Actually we all wanted to be sport writers par excellence. As fate would have it, we were diverted to less enviable assignments as teaching at a local arts college, editing two editions of a newspaper on daily basis, doing odd jobs in a news magazine or supposedly providing legal aid to a telecom company. The old flame refuses to die. The rasping drive on a cricket ground or the sound of Ferrari on the race track or the blow of a whistle in a football field, and we can hardly contain ourselves. The habitual plunge into what is known and what gives us so much pleasure follows. Labour of love, it is called.

To tell you the truth not everyone of the aspiring brilliant sport writers among us get a chance to flaunt their skills in times such as a Fifa World Cup. While some are reduced to spectators, others are limited to short sorties in the last few moments of the match like this editorial note.

Sport has come a long way since the days the victor would take the vanquished's head as trophy. And for the better to the relief of all those who like to use the same old terms without having to live the horrors of the times gone by. It remains fiercely competitive nonetheless, whatever the banner, country, club or company as in the case of Formula 1 Grand Prix. Some of the sporting aspects that we would once read or hear about have come a long way to where we live. South Asia, India more than Pakistan, is fast becoming the place for the sporting industry to thrive. So mind not if we are sometimes downed in an 11 to 11 contest. We might still turn the tables on them, even if through crowd intervention.

It appears that team sport is a recent invention. The ancient recounts of sporting events are all based on feats of individual brilliance and victory over an individual rival.

And it had to be so in a heroic age. While the epics were being written on the feats of heroes in wars the same pattern was emulated in the scores of events which formed part of the Ancient Olympiads. If Zeus was the ultimate reference point for the athletes taking part in the precincts of his temple, the same Zeus fathered Achilles to perform feats of outstanding valour in the fields of battle. Achilles was as close to immortality as a human can get.

There were some events like the pentathlon, but they were not a team event but five individual events probably performed by one super athlete. It had to be the two most outstanding athletes to face each other in the ultimate battle of strength and valour without the help of arms. They had just their muscles' power and the technique to down the other person, the opponent, and the trophy too was granted and bestowed upon in the same style and ritual as to a victor in a battle.

But the line between real battle and sport was thin. In the ancient sport the trophy was not thistle strung together and the laurel placed on the head, it could be the severed head of the opponent presented as an unmistakable proof of victory. It was not so long ago that the gladiators were pitted against each other in a conflict that only ended in the death of one and the victory of the other. The only way to earn freedom was by spilling the blood of a fellow gladiator. The trophy was human life without any sublimated expression in the form of laurels or cups made of gold.

In battles, too, the best warriors were challenged and expected to take up the gauntlet and engage in a bloody battle till death. The kings and emperors began the war by sending their best soldiers to battle and fight the best soldiers of the enemies. There was a mutual respect for the opponent with the certainty of being killed if betraying an error of judgement, weakening of the reflex or any shadow of doubt about the entire enterprise.

And wrestling was part of the training to become a king. Body and mind were treated with equal reverence by the Greeks and body was fussed over and paid as much attention as the education in deductive reasoning. The Akademos also had the wherewithal to make the youth look after the toning of their bodies. Chengez Khan and Babar, both top class wrestlers, used their strength and skill perfected in the wrestlers pit by setting a personal example of leading their armies in combat. In the ghazwas the early Muslims heroes like Hazrat Ali were nominated by the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) to match whatever the wrestlers/ warriors of the kuffaars could come up with.

As Europe entered the industrial age the entire concept of an organized society underwent a change. It was now closer to the body of industrial workers falling in the discipline of the regimen of industry. The emphasis was no longer on the wonderous skills of an individual worker but on working in unison to keep the wheels of a factory working.

It was a totally different worldview as the age of individual heroism declined to be replaced by the supremacy of organisation.

The armies, too, developed their standards of discipline and order derived from a certain mechanical keeping in step. The March-pasts and extreme orderliness were virtues propagated by the industrialisation of society.

Industrialisation or an industry does need a leader, an entrepreneur who knows how to make capital repay more of itself than the minimum charge on it. That captain of the industry, besides capital and the machines, needed a workforce that obeyed the mechanical sameness of the system. No individual initiative was needed or welcome. Everything had to work to order and rule. The supremacy of rule and manual replaced courage and valour.

