#dnaEdit: BCCI must act tough to regain ground

After years of turning a blind eye to cricketers and administrators assuming multiple, and often conflicting, positions in the BCCI, the sporting body seems to have finally woken up to the conflict of interest issue. It has written to state cricket associations directing that all members sign an undertaking that they have no commercial interests associated with the game. A new player agent accreditation process has also been launched. Further, the BCCI plans to get players to sign the same, and notify an elaborate code of ethics to avoid conflict of interest and corruption in future. The timing of these reform measures merits attention. For long, the BCCI has stoutly opposed any public intervention in its affairs, citing its success in transforming India into a cricketing powerhouse, and the game into a money-spinner for the country. The BCCI was aware of the growing public discontent over the state of affairs ever since its former president N Srinivasan successfully arm-twisted other officials to amend a BCCI regulation allowing Srinivasan to hold concurrent positions as a cricket administrator and IPL team owner. But besides dislodging Srinivasan from the helm, the Board proved incapable of a systemic course correction. 

The credit for the ongoing reform measures must go to the Supreme Court. The three-member Justice Lodha committee, appointed by it, suspended two IPL franchises, a step that the Board — embroiled in factional rivalries and enmeshed in commercial interests — failed to accomplish despite possessing the powers to suspend teams that caused disrepute to the sport. The committee is also poised to identify amendments needed in the BCCI’s memorandum of association, rules and regulations. While its past conduct raises doubts about the Board’s ability to take tough action against future conflict of interests, the present dispensation led by president Jagmohan Dalmiya and secretary Anurag Thakur have promised a new beginning. Thakur’s letter to cricket associations notes that the BCCI has to salvage its reputation as a professionally managed body and offers a very clear-headed description of conflict of interest. He noted that conflict of interest was not a judgment about a person, but about a person’s roles and relationships, and the tendency or apprehension of bias that assumes to exist when duties, decisions or action conflict.

Srinivasan’s was not the only glaring instance of conflict of interest. Former test captain MS Dhoni was allegedly linked to Rhiti Sports, a firm which managed some Indian cricketers. Similar concerns are now being raised about a company allegedly linked to current captain Virat Kohli. There is a clear conflict of interest in Indian captains associating with such player management firms since captains have a role in selecting the national team and the playing eleven. A more tricky issue is the terms of conflict of interest for former players. While it is desirable to utilise their experience in cricket administration, some former players have stakes or responsibilities in commercial concerns linked to cricket. For example, former players Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri have been criticised for assuming roles as broadcast commentators despite being on the payrolls of the BCCI. It was noted that Gavaskar and Shastri could not take an independent position on cricketing issues if they were beholden to the BCCI. It is also argued that cricketers cannot be blamed for being more closely associated with the sport in financial roles, unlike politicians and industrialists who enter state cricket associations eyeing the prestige and influence that the Board and the sport commands. Ultimately, the Board owes the reasons for its existence to cricket, cricketers, and the cricket-watching public. The mindset of maximising profits for the game and its stakeholders have led to pernicious practices and corrupting influences.