Published: Aug 04, 2013, 11:39 AM (IST)
Edited: Aug 23, 2014, 07:54 PM (IST)
N Srinivasan’s return to power cannot be completely ruled out © PTI
Cricket South Africa’s approach towards maintaining an arm’s-length relation with the BCCI can set an interesting example of not being bullied and being in their good books at the same time. Abhijit Banare explores the scenario.
There are two main important functions of cricket boards in this world.
A: To manage their national team at home and away.
B: Be in sync with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), have good relations of cricket’s financial powerhouse.
The two aren’t exclusive categories. Those in A often, if not out of will, have to carry out the duties in B. What really matters is, irrespective of the state BCCI finds itself in, these relations still play a critical role. What’s happening now within the board is not just a national issue, but also something members across the world are closely observing, especially the boards that are comfortably on their feet. To explain this in a sentence, the type of leader heading the BCCI is directly proportional to his assertiveness in the International Cricket Council (ICC). The rise of BCCI is a different story altogether, but the way it is using its clout at the international level in recent years has surely caused visible discomfort for many. The brokering for Laxman Sivaramkrishnan being part of the players’ representative is the most recent of them.
Though most of the boards would welcome the opportunity of doing away with the arrogance and clout of BCCI, the ability to be in their good books is equally essential for two reasons:
A. To get along with whoever heads the board.
B. The financial clout of BCCI — both of which has been elaborated later in the article.
This task of balancing out is being smartly accomplished by Cricket South Africa (CSA) when it appointed Haroon Lorgat as its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) despite an openly-known dislike by its Indian counterpart. Lorgat’s approach from thereon is an interesting example for others to note.
What really was surprising was the former ICC CEO’s willingness to apologise to the Indian board. Logically speaking, Lorgat didn’t have any reason to do so unless criticising on their stand on DRS and poor management of venues during 2011 World Cup is considered one. However the CSA chief had been smart enough to know that apart from the tour to India later this year, the politics of uncertainty in BCCI keeps oscillating.
The bandages of plastic surgery over the Indian Premier League (IPL) controversies might possibly be removed in September later this year as Jagmohan Dalmiya’s interim arrangement ends and fresh elections during the Annual General Meeting are likely to be held. N Srinivasan’s fight for regaining the President’s post has already ensued. Going by the unpredictable nature of the country, and more significantly knowing how a big fighter Srinivasan is, his return to power cannot be completely ruled out. And in future if he returns the personal viciousness on those against him will clearly hurt many. This is one of the two reasons of being in their good books as mentioned earlier.
CSA, in this aspect, has truly led the way by not being bullied by the Indian Board’s opposition and at the same time willing to extend an olive branch. The consistent threats to pull out of a long tour can easily intimidate any board, but CSA stood its ground. This is an example for the smaller boards that can manage their own affairs and resist the needless meddling by BCCI.
Secondly, the method in which the BCCI’s finance works is slightly different from other boards. With an extremely huge viewership market, the board has managed to earn its revenues well in advance, thanks to IPL broadcasting and advertisers and doesn’t always rely on revenues generated series by series which every other board has to. As a result the threats to pull out of a tour can affect the other party more than India which reaffirms the risk CSA managed to escape through. In comparison smaller boards like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka are completely reliant on revenues generated while playing against India and hence fail to raise their head and speak on equal terms.
However, one must also observe that long-standing squabble is also a recipe for self-destruction. While spot-fixing controversies have pinched the advertisers, the more off-the-field issues remain on sports pages, the clout of BCCI too will weaken sooner or later first at the domestic level then on a larger scale. In order to restore its credibility the BCCI will be willing to bend its back. The following words by Jagmohan Dalmiya do reveal a lot: “Who will chair August 2 meeting? I myself do not know where is the chair…”
(Abhijit Banare is a reporter at CricketCountry. He is an avid quizzer and loves to analyse and dig out interesting facts which allows him to learn something new every day. Apart from cricket he also likes to keep a sharp eye on Indian politics, and can be followed on Twitter and blog)
