Amidst huge furore within national and international cricket circles,
N. Srinivasan assumed the office of the ICC Chairman even while being
denied reinstatement to the post of the BCCI president by the Supreme
Court of India. A brake in one ambition has not halted the Chennai
strongman’s march into the top administrative role in the sport’s world
governing body thereby, signalling once more his only too dominant
presence even in the midst of overriding concerns prevailing in
contemporary world cricket.
The tectonic shift of the all encompassing cricket body into a subservient version under the auspices of the now nicknamed “big three” was complete with the coronation of N. Srinivasan as the first ICC Chairman at the end of the ICC annual conference held in the last week of June at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) that also saw the creation of the International Cricket Council Executive Committee. With the appointment, the ICC virtually ceded its role as the world’s premier decision making governing body, the initiative now more formally in the hands of a new oligarchy that would essentially dictate the shape, direction and future of world cricket over the next eight year cycle.
Under such circumstances it seems almost too mute a point to discuss if N. Srinivasan will change his style of functioning which has tended to border more on authoritarian rule, ruthless commercialization at all costs and self-serving interests rather than about preserving and protecting the integrity of the game which despite Srinivasan’s denials has taken a beating in public perception not only in India but also, the world over. The formation of the new Executive Committee comprising the three major cricket boards had been the result of a secret collusion between the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) chief, Giles Clarke, Cricket Australia’s Wally Edwards and N. Srinivasan himself over clandestine meetings dating back almost two years although it was only about six months ago that the reality was made public and put forth before other Full Member and associate boards.
Furthermore, given India’s undisputed financial clout in international cricket and Srinivasan’s reputation and dogged defiance within the BCCI corridors, it seemed almost inevitable that India would have a leading role to play in the restructure. Given Srinivasan’s hold, there would be no other representative from the BCCI to helm the post. Apart from the money itself, it was the fact that opposition would lead to more strife, an avoidable scenario in face of the quest for survival, that forced several cricket boards of Full Members to move from outrage to exasperation to tame submission.
That Srinivasan was getting ready to get down to the brass tacks of the business was evident in the fact that even before being formally elected to the post of the ICC Chairman at the ICC conference, N. Srinivasan was already assuaging the fears and apprehensions of the Associate and Affiliate nations about falling in line in the torrid game of survival. Full Member nations have had to accede to the change in policy of the ICC’s Future Tours Programme which will now be decided on a bilateral basis, succumbing to the pressure of a well laid out, surreptitious plan with a view to benefit generously from a share of the revenue pie that would keep the sport alive and running in a struggling world scenario even if it meant that they may not necessarily enjoy equal footing in terms of opportunities to ply their trade home and away.
The story has been little different for the Associate and Affiliate members who, by Srinivasan’s laid out agenda and design as the ICC Chairman, are expected to find themselves working more within their own domain rather being the face of new additions at the international level. While Srinivasan emphasized the need for the Associate and Affiliate nations to develop the sport at the grass root level, he did not spell out how the Full Members would really engage with them in the process of this development with India having held back from providing facilities support to teams from Afghanistan and Nepal in the past and the opportunities to compete on an equal footing with Full Members virtually drying up. Agendas, as proposed by Srinivasan at the ICC Conference, seem rather conflicting in that the proposal to develop the game indigenously for the Associate and Affiliate nations while leaving the door open for qualification at the top level of Test cricket but denying them opportunities of participation at the World Cup level in limited formats after the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2015 and then believing that greater competition will boost audience and spectator numbers and eventually gate revenue seems rather contradictory when in fact the competitive value of the sport cannot be enhanced unless teams get more opportunities to pit themselves against more formidable rivals to assess their degree of development.
There has been the perception for some time that cricket is operating in an elitist fashion wherein it does not see the need for an Olympics to further its expansion policy to access the greater reaches of the world. Furthermore, there has also been concern that some of the Full Member nations have been allowed to languish at the bottom due to internal strife and the Associate nations, while being seen as being lent a helping hand, have been more of a hindrance than an asset and addition at prestigious ICC events. Bridging the gap of competitiveness has not been a priority on the agenda enough to see the kind of progress that concentrated attention brings towards integrating more teams into the fold at the topmost level.
