The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) regime, under Shashank Manohar, has started making wholesome changes in the way cricket is run in the country. However, if the Supreme Court-appointed Justice RM Lodha-panel's recommendations could take it to different level, if implemented in toto.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

It has not been long when national selector Roger Binny was shown the door for his apparent 'conflict of interest', given that his son Stuart Binny was part of Team India, or former India selector Narendra Hirwani was orders to withdraw from the Madhya Pradesh state selection committee for the reason that his son Mihir has been part of state's age-group team.

However, Justice Lodha panel has not stopped there. The panel has taken the contentious 'conflict of interest' issue a wider reach where no one in the BCCI or in state associations would have to choose between "his job or his son".

In simpler words, for example Sachin Tendulkar, even if approached by BCCI or Mumbai Cricket Association, will not be able to take up any administrative job if his son Arjun is part of any state team.

Tendulkar is currently part of the BCCI-appointed Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) along with Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman.

The three-member Lodha panel has talked about the 'conflict of interest' in the BCCI and at the state association level in detail, widening its ambit by bringing in office-bearers and representative of full member under its purview. Earlier, the debatable issue was merely confined to the role of selectors but the panel has suggested that the 'conflict of interest' can't just include the selectors. In its 159-page report on proposed changes in BCCI's functioning, the panel has said:

1. Several selectors have their children aspiring to represent the nation or the state. The minimum requirement is that if son or daughter of a selector or Office Bearer or representative of full member, is a cricketer who is considered for selection, such selector, Office Bearer or representative of full member should resign.

2. Several former players wear different hats. Former players are selectors, coaches, managers, members of the Governing Council, commentators, sports writers, employees of franchisees, running cricket academies. This results in conflict of interest in so far as the players are concerned. All such conflicts of interest situations should be avoided by prescribing that no former players shall hold more than one post or position.

For example, Karnataka's secretary Brijesh Patel and Saurashtra's strongman Niranjan Shah cannot continue on their posts as their sons are part of the state teams. Patel is the secretary of the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) since 1999 and also runs an academy. His son, Udit Patel, plays for the state Ranji team and has featured in 35 First Class matches, mostly during his tenure.

Similarly, Shah is serving as the honorary secretary of the Saurashtra Cricket Association (SCA) since 1972, and his son, Jaydev Shah, leads the state Ranji Trophy team. He has played 102 first class matches since making debut in 2002-03 season.

On the issue of former players and administrators running cricket academies, this could well cause more wrinkles on the forehead of some former players. Like in the case of Bengal senior selector Devang Gandhi, who has featured in four Tests for India. He runs a private cricket academy. If the panel's recommendations were implemented, he has to decide between his position as selector and in-charge of academy.

Similarly, Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA) president Ajay Shirke runs a cricket academy in Pune, while MCA joint secretary P.V. Shetty owns multiple clubs. Former India skipper Ganguly, too, will have to choose between presidentship of Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) and his academy. Though, he has already said that "he has disassociated himself from its functioning".

All this would change for good if the panel's recommendation were implemented.