The concept of team sport emerged and gathered more strength. The new games or the new shape of some ancient sports was revamped and the emphasis shifted from individual brilliance to coordination and team effort. The eleven players in the field had to move and function like a well oiled machine. These sports attracted as much attraction as the individual sport, if not greater. The sport that is played today can trace the final form of this game to no more than 150 odd years. Present-day football, cricket, hockey even the Olympics trace their history back to some year in the 19th and 20th centuries. The ancient sports had been reinvented to suit the requirement of an industrial age.

The bodies that manage these sorts were established in the same time period and the rules and regulations is a more formal manner laid down as the now famous tournaments too were launched. Modern Olympics were initiated in 1896, Australia-England cricket in 1877, Football World Cup in 1930 and hockey became part of the Olympics in the second decade of the 20th century.

Till the Napoleonic Wars the generals led their armies into wars but the thousands of soldiers who perished in the trenches of the First World War signalled the rise of the faceless soldier. The generals sat in the command headquarters directing the war as if by remote control as the soldiers, nameless and faceless fell on the battlefield. The homage thus was aptly paid to the Unknown Soldier who died fighting for the King and country in the era after the Second World War.

The faces of the individuals are becoming fuzzy and the sporting heroes become all that glorious when the team is crowned victorious. Pele, Maradona and Mueller would not have been that famous if their teams had not lifted the golden trophy. Beckham is great but could be immortalised if The Lions lift the Cup. The West Indian team had Headley, Wolcott and Weekes but the individual players only became immortal after Worrell gelled them into an unbeatable unit. Sobers, Kanhai and Hall had a halo round their heads as indeed did Richards, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Garner and Marshall because of Lloyd's brilliance as a skipper and that has eluded Lara, being part of a losing team.

The wars of the future might be fought without humans so sportsmen please watch out. Technology after overtaking the individual warrior may reduce sports to electronic bytes on a giant computer screen. The final triumph of the mind over the body may be just round the corner.

They were racing in Britain last weekend, by the next weekend they will be racing in Canada . The drivers in Formula 1 Grand Prix have a truly global reach. The best known motorsport championship's 18 races a year calendar takes its participants to a veritable world tour -- back n forth in all the five continents populated by human beings. And this has been happening every year for the last many decades -- since the end of the World War II to be precise.

It's not just its calendar that makes Formula 1 a truly global sport. The winner of British Grand Prix at Silverstone was a certain Spaniard going by the name of Fernando Alonso, who drives Renault, a French racing car and who now lives in Oxford, only miles from the British racing track. At the victory podium, Alonso stood side by side with Michael Schumacher, a German who runs for an Italian team, and Kimi Raikkonen, a Finn who drives a McLaren-Mercedes -- part British, part German.

It's amazing how fans identify with the sport. Some of them stick to teams, others to drivers while a sizeable portion consists of 'home' crowds. This last section is a bit difficult to define, though. When Michael Schumacher runs in Germany, is he running in front of a home crowd or is it Italy that provides home advantage to his team Ferrari? What about his brother Ralph who now runs a Toyota machine. Should Jenson Button, the only Briton in the current breed of top Formula 1 drivers, be racing in front of home crowd at Silverstone? If yes, what to do about half a dozen racing teams that have their headquarters, or at least some part of them, in Britain -- including this year's winner Renault?

This complexity is enhanced by the fidelity factor or, to be more exact, lack thereof. Every year, drivers change teams or teams change drivers. For the coming season alone, the amount of rumours and reports about these swaps is just mindboggling and quite unsettling for the expectations and aspirations of the fans. For instance, before the next racing season Alonso will be moving to McLaren (already a certainty) and there is a lot of talk about Raikkonen joining Ferrari (still a possibility). If that comes to pass, will he be replacing Ferrari's most prized possession, the record-churning machine called Michael Schumacher (who as the rumour goes may be retiring), or will he take the place of more dispensable Brazilian Felipe de Massa?

Till last season, Brazilian Rubens Barrichello -- who now drives a Honda -- was very ably supporting Michael enabling Ferrari to take a number of first and second positions during the 2004 season. Will Raikkonen be content to play second fiddle to the super-champion who many believe is at the fag end of his illustrious career? The awkward status of always being the runner-up is what irritated Barrichello during 2005 season that he finally switched sides to a much-less reputable Honda. Certainly he is expected to do much worse now than he ever did while he was with Ferrari but being on the podium, it seams, is not always on the drivers and the makers mind. Otherwise, why should teams like BAR and Jordan ever run?