Under Srinivasan, one can expect pretty much the status quo where apart from the few Associates that manage to break ranks and outperform will receive half the share allotted to the Associate and Affiliates, the rest will have to remain content with sharing the crumbs. Furthermore, one can expect partial treatment as there has been a growing voice that untapped potential markets such as the U.S. and China may indeed get a better look-in than some of the other regions that would form the peripheral regions supporting the sport. Commercial motivations have clearly dictated doing away with smaller, non Test playing nations for future ICC multi-team events in view of dwindling spectator interest and the huge divide of level of competitiveness between teams.
Two areas though are a big concern as far as Srinivasan is concerned. One is his penchant for obfuscating the truth and the second being his blind pursuit of ambition. One of his first statements since assuming office at the international headquarters has been his self-exonerating statement that he recused himself from the office of the BCCI president pending the Supreme Court appointed Mukul Mugdal committee investigation into the corruption and fixing charges that also involve his son-in-law and mentions Srinivasan’s name on the list of people considered under investigation. His version is so far from the truth that it is blatantly exposed in the fact that his counsel have argued at least twice before the Supreme Court of India for Srinivasan to be reinstated only to be shot down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. The power struggle that went on before an emergency BCCI meeting before Srinivasan’s hand was forced provided plenty of drama but little by way to suggest that the BCCI had more proactive powers over arguably the most influential man in the richest cricket board in the world.
It is hard to see formidable opposition even amongst the cricket boards standing up to Srinivasan given that the BCCI will earn about five times more than what the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and almost ten times the revenue that Cricket Australia (CA) will pocket. Whether the agenda then will be on improving performances of existing Test members or forcing incapacitated Associate members to outreach themselves for a few extra crumbs while being denied greater exposure on the international platform or merely enhancing the revenue prospects as is expected following the post-2015 media rights for the eight year cycle to last through 2023, will become evident all too soon. The very fact that the ICC has not been a big player in the initial formation of the big three may continue to see a sidelined role for the world’s sporting body, further reducing the post of the ICC president essentially to a figurehead while Srinivasan brings his clout to the table.
The threat that India would have formed a parallel cricket body if they were denied the lion’s share of the revenue and a greater say in cricket administration has been confirmed legitimate from within the ICC corridors as well as other cricket members privy to the knowledge although it was also one of the first things that Srinivasan denied even as the BCCI secretary, Sanjay Patel, made it known to the public at large. What is not being debated is India’s legitimacy in demanding a greater share of profits and revenue when it brings in virtually eighty percent of the income into the ICC coffers. But whether the agendas affecting world cricket will now assume and revolve purely around the new revenue model that derives its power from threat, coercion and/or withholding revenue will dictate if the formation was a step in the right direction and if it was wise for the ICC for form an executive committee in addition to an already existing executive board.
It is also of grave concern that Srinivasan’s brazen attitude in one critical area of the sport may see compromise in what should always been a zero tolerance zone. While Srinivasan has talked the big talk about commercializing the sport and entrenching it deeper within cricket circles, his repeated stance that the brand of cricket has not taken a beating over issues of corruption and match fixing seem more like a man protecting his own vested interests rather than someone who is in denial about the present state of affairs. If anything, the controversies that have been headline grabbing no less should be alarming that what has been unearthed by only be the tip of the iceberg. If international cricketers are not immune to the greed, lust and pressures, it goes without saying that lesser known cricketers and even officials, which could well include Gurunath Meiyyappan, Srinivasan’s own son-in-law, would be more enticing bait for those looking to make nefarious profits through the game, unmindful of its impact on the integrity of the game.
With the sport’s Anti Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) now slated to report to the Executive committee chaired by N. Srinivasan, there is a great deal of concern that issues of fixing and corruption that have reared their ugly head time and again may be further shoved under the carpet rather than being dragged out in the open and trashed once and for all. It is not an easy task weeding out the problem areas and even in the handful of incidents that have come to light, it has been sufficiently exposed that once affected, players have carried the malice with them around the world, affecting the outcome of more than one match across several tournaments, small and big.
