ICC, BCCI conflict will undermine the game

Conflict between the ICC and BCCI that has been brewing for some months — with both sides leaking and planting stories — is now out in the open with Shashank Manohar and Ajay Shirke venting their views in the Indian media in the past few days.

While justifying decisions made (or unmade) by them, Manohar (ICC chairman) and Shirke (BCCI Honorary Secretary), who have been former colleagues and close friends in the past, have left little doubt that there are several differences between their respective organisations.

Shirke has not minced words in saying the Indian establishment is feeling victimized. It’s erstwhile position as the major domo in the ICC, receiving the largest share of profits has been scrapped. Moreover, the BCCI was not given representation in some important ICC committees (finance, for instance), and is unwilling to play ball unless it is given a bigger say.

Shirke argues that Manohar is complicit in the current state of affairs. Cut up at the manner in which he resigned suddenly as BCCI president and became ICC chairman (a post specially created) within days, he alleges Manohar has worked invidiously to undermine Indian cricket instead of working in its favour.

Manohar’s defence is that the ICC chairman is independent of country and Board affiliation, and that he has the interest of 105 countries to look after now.

Whatever the allegations against him, this would be unimpeachable logic — but for the fact that the financial dynamics of cricket speak otherwise. For instance if India had to boycott next year’s Champion Trophy — a threat held out by the BCCI — the tournament could well become a damp squib. With 75 per cent of total viewership and an equal percentage in terms of revenue generated, the BCCI’s position in the sport remains premium and powerful.

In the context, Manohar’s recent public utterances have been an interesting mix of defence and counter-attack, parry and thrust. So, even while he has been emphatic that he is no longer the custodian of BCCI interests, Manohar has supported the Indian Board’s recalcitrant position vis-a-vis the two-tier system to make Test cricket engaging and viable.

Eight of 12 countries mooted in the two-tier system (seven in the top, 5 in lower with process of relegation and promotion in place) had agreed to the idea. Those against were laggards Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe but most notably India, currently 2nd in the Test rankings.

Pakistan had even broken rank from the Asian bloc and even the West Indies, currently languishing somewhere near the bottom, had said yes. But given India’s vehemence, proposed two-tier system was not even table at the recent ICC meeting. Instead, there is now talk of pursuing an old proposal of a World Test Championship.

The merits or otherwise of the two-tier system — or indeed the World Test Championship — are debatable. There are several logistical and financial complexities involved that are not easily solved. But what is clear is that given India’s pre-eminent position where viewership and money is concerned, without the BCCI’s buy-in, either concept is a non-starter.

In getting the two-tier system shelved (or at least put aside for now), the BCCI has scored a major point of course, but does not obscure future problems. Because the ICC has had to backtrack on this does not necessarily mean that the BCCI has regained it’s old turf and power entirely.

The number of Boards not in sync with the BCCI has increased. There is also a proposal between Australia, England and South Africa to bundle their bilateral series when selling TV rights in the hope of getting more profits.

Depending on its success, this could hasten other countries from forming another cartel or joining this one. In a way, all this aims at diminishing India’s stranglehold. In the past 15-20 years, the BCCI has been the most dominant force in the sport and has called the shots. Is this equation changing? Can the BCCI negotiate effectively to reestablish pole position again? The cricket world is watching with great interest.