The judiciary in India might have often wondered if an out of court settlement is an amicable solution for some disputes. However, such procedures require mature heads from both sides to come together and find a worthwhile solution. But Indians are emotional people and their inflated egos continue to show their ugly heads when two such sides meet.
This is exactly what is happening with the BCCI and the Committee of Administrators (CoA) which was appointed by the Supreme Court. In fact they have agreed to disagree on practically all issues.
The fact is that even after it has been three months since the CoA was appointed, the BCCI and its associations keep running to SC for seeking clarifications. This either indicates that the CoA is pushing for things which don't come under its purview, or that the associations are hell-bent on not leaving their positions in their respective associations.
The brief given to CoA was to oversee the compliance of the Lodha committee reforms accepted by the Supreme Court. The CoA has to accept the blame for failing to comply with it. It is pointless to upload minutes on the website if they have failed to implement it. A majority of the association officials who were disqualified continue to attend managing and sub-committee meetings and barefacedly remain party to decisions.
If the CoA has not found solutions to the problem while trying to ensure compliance to the reforms, they should have quit. Plain and simple. Here, one must appreciate the action taken by Justice Sen in DDCA. On his first day, he asked for all the cabins and rooms of the office-bearers of the associations to be locked and warned the staff of dire consequences if they were found working privately with the association office bearers.
He then walked across to the Delhi team and greeted them. This was a confidence- building measure which hitherto harassed Delhi players badly needed. Now, everything seems to be going smoothly in the DDCA but not in other State associations. Ideally, when CoA was appointed they should have organised a zonal conclave consisting of the president, secretary and treasurer of each association in that zone so that contentious issues could been addressed and discussed threadbare. Instead they kept issuing circulars, some of which created doubts in the minds of association officials.
So much so that the Supreme Court had to issue a clarification about the 9-year term period, stating that office-bearers who had completed nine years in State associations are eligible for the post in the BCCI for another nine years.
Though the findings of Deloitte audit reports need to be taken seriously, it is cricket at domestic level that is suffering, especially the match fees due to First Class players. For more than a decade First Class players have had to beg to get their match fees. Never have they received their due match fees at the end of a season. In fact, they have been receiving it after two years. It must be noted that we are talking about around 2500 players, most of whom solely rely on match fees.
When associations used to disburse the amounts to the players based on the number of matches played, its officials would harass them for not giving their fees on time. The BCCI then decided to give payments directly. But the problem is still not sorted and players still do not get match fees on time.
The central contract system is a joke. Only international players get contracts. What about those like Priyank Panchal, Shahbaz Nadeem, Jalaj Saxena and many other consistent performers who aren’t picked because of the lack of place in the Indian team. Shouldn’t there be a group D for them so that domestic performers get motivated?
That the BCCI always cared mainly for just international players is well known because that seems to be the USP for marketing the Indian team. But one expected the CoA to consider domestic performers too.
Another point is about how the central contract can be the same for Test and other formats? A player who doesn’t play first class cricket for his State but makes himself available for limited overs matches finds himself in higher grade whereas those who play all formats and perform are in Grade C. What is the rationale behind this?
By now all the appointments of coaches, physios, trainers at the NCA should have been finalised. But nothing has been done yet. In his inaugural speech at the National Cricket Academy, Rodney Marsh had said that it would be a place of worship for young Indian cricketers who would bring laurels to the country. Today it is a defunct institution with no meaningful activity taking place.
The major issue is not that the eminent members of the CoA do not have any experience of cricket management. But that the expertise they possess leads them to perceive certain things, and that is leading to problems. Unless the CoA and BCCI office-bearers meet once a fortnight and chalk out the line of action, there will be conflict at every stage.
If the CoA acts like it is the boss when it has no clue about how game is run and how it has been marketed over the years, Indian cricket will be back to the days of the 80s when Doordarshan would charge heavily to telecast matches. The fact that despite its bad image the BCCI was able to make ₹1079 crore for five years bears testimony to the marketing of the product. Let us not destroy that valuable product. After all, cricket officials from Jagmohan Dalmiya, Inderjit Singh Bindra to the present lot have worked overtime to build it.