In that scenario, for Srinivasan to reduce the gravity of the situation even back home to a ‘few rotten eggs’ to use his own term is a dangerous attitude coming from someone of such an officious position and now with the governing body that has long claimed a zero tolerance policy although execution of that has left much to be desired. The success of Srinivasan’s tenure is then dependent not only on how his own legacy shapes up but also, how he is able to collude with the other powerful boards to bring about a consensus policy to set in place tough precedents and effective deterrents that would prevent further erosion of the sport’s integrity. But with so much of Srinivasan’s own identity mired in murky waters of conflict of interest requiring constitutional amendments within the BCCI to accommodate his dual roles as the BCCI president and the owner of the Chennai Super Kings, there is reasonable skepticism about whether such ambitions are even realistic.
Being circumspect was the domain not only of only those outside the boardroom but also, within the crux of the new core. Cricket Australia’s Wally Edwards admitted apprehensions that the appointment of N. Srinivasan could cause an inconvenience in the event of an adverse report at the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearings into the Mugdal committee report and findings. Incidentally Edwards heads the role of drafting a code of ethics that will undergo as many changes to the ICC’s constitution to accommodate Srinivasan in this rather ambiguous state of affairs. That Edwards has alluded to assurances from the BCCI as to the unopposed appointment of Srinivasan would suggest that this was their way of assuring themselves of avoiding any untoward, embarrassing scenario that may be incumbent upon them upon assuming office.
How far this assurance stands ground depends on how thin the ice is even for the thick skinned Srinivasan who has not left himself above suspicion in the manner of his defense of his son-in-law, a co-owner of the Chennai Super Kings who was later downgraded to team official following the breaking of the story, by dubbing Gurunath Meiyyapan as a mere ‘cricket enthusiast’ who had access to the team dug out and dressing room which is definitely not standard procedure. Srinivasan’s double talk when the Supreme Court had laid bare clear facts about the former’s unabashed ambitions should be a worrying sign about the blatant attempt at cover up of any dissent within the ranks, unmindful of the matters being made public for the people to arrive at their own conclusions.
From the BCCI and India’s perspective, irrespective of Srinivasan’s turbulent time within the BCCI corridors which has proved that Srinivasan is a hard man to dethrone if little else, it is equally relevant that Srinivasan is able to make an even stronger case as the ICC chairman if India are to step away from the impression of being presented as a bully with the threat to break away if he did not get his way and take his toys with him to a more holistic image of a benevolent leader whose interests in the game do not override the larger interests of enhancing the quality, integrity and encompassing capacity of the sport. That is a tall order.
Source-https://www.crictoday.com
The tectonic shift of the all encompassing cricket body into a subservient version under the auspices of the now nicknamed “big three” was complete with the coronation of N. Srinivasan as the first ICC Chairman at the end of the ICC annual conference held in the last week of June at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) that also saw the creation of the International Cricket Council Executive Committee. With the appointment, the ICC virtually ceded its role as the world’s premier decision making governing body, the initiative now more formally in the hands of a new oligarchy that would essentially dictate the shape, direction and future of world cricket over the next eight year cycle.
Under such circumstances it seems almost too mute a point to discuss if N. Srinivasan will change his style of functioning which has tended to border more on authoritarian rule, ruthless commercialization at all costs and self-serving interests rather than about preserving and protecting the integrity of the game which despite Srinivasan’s denials has taken a beating in public perception not only in India but also, the world over. The formation of the new Executive Committee comprising the three major cricket boards had been the result of a secret collusion between the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) chief, Giles Clarke, Cricket Australia’s Wally Edwards and N. Srinivasan himself over clandestine meetings dating back almost two years although it was only about six months ago that the reality was made public and put forth before other Full Member and associate boards.
Furthermore, given India’s undisputed financial clout in international cricket and Srinivasan’s reputation and dogged defiance within the BCCI corridors, it seemed almost inevitable that India would have a leading role to play in the restructure. Given Srinivasan’s hold, there would be no other representative from the BCCI to helm the post. Apart from the money itself, it was the fact that opposition would lead to more strife, an avoidable scenario in face of the quest for survival, that forced several cricket boards of Full Members to move from outrage to exasperation to tame submission.
That Srinivasan was getting ready to get down to the brass tacks of the business was evident in the fact that even before being formally elected to the post of the ICC Chairman at the ICC conference, N. Srinivasan was already assuaging the fears and apprehensions of the Associate and Affiliate nations about falling in line in the torrid game of survival. Full Member nations have had to accede to the change in policy of the ICC’s Future Tours Programme which will now be decided on a bilateral basis, succumbing to the pressure of a well laid out, surreptitious plan with a view to benefit generously from a share of the revenue pie that would keep the sport alive and running in a struggling world scenario even if it meant that they may not necessarily enjoy equal footing in terms of opportunities to ply their trade home and away.