Alonso's move to McLaren is bound to create equally unpredictable scenarios. Will he be running along side the mercurial but accident-prone Colombian Juan Pablo Montoya? Who will be the second fiddle in this case? There are also a number of other drivers whose current contracts will be expiring at the end of the current season. So, there are bound to be major changes on the circuit come next season.

So much for changing drivers... Sometimes teams even change the constructors of the machines that they run on (McLaren has changed many of them during the 50 years or so of its existence, to be with Mercedes currently).

An equally amazing aspect of Formula 1 racing is how a sport that originated in a 'decadent' Europe has beaten all its many rivals from the 'ascendent' United States when it comes to global popularity. For once, the Americans have invested lot less money in their Indycars and NASCAR races than Formula 1 ever manges to do. (Average expenditure per team per year for Formula I is $200 million, making it perhaps the costliest sport these days.) And the rules governing races and the cars running therein have been also much more strict to the west of Atlantic than they have ever been for Formula 1 drivers and makers of vehicles in this version of Grand Prix racing. Advertising only concretises these differences.

For instance, global brands like Shell take pains to be associated with race leaders. And this is not specific to oil and tyre firms (though the latter have a much bigger part to play in actual racing than just being a co-sponsor of a team or an event). Vodafone, a European telecom giant, will join hands with McLaren-Mercedes to make it Vodafone-McLaren-Mercedes in the next season.

The closest rival to Formula 1 in terms of success is A1 Grand Prix where, unlike its more successful, cars are the same but they run for different countries. Of late, Pakistan is seeking to claim its share of racing glamour by running a car of its own in A1 Grand Prix, also known as the world cup of motorsports. But a British-born Adam Khan racing a vehicle running on Arab money and manufactured God knows where is the only way for Pakistan to enter global racing arena. Even in the racing world, it's as difficult to compete with the rich and the mighty as it is in international political economy.

But A1 Grand Prix differs from Formula 1 in one very crucial aspect. It's still a nascent affair and needs a lot more time to become a global brand in itself as Formula 1 already has. If there ever were a rival to Formula 1, it would have been on the priority list of the aspiring global leader that India wants to become to bring it to a circuit in Chennai or Hyderabad. So far, New Delhi is following in Beijing's footsteps even in motorsports. If China has already succeeded in attracting Formula 1 Grand Prix, why should India look out for something else to imitate, if not outdo, its neighbour? None of the two most shining stars of globalisation can be left out by a sport which more than anything else symbolises the free movement of machinery, technology, expertise and human resource across the continents.

One of the most striking memories of the 2002 edition of the FIFA World Cup in Korea was the unexpected success of the host nation, and none more than the sight of South Korean striker Ahn Jung-Hwan's decisive goal dismissing world football power horse Italy from the finals. Shocking as this exit was for Italy, even more surprising was the aftermath. Perugia, the Italian club that Ahn played for, sacked him.

While this rendition of sporting patriotism shown by the club might have been embarrassing for the Italians, the incident was a splendid example of the inherent contradiction in today's professional sport.

Clubs all over the world are based on geographical and political demarcations and the following for each club is also divided on the same lines. A resident of London shall almost always support Chelsea in a match against Manchester United or Liverpool. Following can, however, have many layers and support for a club does not mean that it shall replace patriotism for the country. This shows the conflict facing a club fan, who relates with players of different nationalities representing his county, state or province as his own, to continue to have the same feelings for one of the players in his club who goes ahead and scores against his country.

Real Madrid, one of the biggest football clubs in the world is famous for its galaxy of superstars -- the 'galacticos' as they are lovingly known -- and has only a sparse representation of local players. Zidane, Ronaldo, Beckham, Carlos, Robinho are only a few of their multinational heroes on whose ability and skill the success of the club depends. The fanatical fans of Madrid support these players with feverish devotion and demand nothing less than unflinching loyalty in return. It is only natural, therefore, that the performances of these stars against the Spanish national team breaks more than hearts, and ends up breaking ties of devotion and loyalty.

