Published: Jun 04, 2013, 03:09 PM (IST)
Edited: Jun 04, 2013, 03:09 PM (IST)
MS Dhoni (right) is the vice-president of India Cements, a company owned by N Srinivasan. Dhoni is also the captain of Chennai Super Kings (CSK), which is owned by India Cements © PTI
To have the Indian cricket captain on its roll is powerful leverage for a player management firm. To have the captain as a co-owner is like having the Brahmastra. Whether or not the captain leverages his position to espouse the cause of his clients is an entirely different matter, what matters is public perception. Especially in a setup which has no transparency and nil accountability, writes H Natarajan.
There is a saying in Hindi, “Yatha raja, tatha praja“. Roughly translated in English, it means the subjects in a kingdom will be like the king.
Few will question MS Dhoni’s integrity, even at a time when he is under fire for holding a 15 per cent stake in Rhiti Sports Management — although for a short time in lieu of money owed to him by Arun Pandey, the major stake holder.
The more charitable segment would like to view Dhoni’s conflict of interest as an error of judgment. But an error is an error, deliberate or otherwise. The point is: Who is to pull up Dhoni? N Srinivasan? Dhoni is the vice-president of India Cements, a company owned by Srinivasan. Dhoni is also the captain of Chennai Super Kings (CSK), which is owned by India Cements. CSK itself is managed by Rhiti Sports Management! Do you see the conflict of interests?
Now go back to the time when the selectors wanted a change in national captaincy and almost had passed it, when Srinivasan stepped in and vetoed the decision. Mohinder Amarnath, who mooted that change and made no bones to hide it, made an unceremonious exit from the selection committee. It’s believed more recently that motormouth Danny Morrison praised Virat Kohli as future captain of India during an IPL game and was promptly sacked as commentator.
When a child goes on the wrong path, the parent corrects the child, but what do you do when the parent shows the wrong path to the child? Srinivasan has authored many conflicts of interest, but two of the most glaring ones are:
1. Getting the constitution changed to buy CSK when still wearing the hat of BCCI President.
2. Making Krishnamachari Srikkanth the CSK ambassador when the former India opener was the chairman of the national selection committee.
To have the Indian cricket captain on its roll is powerful leverage for a player management firm. To have the captain as a co-owner is like having the Brahmastra. Whether or not the captain leverages his position to espouse the cause of his clients is an entirely different matter, what matters is public perception. Especially in a setup which has no transparency and nil accountability.
Companies that believe in good corporate governance do not allow its employees to hold shares of companies they represent. Not even their family members. Disclosures are made public and strict compliance is adhered to. It’s simply to avoid the kind of situation that Dhoni finds himself in. That is why Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) requires those coming on business channels and advising on stock pick to disclose to the viewers if they hold the shares or have been advising their clients to buy.
Not soon after Srinivasan took over as BCCI president in 2011, a major row erupted over Anil Kumble’s company mentoring two Karnataka players — S Aravind and R Vinay Kumar — when he was heading the National Cricket Acadmey (NCA), Karnataka State Cricket Association and mentor of the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB). Kumble was livid when aspersions were cast on his integrity for wearing multiple hats that had conflict of interest. He said, less than two percent of his company [Tenvic] had business interests related to “mentoring cricketers” and, more importantly, there were no pecuniary benefits arising from the mentoring to the company. In fact, he added that Tenvic has incurred expenses in creation and execution of the mentoring program.
A hurt Kumble released an open letter to the media so that his voice is heard by the people who matter – the fans. He also resigned as the chairman of the National Cricket Academy.
While “conflict of interest” was cited as the reason for Kumble’s exit from the NCA, NDTV had said that the reasons were something else: “According to reliable sources in NCA, Kumble required a software program for injury management but his proposal was turned down by BCCI. While the official reason for rejecting the proposal was clarified to Kumble as high expenses as it would have to be developed by companies like Infosys, it is learnt that the BCCI suspected Kumble to personally benefit from any such deal. The same sources say that the Indian board calculated that there could be chances of Kumble charging a commission.”
Kumble was a retired cricketer and yet the BCCI had problem with him making a living from his business while doing an honorary job with the NCA and KSCA. The latest controversy, however, is about an India captain who sits in the selection committee meetings and has a powerful voice in matters of team composition. It just does not seem correct that his company represent players who are also fighting for places in the national team. Rhiti Sports, like any agency representing players, is expected to get endorsements, publicity, public appearances etc. for their star clients. It’s absolutely imperative that the players remain in the national team to help the agency get the necessary mileage and financial worth from the sponsors. And having Dhoni sitting in the selection meeting is a huge plus for Rhiti Sports, the profits of which the Indian captain would benefit — a percentage cuts from the player endorsements.
Even if one were to concede, for argument sake, that Dhoni is indeed clean and never pushed for any of the players contracted with Rhiti, the fact remains that perception and precedence matters. Who is to say a captain of lesser integrity in future would not quote Dhoni’s precedence and go on to unfairly exploit his position?
The BCCI constitution was framed in an era way bygone and unrecognisable to the one we are in. The men then were of great integrity, the sport was just a sport, there was no money and players played purely for national honour. Today, as events have unequivocally shown, the administrators lack integrity, the sport is a gambling den, money is ridiculous and players are victims of greed. Unless, the constitution is changed to address the circumstances of the modern age, problems will keep surfacing, doing great damage to the once gentleman’s game of cricket.
(H Natarajan, formerly All India Deputy Sports Editor of the Indian Express and Senior Editor with Cricinfo/Wisden, is the Executive Editor of CricketCountry.com. A prolific writer, he has written for many of the biggest newspapers, magazines and websites all over the world. A great believer in the power of social media, he can be followed on Facebook at facebook.com/H.Natarajan and on Twitter at twitter/hnatarajan)