The story has been little different for the Associate and Affiliate members who, by Srinivasan’s laid out agenda and design as the ICC Chairman, are expected to find themselves working more within their own domain rather being the face of new additions at the international level. While Srinivasan emphasized the need for the Associate and Affiliate nations to develop the sport at the grass root level, he did not spell out how the Full Members would really engage with them in the process of this development with India having held back from providing facilities support to teams from Afghanistan and Nepal in the past and the opportunities to compete on an equal footing with Full Members virtually drying up. Agendas, as proposed by Srinivasan at the ICC Conference, seem rather conflicting in that the proposal to develop the game indigenously for the Associate and Affiliate nations while leaving the door open for qualification at the top level of Test cricket but denying them opportunities of participation at the World Cup level in limited formats after the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2015 and then believing that greater competition will boost audience and spectator numbers and eventually gate revenue seems rather contradictory when in fact the competitive value of the sport cannot be enhanced unless teams get more opportunities to pit themselves against more formidable rivals to assess their degree of development.
There has been the perception for some time that cricket is operating in an elitist fashion wherein it does not see the need for an Olympics to further its expansion policy to access the greater reaches of the world. Furthermore, there has also been concern that some of the Full Member nations have been allowed to languish at the bottom due to internal strife and the Associate nations, while being seen as being lent a helping hand, have been more of a hindrance than an asset and addition at prestigious ICC events. Bridging the gap of competitiveness has not been a priority on the agenda enough to see the kind of progress that concentrated attention brings towards integrating more teams into the fold at the topmost level.
Under Srinivasan, one can expect pretty much the status quo where apart from the few Associates that manage to break ranks and outperform will receive half the share allotted to the Associate and Affiliates, the rest will have to remain content with sharing the crumbs. Furthermore, one can expect partial treatment as there has been a growing voice that untapped potential markets such as the U.S. and China may indeed get a better look-in than some of the other regions that would form the peripheral regions supporting the sport. Commercial motivations have clearly dictated doing away with smaller, non Test playing nations for future ICC multi-team events in view of dwindling spectator interest and the huge divide of level of competitiveness between teams.
Two areas though are a big concern as far as Srinivasan is concerned. One is his penchant for obfuscating the truth and the second being his blind pursuit of ambition. One of his first statements since assuming office at the international headquarters has been his self-exonerating statement that he recused himself from the office of the BCCI president pending the Supreme Court appointed Mukul Mugdal committee investigation into the corruption and fixing charges that also involve his son-in-law and mentions Srinivasan’s name on the list of people considered under investigation. His version is so far from the truth that it is blatantly exposed in the fact that his counsel have argued at least twice before the Supreme Court of India for Srinivasan to be reinstated only to be shot down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. The power struggle that went on before an emergency BCCI meeting before Srinivasan’s hand was forced provided plenty of drama but little by way to suggest that the BCCI had more proactive powers over arguably the most influential man in the richest cricket board in the world.
It is hard to see formidable opposition even amongst the cricket boards standing up to Srinivasan given that the BCCI will earn about five times more than what the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and almost ten times the revenue that Cricket Australia (CA) will pocket. Whether the agenda then will be on improving performances of existing Test members or forcing incapacitated Associate members to outreach themselves for a few extra crumbs while being denied greater exposure on the international platform or merely enhancing the revenue prospects as is expected following the post-2015 media rights for the eight year cycle to last through 2023, will become evident all too soon. The very fact that the ICC has not been a big player in the initial formation of the big three may continue to see a sidelined role for the world’s sporting body, further reducing the post of the ICC president essentially to a figurehead while Srinivasan brings his clout to the table.
