dna edit: Cleaning up IPL

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is likely to be heaving a collective sigh of relief. Reversing its original suggestion, the Supreme Court (SC) has allowed Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings to participate in this year’s iteration of the Indian Premier League (IPL) tournament. The impact of N Srinivasan’s ouster as BCCI president will be similarly difficult to gauge for a while yet. He might have been replaced by Sunil Gavaskar — insofar the BCCI’s IPL functions go — but by all indications, he is still on track to represent the BCCI at the International Cricket Council (ICC) and take over as ICC president come July. The fixing imbroglio will trundle on for a while and there is no way to tell what the final outcome will be; there is a possibility that the SC will compel the BCCI to take the tough action that is needed. But these initial developments point to the pitfalls along the way.

Justice Mukul Mudgal, who headed the independent committee that probed the IPL corruption issue, the BCCI’s lawyers and, finally, the SC bench all seem to have taken the stand that innocent players should not suffer because of the actions of a few corrupt individuals. This is flawed reasoning. Granted, the issue is still at the prima facie stage. But if the investigation turns up concrete evidence of corruption on the part of individuals associated with either franchise, misplaced, if understandable, concern for the wellbeing of honest team members must not stop the SC from taking the corrective action that is needed. These are not disempowered, helpless players whose livelihoods are at risk. They are participants in a high reward commercial league — and by its very nature, any such enterprise is run with the understanding that a breach of rules will result in the mandated penalties in order to protect the enterprise’s credibility.

Clause 11.3 of the IPL rules provides for the termination of a franchise if anyone associated with the team tarnishes the image of the league, and with good reason. Without this check, the enterprise’s foundations are at risk. The 2006 Serie A scandal in Italy is a prime example of the efficacy of such a rule if it is properly implemented. Powerhouse teams such as Juventus, AC Milan, Florentine and Lazio were banned and relegated to Serie B for betting and rigging matches; Juventus, league champions at the time, had their titles stripped.

In the same vein, Srinivasan’s representing the BCCI at the ICC is a blow to the credibility of both bodies. Semantics and exploitation of loopholes in court rulings cannot conceal the absurdity of the situation: a man compelled by the country’s highest court to remove himself from the game’s administration because of doubts about his professional integrity is now on track to head up the game’s global governing body. It is of a piece with the manner in which the BCCI — and to some extent, the SC — have chosen to view the matter. The issue does not revolve around one man; Srinivasan is a symptom of the underlying structural problems. Cricket administration in India is rife with the politics of patronage and various conflicts of interest; these are the factors that have enabled Srinivasan and will enable others if they are not addressed. Whether the BCCI retains him as its representative or not will show if it has the will and the inclination to begin doing so.