Over the years, Indian cricket has been allergic to two issues — the formation of a players’ association, and conflict of interest. Even legends in their prime, though they tried, could not sustain a players’ association. The Board of Control for Cricket in India saw it as a trade union, and equally, there was no unanimity among the players themselves.
It took the Lodha Committee and the Supreme Court to tackle both issues. Thus was the Indian Cricketers’ Association (ICA) formed last year, 87 years after India played their first Test match. And even that was a bit of a compromise since it was for former players (men and women) only, and current players had no role. That ought to change if the body is to be truly representative. But these are baby steps.
The president of the ICA, former player Ashok Malhotra, said recently, “I am finding it very difficult to work in this space.” The demands are increased medical insurance for former players, pension for those who have played fewer than 25 First Class matches and also financial help for the widows of former players. There is too the demand to release Manoj Prabhakar’s benevolent fund since his ban for match-fixing ended in 2005. It is a list that gives the impression that the ICA is only focussed on asking for money. Money is important, especially in these times, but there has to be more to a players’ association than that.
These are early days yet, but it is necessary to get into such areas as post-retirement assistance, professional placements, even suicide counselling. The Supreme Court sees the presence of two players from the ICA in the apex council of the BCCI as a way of utilising their experience at the highest level. They can get into areas affecting the current players too, acting as a sort of House of Elders. Which is why when Malhotra says he expects them to be more pro-active, it is surprising. It is a part of the job description, after all.
Not an excuse forever
If the partnership between players and administrators have to be mutually beneficial, both sides have to appreciate the others’ point of view. The pandemic cannot be an excuse forever.
The matter of conflict of interest seems to be a BCCI tradition. Not so long ago we were accusing its president, N. Srinivasan, of this. Now here is the incumbent, Sourav Ganguly, plugging the fantasy gaming app My11Circle with such enthusiasm.
The ethical question is straightforward: Should the board president be allowed to advertise a product thus? The answer is equally straightforward: No.
But there’s another twist to this tale. A similar app, Dream11 is an official sponsor of the BCCI. The fantasy cricket market is expected to be worth $5 billion over the next couple of years, and if India’s top players see an opportunity here to monetise their careers further, we cannot cavil. Except when they hold responsible positions in the governing body.
When the issue was first raised, Ganguly had said, “I don’t think there is any conflict in it, it’s my personal thing. Had I tweeted about Dream11, it would have come under conflict of interest.” This is an interesting interpretation. Clearly, the focus has been away from the BCCI for too long!
But it is neither the ICA nor the conflict that is the most worrying for the BCCI right now. There is, or there will soon be, a leadership vacuum. The president (Ganguly) and secretary (Jay Shah) are on the verge of having to quit, the vice-president (Mahim Verma) already has. Ganguly’s term ends on July 27, Shah’s has, while joint-secretary Jayesh George’s term ends on September 23. This is owing to the “cooling off period” following six years in office between the State association and the BCCI. Members elected them knowing this all along. The BCCI has appealed to the Supreme Court. Verma quit to take over as secretary of the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand .
CEO Hemang Amin is an interim appointment following the resignation of Rahul Johri. Saba Karim, general manager (cricket operations), added his name to the list of those who have resigned after Santosh Rangnekar (Chief Financial Officer) and Tufan Ghosh (Chief Operating Officer, National Cricket Academy) had done so earlier.
Suddenly, since 2013 when the Supreme Court entered the picture following allegations of match-fixing in the IPL, we seem to have gone back to the future. Has nothing changed? The BCCI is flexing its muscles against the Supreme Court, the president and secretary are hoping to get an extension (in this case, till 2025), and the IPL is set to be played.
History seldom repeats itself with such speed. A reminder too of what happens when we refuse to learn from it.