The threat that India would have formed a parallel cricket body if they were denied the lion’s share of the revenue and a greater say in cricket administration has been confirmed legitimate from within the ICC corridors as well as other cricket members privy to the knowledge although it was also one of the first things that Srinivasan denied even as the BCCI secretary, Sanjay Patel, made it known to the public at large. What is not being debated is India’s legitimacy in demanding a greater share of profits and revenue when it brings in virtually eighty percent of the income into the ICC coffers. But whether the agendas affecting world cricket will now assume and revolve purely around the new revenue model that derives its power from threat, coercion and/or withholding revenue will dictate if the formation was a step in the right direction and if it was wise for the ICC for form an executive committee in addition to an already existing executive board.
It is also of grave concern that Srinivasan’s brazen attitude in one critical area of the sport may see compromise in what should always been a zero tolerance zone. While Srinivasan has talked the big talk about commercializing the sport and entrenching it deeper within cricket circles, his repeated stance that the brand of cricket has not taken a beating over issues of corruption and match fixing seem more like a man protecting his own vested interests rather than someone who is in denial about the present state of affairs. If anything, the controversies that have been headline grabbing no less should be alarming that what has been unearthed by only be the tip of the iceberg. If international cricketers are not immune to the greed, lust and pressures, it goes without saying that lesser known cricketers and even officials, which could well include Gurunath Meiyyappan, Srinivasan’s own son-in-law, would be more enticing bait for those looking to make nefarious profits through the game, unmindful of its impact on the integrity of the game.
With the sport’s Anti Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) now slated to report to the Executive committee chaired by N. Srinivasan, there is a great deal of concern that issues of fixing and corruption that have reared their ugly head time and again may be further shoved under the carpet rather than being dragged out in the open and trashed once and for all. It is not an easy task weeding out the problem areas and even in the handful of incidents that have come to light, it has been sufficiently exposed that once affected, players have carried the malice with them around the world, affecting the outcome of more than one match across several tournaments, small and big.
In that scenario, for Srinivasan to reduce the gravity of the situation even back home to a ‘few rotten eggs’ to use his own term is a dangerous attitude coming from someone of such an officious position and now with the governing body that has long claimed a zero tolerance policy although execution of that has left much to be desired. The success of Srinivasan’s tenure is then dependent not only on how his own legacy shapes up but also, how he is able to collude with the other powerful boards to bring about a consensus policy to set in place tough precedents and effective deterrents that would prevent further erosion of the sport’s integrity. But with so much of Srinivasan’s own identity mired in murky waters of conflict of interest requiring constitutional amendments within the BCCI to accommodate his dual roles as the BCCI president and the owner of the Chennai Super Kings, there is reasonable skepticism about whether such ambitions are even realistic.
Being circumspect was the domain not only of only those outside the boardroom but also, within the crux of the new core. Cricket Australia’s Wally Edwards admitted apprehensions that the appointment of N. Srinivasan could cause an inconvenience in the event of an adverse report at the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearings into the Mugdal committee report and findings. Incidentally Edwards heads the role of drafting a code of ethics that will undergo as many changes to the ICC’s constitution to accommodate Srinivasan in this rather ambiguous state of affairs. That Edwards has alluded to assurances from the BCCI as to the unopposed appointment of Srinivasan would suggest that this was their way of assuring themselves of avoiding any untoward, embarrassing scenario that may be incumbent upon them upon assuming office.
How far this assurance stands ground depends on how thin the ice is even for the thick skinned Srinivasan who has not left himself above suspicion in the manner of his defense of his son-in-law, a co-owner of the Chennai Super Kings who was later downgraded to team official following the breaking of the story, by dubbing Gurunath Meiyyapan as a mere ‘cricket enthusiast’ who had access to the team dug out and dressing room which is definitely not standard procedure. Srinivasan’s double talk when the Supreme Court had laid bare clear facts about the former’s unabashed ambitions should be a worrying sign about the blatant attempt at cover up of any dissent within the ranks, unmindful of the matters being made public for the people to arrive at their own conclusions.
From the BCCI and India’s perspective, irrespective of Srinivasan’s turbulent time within the BCCI corridors which has proved that Srinivasan is a hard man to dethrone if little else, it is equally relevant that Srinivasan is able to make an even stronger case as the ICC chairman if India are to step away from the impression of being presented as a bully with the threat to break away if he did not get his way and take his toys with him to a more holistic image of a benevolent leader whose interests in the game do not override the larger interests of enhancing the quality, integrity and encompassing capacity of the sport. That is a tall order.
Source-https://www.crictoday.com
No comments:
Post a Comment