There is little argument that the Laureus Awards are the Oscars for the World of Sports. There is scarcely anything else even remotely close. And though the annual ceremony is visually impressive and has a sprinkling of cinema glitter flung in (this year it was Bill Murray hosting the show) the telecast is relatively lowkey and does not attract the global audience.

Think of the people there on Monday night in Berlin. Usain Bolt, Lionel Messi, Lewis Hamilton, Shelly Anne Frazer-Price, Jordan Spieth, just to name a few. And yet, there is no fanfare about the event and it almost goes unnoticed. Even advertisers sort of shuffle off and only diehard fans tune in. The coverage in the media is apologetic, like oh, it’s that awards thing again, okay, put it on the inside page. That the majority in media run with wire services and provide no ‘Kilroy was here’ reportage clearly underscores the lack of interest.

There is scarcely any run up to the event (unlike the Oscars which start ratcheting up media space three months in advance) nobody ever mentions the contenders and the big day literally comes as a surprise.

Which is rather sad because it is not just honoring the talent and courage of these gladiators but because the awards instituted in 2000 are aspirational in their intent. Officially, the annual gala is “dedicated to changing the lives of disadvantaged children through sport, and celebrating the achievements of the world’s greatest sportspeople.” But the message of inspiration is somehow lost.

As heavy as that sounds one would have thought that sixteen years down the road the public would have been a lot more enthusiastic about saluting these stalwarts and the Laureus would be a major fixture.

Two reasons for this casual indifference. The evening itself might be a black tie affair but compared to the Oscars it lacks flair and fun. The speeches are a little preachy and it begins to turn into a tutorial rather than a night on the town. Unlike film stars, sports stars are not particularly articulate and they do not make riveting and quotable statements and scarcely anything that is controversial. They are also very solemn and serious and laughter is at a premium. There is also a lot of shuffling around on stage and even a Bill Murray is hard placed to get the stiff lipped audience going.

The other problem is with the awards themselves. The categories are awkward and there is no real yardstick to measure the best Male and Female Sports person of the year when you equate team sports with individual performance. You cannot have Messi,Usain Bolt, Djokovic and Lewis Hamilton in the same category. By the same token you cannot put Serena Williams with footballer Carli Lloyd.

That Djokovic and Serena won is a no brainer. But if the Awards committee wishes to upgrade this event it has to seriously rework its categories and make them more exciting and logical. Just as you have in cinema so, too, in sport. Team sport. Individual skill. Consistent performance. Man and machine (F1, sailing, bobsledding). Best custodian. Best captain. Work a whole new list. Many more specific awards are needed.

Along with that the format also needs to be changed and made more enjoyable. Unless they lighten up this act and loosen the black tie it will go nowhere in a hurry.

For example, Rachel Muthoga, of ‘Moving the Goalposts, received the ‘Sports for Good’ Muthoga is the executive director of ‘Moving the Goalposts’, a community-based organization targeting girls and young women in Kilifi and Kwale counties.

This sort of award should be backed by a major blitz on media’s multiple platforms, not be a one liner or a sidebar.