BCCI VS ICL

There is a cold war going between BCCI and ICL. BCCI has failed to acknowledge ICL. This article is an attempt to analyse this scenario.

Structure
BCCI is not owned by any single person or a group. It is more like a Public-sector Company even though it is a private entity. Office bearers of BCCI are selected by elections. ICL is owned by ZEE group, which is promoted by Subhash Chandra. Subhash Chandra and his legal heirs have and would continue to have all the stakes in ICL. They will appoint the office bearers.

Football Clubs
Most football matches are played between various football clubs rather than different countries. Football clubs are owned by an individual or a group. But international or first class cricket matches are played between countries (or between different provinces in a country) only. I don’t think that model (i.e. matches between clubs) is going to be succeeding in the highest level of cricket.

Stanford’s Group
Stanford has invested huge money in West Indies cricket. They conduct Twenty20 matches now. The players involved in those matches are local players. Moreover West Indies Cricket Board is in financial crisis. Even if Mr. Stanford have commercial interests ultimately it is more beneficial for the players and West Indies cricket than him. But it seems that more than concern for cricket in India commercial interest is the overriding reason for floating ICL. BCCI is not in any financial crisis, infact they are richest cricketing body in the world. BCCI and ZEE group had some differences over telecast rights for the cricket matches. Yes, the functioning of BCCI is much to be desired.

BCCI’s Dilemma
BCCI has every right to appoint or dismiss former cricketers who work for various committees. But they don’t have the right to scrap the pension and other benefits of players who had played for the country or played first-class matches. First of all, BCCI should not be scared of ICL even though there are few things to be scared. Actually BCCI fear revenue losses incase leading Indian players join ICL. ICL ambitious plans indicate that it will function as a parallel league to BCCI, not as a complementary one. Most of the BCCI’s posts are honorary ones. Almost all the administrative officers are either politicians or corporate executives. Administrative persons should be dedicated ones. Atleast persons concerned with cricketing matters like selectors, NCA Director etc should be paid.

How Can ICL Contribute To Indian Cricket?
There are many non-BCCI tournaments happening in India. BCCI have recognized those tournaments and organizations involved in it. Teams (ONGC, SPIC, MRF etc) involved in such tournaments are affiliated to state cricket associations, which are part of BCCI. Most of those tournaments and organizations are complementary to BCCI’s efforts. MRF Pace Foundation is a good example of that. One article in Cricinfo had suggested that Twenty20 be outsourced to ICL. I don’t know whether that suggestion will work out nicely or not, it is an option. They can set up an academy for Spin bowling on the lines of MRF Pace Foundation. They can set up academy for coaches and umpires.

Final Word
BCCI must professionalize their structure and working. ICL should work in a complementary way to BCCI’s efforts. ICL should not be too ambitious. BCCI and ICL should have healthy discussions now, not war of words.