The decision by Perugia, many believe, was based on economics, but undoubtedly stemming from the emotions of the fans -- the consumer base for a club. Football clubs, like all other professional sporting clubs, are purely business initiatives concerned with profits from endorsements, ticket sales, television rights, merchandise sales and sponsorships. All these revenue sources are dependent on fans and the lack of support for unpopular players usually reflects in the form of decreased revenues for the club.

Critics claim professional sport turns players into mercenaries -- offering their services to the highest bidder. Loyalty and pride associated with playing for one's country or regional demarcation is becoming a lost virtue -- traded as a buyable commodity.

The truth of the matter is that the level of the game on offer at professional level of sports is much higher than that exhibited at the international level. Even at an event as hyped up as the Football World Cup, the sport does not lift its level of competitiveness any higher than what is on offer at the club level. Players of international repute have routinely been known to have taken little interest in risking themselves in matches between nations.

This conflict is well exhibited in other sports as well. Not many tennis stars opt to represent their countries in the Davis Cup as numerous players have shown unwillingness to play for their countries in order to save themselves for the more lucrative professional tennis circuit.

The reason is that injuries are a serious problem that affect revenues directly. English striker Wayne Rooney's injury, for example, has been the talking point of this Football World Cup in Germany. Due to England's immense dependence on Rooney's striking prowess, English coach Sven Erickeson is expected to put Rooney into action much earlier than he should, according to Manchester United -- the club that Rooney represents. Manchester United has invested heavily in Rooney, and wants to retain the usability of its merchandise; after all damaged goods are not good business.

This, however, is in contradiction to the utopian belief of the fans that holds honour and patriotism higher than shallow gains in monetary terms. Players should ideally refuse higher pays and more money for the honour and privilege of representing their countries -- when in real life the fans can easily leave their countries for greener pastures abroad. While it is kosher for doctors and engineers to leave Pakistan to treat patients and build industries in the UK, our hockey players cannot be forgiven for leaving their slots in the team to play for clubs outside the country.

FIFA President Sepp Blatter has similar views in this matter: "Club managers and coaches would be well advised not only to observe international rules, but to stop trying to obstruct legitimate players' rights.

"It cannot be acceptable to recruit such stars and then demand that they should disrespect their own countries if a tournament or international fixtures are scheduled, particularly if they are part of the international co-ordinated calendar, clash with Premiership (the English Premier League) matches."

"The opportunity to represent their country in a major international tournament outweighs any and all honours a club league can offer," says FIFA's official website.

Or at least ideally it should, but that is seldom the case. The players putting in the most effort at national level tournaments are usually players waiting to be discovered by clubs or those unhappy with the existing ones they play for. While the honour of representing one's country is a huge factor, playing for money remains the greatest incentive.

It is, however, hard to disagree that international interests should take precedence -- imagine the uproar were Wasim Akram to snub a Pakistan-India match in favour of playing for Lancashire, a cricket county that he gloriously represented for a decade.

The trick is to find the right balance. Calendars for both club level and international competitions in almost all sports need to be re-evaluated to consider the implications of burnout and injury. And players who prefer to put in more effort for their paymasters than for their country, should quite frankly not be made part of the national teams. The sport shall be better off as a result.

You can bet the Heavy Metal of cricket -- Shahid Khan Afridi -- has no time for classical offerings of a Mozart or even Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan. He lives in a world where bludgeoning is the mother of all art. Yet, it is undeniably music to the legion of his fans. And more money for him as well as the game!

Every time he launches a blitzkrieg, it leaves his fans in a tizzy even if they wish he would apply himself more -- at least, a surge past his average dangerous living at the crease. Maybe, more innately, the desire is linked to butterflies in our tummies, a lurking fear that we will run out of entertainment anytime!

Why does one mention Afridi when the issue is predominantly big money -- and therefore, big shift -- in the rise of sport in Asia as well as the previously barren deserts of the Gulf?

It is simply because entertainment gurus like Afridi is what has propelled the game to heights, where it has become a magnificent ode to money. His calling as a Pakistani brand ambassador for two global products, a soft drink and a watch, the first for any Pakistani star to be advertised internationally, is a sign of the times for Pakistan sports.

The feared Pathan of Pakistan is just one of many icons, revered not just in his country of origin but the larger world wherever cricket is played, in the new age who are on top of their game -- beyond the game they have adopted as a profession. Read all that in the 'retainer-match fee-sponsorship-endorsement-prize money' combo and you get a fair drift of how the game has changed.

