in his spare time leading the Nepalese contingent - you get the idea). Two words: Not fair. If nothing else, the Olympics has served to be, for many countries like India and Pakistan in recent times, the one cricketless arena in which the nation's non-cricketing athletes get to wriggle out, like squinty-eyed moles, from under cricket's long shadow and bask, even if unrewarded, in the sun for a few moments of their pathetic subterranean lives. It would be cruel to take that away from them. Snatching the honour of carrying the flag away from the national kabaddi champion (or something) and handing it over to a celebrity sportsman who already has everything would be nothing short of criminal.