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
