DNA Edit: With a straight bat

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has been shown its place by the other cricketing nations. Its attempt to extract a revenue-sharing agreement that is proportionate to India’s clout in the cricketing world, in the form of monetary proceeds from telecasting rights and other royalties, has ended in abject failure. More importantly, the International Cricket Council board meeting in Dubai also signified the end of the ‘Big Three’ model that was formalised in 2014 under the aegis of N Srinivasan, then BCCI president. He had virtually steamrolled the other cricketing nations to ensure that India got a lion’s share of the revenue, followed by England and Australia. This had caused much resentment among smaller cricketing nations, and India, once a vocal opponent of the officious ways of the English and the Australians in the running of the game, was cast in the uncharitable robe of a bully.

In contrast to Srinivasan, whose autocratic running of the BCCI raised the Supreme Court’s hackles and prompted a “judicial takeover” of the game, ICC chairman Shashank Manohar has been sensitive to the concerns of the smaller nations and attempted to rectify the revenue-sharing model. In earlier days, all Test cricket nations were entitled to an equal share of the revenues. Under Srinivasan’s model, India was entitled to $507 million of ICC revenues over the next eight years, England to $110 million and Australia to $67 million. Now the ICC vote, passed 9-1 against India, will entitle the BCCI to just $289 million. The failure to ensure that boards like Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and West Indies, which have traditionally supported the BCCI, reveals how much India has been isolated in world cricket because of overbearing positions.

The BCCI is now reportedly mulling the possibility of withdrawing from the Champion’s Trophy. This is a misconceived step. Rather than pull its weight by such brinkmanship, the BCCI must patiently explain its position to the other countries. The board must also play a responsible role in world cricket. It had opposed the decision to increase the number of voting members in the ICC to 17 from the present 10. Unless cricket grows and strikes strong roots in more nations, the game and revenues will stagnate at some point. Already, the fervour for the game has dimmed in countries outside Asia. The BCCI’s obsession with controlling the ICC must not come at the cost of the beautiful game and its global spread.