A recent survey conducted by the Federation of International Cricketers’ Association (FICA) found that around 70 per cent of players believe that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has too much influence over issues within world cricket.
FICA chief Tim May sought to clarify these results by stating that, “players don’t have a problem with BCCI being powerful. They appreciate the money that BCCI is bringing into the sport, and the IPL continues to be popular. In fact, one third of them are ready to quit international cricket for it.”
The players main concern, he said, was the International Cricket Council (ICC)’s increasing trend of succumbing to the demands of the BCCI.
There have been numerous examples of this over the past few years.
In early 2008, there was the ‘monkeygate’ row, where off-spinner Harbhajan Singh was charged with racially abusing Andrew Symonds and banned for three test matches by the ICC.
Following this verdict, the BCCI threatened to withdraw from the series with Australia if the ban was not lifted. Less than a month later, they got their wish.
In 2010, John Howard submitted an application to the ICC for the vacant vice-presidency. The former Prime Minister of Australia was unsuccessful, after the ICC received strong opposition from several countries.
India was the most high profile of these, with the local media suggesting that his “closet racism” was one of the main reasons behind their country’s stance.
More recently, the BCCI has voiced its displeasure with the ICC’s proposal to introduce the Decision Review System (DRS) into all international matches.
With captain MS Dhoni and the legendary Sachin Tendulkar also against the proposal due to doubts over the technology’s accuracy, the BCCI has ominously declared its plans to ensure that it does not go ahead.
Though these incidents are proof of India’s current influence over world cricket, and the ICC, it also highlights the unrealistic expectations of those who participated in the FICA survey.
Cricket is no different to every other sport. It is hugely political. Whoever has the money, has the power.
The players are all eager to laud the BCCI for the extra cash that has become available without acknowledging that the ICC also needs and wants a share of the riches.
However, many fans and commentators are worried that the ICC’s decision to become a passenger will continue to affect the sport’s future.
Tony Greig has recently spoken out against India’s handling of their new status as cricket’s most powerful nation. The former English captain believes that the ICC’s inability to prevent the IPL from having an open window could eventually destroy Test cricket.
“It’s laughable that (Chris) Gayle and (Kieron) Pollard are playing in the IPL when the West Indies are playing in Pakistan – that is just ridiculous,” he said.
Even so, those who criticise India, and indeed the IPL, over concerns that it will affect the cornerstone of cricket, obviously have short memories. During the 1970s, Australia’s own Kerry Packer created a rebel competition that opposed the ICC’s demands and threatened the traditions of the game.
World Series Cricket became the sport’s largest money-spinning event and was a major factor in Australia’s influence over administrative decisions in the coming decades.
Though India’s current control of world cricket might not be for the good of the game, it would be a surprise if there weren’t many who thought the same about Australia’s and England’s own periods of dominance.
ANIL VERMA
Guest
Agreed Ben!But India is learning.A case in point is Logart's extension in spite of Pawar trying for Prof.Shetty's induction as CEO. I guess it's not so much about smaller nations but more about conflicting interests that one needs to guard against.Anything conflicting with the game of Cricket.There will be the occasional back biting and bitching because most guys at the top have massively inflated egos and very little cricketing knowledge more so from what you call the smaller countries and sometimes from the big boys club too which is evident from the kind of selections we are hit in the face with!.
Ben Murphy
Guest
Hi Anil, In my opinion, it would be for the good of the game to let all cricketing nations have an influence on authoritative decisions. Currently, it appears that the smaller nations (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh) and the ICC are being told what to do by India due to their power. As a few people have touched on in the comments and I mentioned in the article, perhaps India should have a large say in what goes on, as they are clearly helping to finance and develop the game. However, their actions at the moment appears to be those of a bully. Having said that, it is clear that the finger can be pointed at Australia for similar reasons when they held the position of power. I know it's naive to contemplate, but it would be a massive boost for cricket if the traditional 'powerhouse' nations weren't so dominate, both on and off the field.
ANIL VERMA
Guest
Hi Ben! What in YOUR opinion is GOOD for the game ?
Homer
Guest
Last checked, the BCCI had only one vote in the ICC. Last checked, IS Bindra's candidacy to the office of ICC Chief Executive was torpedoed not because he was not a capable administrator, but because he was Indian. In the John Howard case, it was the CSA which was front and center of opposing the candidacy. Joining them were Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Per the ICC rules, 7 of the 10 members had to vote in the affirmative for John Howard to get through. The argument against India is that it did not use its "massive" clout within the ICC to swing the vote in favor of Mr Howard ( never mind the piss poor lobbying efforts by CA). So, essentially, 4 of the members had issues with the Howard nomination, and because the BCCI did not swing the votes in favor of Mr Howard, they are working to the detriment of the game!! Ditto the DRS. The ICC requirements are poorly defined and even more poorly implemented. Playing conditions are changed midway through the World Cup ( no less!) because one of the technologies in question cannot accurately predict ball paths beyond 2.5 metres. And there is the small matter of funding these technologies. The ICC has a hands off view on this, passing the buck ( literally) to the host broadcasters. Couple this with the lack of knowledge and understanding of the process and the technologies within the Emirates Elite Panel of Umpires, and its is not difficult to see why the BCCI is right. Yet the BCCI is called anti progress, anti technology, anti forward thing etc. Lest we forget, it was Jagmohan Dalmiya who pushed for the expansion of the game beyond a select few, bringing in and financing cricket development among associate nations. It is Indian money that is bankrolling most of the associate development ( even though the ICC, in its infinite wisdom, deems cricket development in China more important than cricket development in Ireland , Kenya or Afghanistan)! Good for cricket does not necessarily mean good for the entity making the demand. Good for the game translates differently to different constituencies. To suggest that one entity knows better than others is daft, imho. Cheers,
JohnB
Roar Rookie
A recent Gideon Haigh book "Sphere of Influence" talks around this question. His point, as I understand it, is that it's not so much whether India or anyone else contols or has too much control - the issue is what those in control try to achieve. Are they running the game for the benefit of all in the game and with a view to developing and expanding it? Or are they chasing dollars and/or pandering only to their own constituency regardless of any wider benefit? When you see that those in charge are running it with the latter objects, all the other questions of who they are and how did they get there arise.
Matt F
Guest
clearly it has much more power then other nations, and as brett said, the perception agrees with this. However when one body produces so much of the games total revenue maybe they should have more power?
Brett McKay
Guest
if perception is reality Ben, the answer to your headline is 'yes'...