Whether it's cricket or golf -- the Pakistan Golf Federation earlier this year raised nearly half a million dollars for the international Asian Tour-Pakistan Golf Championship -- the Big Money is rolling in, catapulting Pakistan into the international major league on the back of the rising tide of sponsorship of sports in Asia.

Rising numbers of consumers and consumerism is drawing the Big Brands to Pakistan and there's nothing like sports to get a focused audience. What is happening in Pakistan is merely part of a larger chain of events in its surrounding region. Sport never had it this good globally but the gradual shift to Asia and the Gulf is a story all its own.

The phenomenal change in geographical priorities is explained by smart and vigilant market forces. The resultant bigger, better, brighter infrastructure, television rights and last but not least, the many rewards of such indulgences -- rooted in massive popularity -- is nothing if not brilliant.

The upward mobility was not always thus. Inspired by success and a heady consumerism, there now appears to be no end to kingdom of riches in Pakistan -- something that is a manifestation of a growing phenomenon in the region. Asia, and the Gulf to some extent, is clearly creating in environment where relaxed regimes combined with spectacular returns has shifted the balance of power.

Let's take the case of a powerhouse closer home, which has clearly moved out of the regional context and into the global league: India. In March last year, Inderjit Singh Bindra, a leading Indian cricket administrator credited with visionary ideas, made a startling claim that Indian cricket could be worth $2 billion within the next four years, becoming one of the top money-spinners in global sport and in the Indian economy. India's famed entertainment industry as a whole is estimated at $4.3 billion.

India is now acknowledged to be the epicentre in world cricket, a game played at various levels among 92 ICC member countries, including leagues in Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. "Some 60% of income in world cricket is generated from India," said Bindra. Even in the 1999 World Cup in England, not only sponsorship revenue but 60% of ticket sales came from Indians and people of Indian origin.

It took an Indian to change the financial health of the ICC. When Jagmohan Dalmiya took over as the first Asian president of the ICC in 1997, the world body had $37,000 in its kitty. When he left, the ICC had $11 million.

More than the board it is the players who rake in the moolah from the sport. Top Indian players are sitting on a goldmine. Leading the pack is little master Sachin Tendulkar, who stands to pick up, according to reports, up to Indian Rs 5 crore annually for every deal he signs. Avid television watchers have probably lost count of the number of products he promotes. Even recent rises like Yuvraj Singh are phenomenal financial successes and those on the brink of global fame, only beckoning equal or greater financial glory. Cricketers from any other country just do not compare!

All this success has arisen from glory achieved by the Asian teams and their sporting icons at various times. India in 1983, Pakistan in 1992 and Sri Lanka in 1996 won the ultimate prize in cricket, spawning a huge frenzy in the game, which is treated by their teeming millions not for what it is but little short of religion. The market forces continue to cash in on this undying love and, in turn, have triggered a boom, which is unlikely to lose its fizz.

What can money buy? Consider this: Even the game's headquarters have now shifted from London -- something that was considered by the puritans at one time as near-blasphemy -- to the tax-free haven Dubai!

As recently as last April, Asia won the bid to host the World Cup against all odds (including a slick campaign by Australia and New Zealand) simply because its kind of money and marketing speaks louder than any perceived look-good power point presentation. In fact, removed from rhetoric, Asia has reached a near superpower status where the economics are concerned, and therefore, has a decisive say.

And while spectator interest in the Gulf is not in the mountainous proportions of their Asian counterparts, oil-like-money has ensured there's plenty of turnover. Qatar, this year, is going to become the first Arab country to host the Asian Games. No small achievement.

Contrary to public perception, which admittedly outside the region is not really inspiring, does not detract from how the Gulf is slowly but surely assuming a high-profile. In the last half a decade or so, all major international tennis, football and golf stars have made rendezvous here a part of their calendar. There's big money to be had even for friendlies and charity matches!

Television has also made it possible to bring sports to hundreds of millions of homes worldwide, even if at the cost of reducing stadium attendance. But that has made no difference to the financial rewards because of high consumerism.

And that's what the catchword is: Consumerism. Fuelled by a passion that sometimes borders on the fanatic, it is unlikely the trend will change. Just like Afridi's irreversible approach to the game.