Who’s Calling the Shots?

BCCI, the governing body of cricket in India, is one of the richest sporting associations in the world. But it appears that the said wealth is doing more harm than good for the organisation. Recent controversies show that the lust of money has led the organisation to completely surrender themselves before the franchises that participate in Indian Premier League (IPL). BCCI may argue that the money earned from IPL helps the organisation offer hefty pay packages to players in the domestic circuit. But how can anyone support the theory of surrendering authority for financial gain? If the BCCI does not exert its authority properly, it is likely that various external franchises will run cricket in the country with the governing body only playing the role of a mute spectator.

Take the Rohit Sharma episode which recently shocked the Indian cricket fraternity. The Indian opener got injured while playing for his franchise Mumbai Indians in IPL. Based on the nature of Rohit’s injury, the selection committee had dropped him from the Australia-bound squad. He was also ruled out from further participation in IPL. But as Mumbai Indians needed Rohit Sharma badly on their side to keep its title hope alive, it released a video footage of the cricketer practicing in the net. It was done in defiance of the board’s position and BCCI was well within its right to take action against the Mumbai Indians. But, the board meekly surrendered and allowed Rohit Sharma to participate in IPL. The matter did not end there as the public started questioning BCCI’s decision to keep Rohit out of the team, despite him being fit. The board sent him to National Cricket Academy in Bangalore as an eye-wash act and he was subsequently sent to Australia, just in time to play the last two Tests of the series.

Another incident in which a player had forced BCCI to succumb before his wishes came to light when the board granted paternity leave to Indian captain Virat Kohli, which has never before happened in Indian cricket. In the past, players like Sunil Gavaskar, Sourav Ganguly, and MS Dhoni among others, were denied paternity leave. But Virat was fortunate as he is now the poster boy of international cricket. His name draws large crowd to the stadium and thus BCCI decided not to go against his wishes. However, whilst granting paternity leave to Virat, BCCI did not consider the impact on the morale of the team. In other cricketing nations, players opt out of the entire tour if they have important assignments at home during the trip. In 1972-73, England sent a relatively new team to India with an uncapped cricketer Tony Lewis as captain as most of the established players refused to go out of the country during Christmas. BCCI could have asked Virat to skip the entire tour, but being apprehensive of financial loss, BCCI restrained itself from doing so. Is there anyone who can provide BCCI the requisite strength to avoid such controversies in the future?