Sports have been dominated by business interests in recent decades, and big money and glamour often attract businessmen, politicians and assorted characters into sports administration. The entry of controversy into cricket administration in India and questions being raised about its accountability to the public and its large fan base are, therefore, hardly surprising. As the Indian cricket board is the richest national body in the game, it is only to be expected that there will be considerable public interest around the running of its main money-spinner, the lucrative >Indian Premier League . On the one hand, the IPL is a sub-committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, but on the other, the BCCI’s president also owns a league team in the IPL. The BCCI is a registered society with State cricket associations affiliated to it. And the one who commands the maximum support among these State associations invariably gets to run the BCCI. In other words, it is a cosy club of mutual interests, and the IPL cannot be expected to be any different. Even though the BCCI is a private and autonomous body, it is what it is today only because of the great public support that cricket commands.
The big question that confronts one in the wake of the IPL betting and spot-fixing scandal is this: how does one ensure accountability of national sporting bodies without jeopardising their autonomy? A specific regulatory framework may appear to be the most obvious answer as general laws governing societies and other associations have proved unequal to the task. The previous United Progressive Alliance regime had prepared a draft ‘National Sports Development Bill’. Among its aims was the “promotion of ethical practices in sports.” It talked about national sports federations to run every sport with official recognition. A legislative framework that is not sensitive enough to the need for autonomy in sports bodies would be seen as needless interference going against the spirit of sports. The experience of cash-rich sporting bodies elsewhere is not enough of a guide. The National Football League in the U.S., for instance, is a not-for-profit body, but the National Basketball Association is run on purely commercial lines. In England, there has been headway in clubs giving some say in their management to supporters and shareholders. The opportunity presented by the current IPL controversy to cleanse cricket in India is extraordinary. The best way to make use of it is to put in place a mechanism that would enhance public trust and accountability while retaining the autonomy necessary to ensure the highest competitive standards in the game. Clearly, a great deal will depend on the calibre of men entrusted with the tasks of governance.
