The former president of BCCI, Mr N. Srinivasan, has been unceremoniously ousted as ICC chairman.
The former president of BCCI, Mr N. Srinivasan, has been unceremoniously ousted as ICC chairman. He had to go in this manner because he was the worst offender against the principles of conflict of interest that beset the national game of cricket. By owning the IPL team Chennai Super Kings through his company, India Cements, not only did he vitiate the atmosphere of a sport that is a metaphor for fair play but also he did nothing to stem the stench of corruption that had overtaken the valuable property of IPL owned by BCCI. It took the Supreme Court to direct the BCCI towards displacing a man who, much like Sepp Blatter in FIFA, had spawned a favour system that corrupted BCCI operations. Running the board like a personal fiefdom and institutionalising the bestowing of favours so that none may dare to challenge his cavalier approach, he had brought things to such a pass that only judicial powers could stop him. How he could carry on as the head of ICC when he was found not qualified to attend BCCI meetings (and yet represent it in the world federation) is one of those mysterious compromises cricket kept making.
Leading the BCCI into a new and cleaner era now is the current president, Mr Shashank Manohar, who also takes over as ICC chairman. With very bold strokes facilitated by a majority in his support, Mr Manohar has acted punctiliously in excising many others who had placed themselves in conflict-of-interest situations freely. The “one man, one job” principle has been evenly applied with Team India director Ravi Shastri losing his place on the IPL governing council while Roger Binny has been forced to steer clear of nepotism charges. By abrogating the contracts of commentators being paid by BCCI, the board has upheld an important principle, that of not controlling opinion, a malaise introduced by Mr Srinivasan and his cohorts. In forcing out Sunder Raman, despite him being the brain who thought up the international revenue-sharing model, the board has only penalised someone thought to have not acted when it was known that the president’s son-in-law was gambling on IPL games.
The Augean stables have been well cleaned but much remains to be done — plenty of conflict-of-interest situations may arise as many BCCI administrators double up as cheerleaders of IPL teams. The game needed an image makeover after the IPL betting and corruption scandals. The appointment of an ombudsman is very welcome. Many important principles of governance must be upheld with accountability brought in, particularly regarding the subventions that BCCI ladles out to its member associations for promotion of the game. These actions to restore the game’s honour may have come a tad late, but it is better late than never.
