It has been almost a decade since the spot-fixing allegations in the IPL and the recommendations of the Justice Mudgal Commission forced the Supreme Court to step into cricket administration in the country. In 2016, the Justice Lodha Commission, with its major refrain, set about reforming the Board of Control for Cricket in India.
As skeletons started falling from the BCCI’s cupboard, its president and secretary were sacked, and reform measures were taken, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. A Committee of Administrators was appointed by the Court to run the BCCI and handle the transition.
big applause
When the Justice Lodha Commission recommended several changes to streamline the functioning of the BCCI, there was much fanfare. The BCCI – in spite of everything, still the best-run sports organization in the country – had got itself into a mess. People hung on to power, and cricket seemed to be of little importance in comparison to political and personal glory. Ego ruled, and it took the might of the Supreme Court to bring things under control.
The Supreme Court-initiated clean-up operation aimed (among other things) at getting rid of boards of office bearers across the country who believed they had lifelong postings that were hereditary, involving the consecration of a son or daughter or a relative. it was done. from them. Conflicts of interest were rife, and arrangements had to be put in place.
The Lodha reforms have been incorporated in the new BCCI constitution, though the officials have made no secret of their unhappiness over the changes. Now the spirit of reforms is hardly left.
cooling off period
Justice Lodha’s two major decisions were the ‘cooling off period’, which ensured that there was a break after six years in office, and the cut-off age of 70 after which no one could hold office. There were others, some of which were accepted by the BCCI and others they asked to review.
Had Lodha’s original recommendations been followed, the current President and Secretary of the BCCI would have been disqualified. A recent rollback – the number of years as an official at the state level can no longer be added to the number of years in the BCCI – means he can stay in office until 2025 if re-elected. In fact an elected official can hold office for 12 consecutive years before a three year cooling off period begins.
There was no particular concern about the age limit (which has been retained) as President Sourav Ganguly is 50 and Secretary Jay Shah is only 33.
For the time being, with the appointment of a high-profile CEO, the BCCI had the feel of a professionally run organisation. Neither the domestic season nor the international calendar was adversely affected, and was a sign that professionalism in administration was the way out of the BCCI’s policy of fear and favoritism that had existed for years.
It was felt that elections, especially the way they were handled, may not be an ideal solution for the various cricket associations and indeed the board itself. The CEO was an important initial step towards appointing professionals to run the multi-billion dollar turnover organization.
The BCCI is more of a corporate entity than a restricted sporting body dependent on government handouts for its existence – that’s what it implies. This change has come in recent years, with an influx of new money and new ways to make more money. It is timeless in this day and age to have one group of novices for another group of novices to pick them up to handle the bigger issues.
As roles evolved, one would expect professional functionaries to be responsible to stakeholders ranging from players and fans to sponsors and television. This was perhaps envisaged by the Supreme Court when it introduced the CEO, a salaried person responsible for making the set-up work. But BCCI didn’t give it enough time.
BCCI has traditionally been about power and political mileage. It has been an opaque institution with little accountability. This was the original problem the Supreme Court set out to eliminate, and over time it may.
The election of former India captain Ganguly as chairman was a nod to the game, but the politician was not far behind, with businessman Jay Shah, the home minister’s son, as his secretary. If Ganguly decides to leave as the next chairman of the International Cricket Council at the end of the year, it will tip the balance.
In less than a decade, cricket administration in India has gone from a feudal system to something more modern and transparent and is now steadily regressing. So what was all the ruckus?