Rules are rules, but are the rules good or bad?

RULES are rules. It doesn’t matter who you are, jester or king.

That’s why I am inclined to agree with the Badminton Association of Malaysia’s (BAM) decision to stop independent players, led by the country’s No. 1 Lee Zii Jia, into their den unless they abide by a certain code of conduct involving the apparel they wear.

BAM’s faithful apparel sponsor has been Yonex and no player is allowed to wear any other competitor’s attire even at the training ground.

They can wear any brand that is not seen as direct opposition to the sponsor.

That means no Victor or Li Ning but it’s okay to sport a Pagoda T-shirt or a plain one. It’s not a new rule and is really a no-brainer.

However, things aren’t always black and white. There are many shades of grey.

The BAM have not enforced the rule effectively before this, out of the spirit of accommodating the independent players, who may have their own sponsors.

Zii Jia and Co apparently had the freedom to wear whatever they wanted in training when they were chosen to represent the country at the Sudirman Cup just over three months ago.

BAM have also been accommodating for other tournaments, allowing the indie players to use their premises twice a week.

All that changed drastically only this month. BAM put their foot down about the apparel and that has sparked outrage from Zii Jia and his coach Wong Tat Meng. Tat Meng thinks they are being bullied.

It’s even more frustrating for the coach as he wants his charge to have the best preparation for the World Championships in Copenhagen starting next week.

If BAM had allowed them to train at Academy Badminton Malaysia (ABM) until the world meet and postpone the enforcement until after the Copenhagen stint, things may have been different.

The timing is what riled Tat Meng and Zii Jia, I believe.

To add fuel to the fire, Datuk Lee Chong Wei came out with guns blazing criticising both Zii Jia and Tat Meng.

Chong Wei is the one who had argued for a win-win situation allowing independent players to train at ABM. Obviously, he felt slighted that they could not follow a “simple rule”.

He blasted Zii Jia’s attitude for thinking only of himself.

There are now only two ways out of this situation – BAM can go flexible on the rule for the good of the game – or the independent players need to follow it without making a fuss.

The big problem is BAM’s obligation to their sponsors.

No sponsor will want a competitor to be allowed if they need to capitalise on the publicity mileage. After all, they are spending millions on all the players under the national body and need their ROI (return on investment).

Maybe we should look to our greatest rivals Indonesia, where the scenario is totally different.

Independent players in Indonesia can have multiple sponsors displayed on their attires and still represent the country. The sponsorship model is completely different in Indonesia.

That makes one wonder. If it’s working for Indonesia, can it work for Malaysia?

We don’t hear sponsors’ squabbling in Indonesia but there are consistently good results from the players who are funded by different clubs and sponsors.

Private sponsors are eager to support badminton clubs in Indonesia as they know the national body will not stop the clubs’ sponsors from getting their due mileage too.

This has led to a thriving club system and a bigger pool of talents at the lower level.

Maybe, that kind of sponsorship is something the BAM can look into. We can’t be doing the same thing again and again, and expect different results.

But it has to be done right. Any rule, once in place, cannot be broken or even bent.

Hopefully, Zii Jia and Co will use this setback as a motivation to do well at the world meet.