Mukul Kesavan writes in The Telegraph:

Whether Subhash Chandra of Zee follows through with his Packerite circus or not, it’s on the cards that sooner or later someone will. Someone certainly should…

…A league based on team franchises and open to foreign players is a good idea in principle. I can see no disadvantage to a league where Ricky Ponting and Mashrafe Mortaza and Muttiah Muralitharan turn out for a Twenty-20 tournament called the Wipro Cup or a 50-over league sponsored by Tata. It would give Indian spectators a club league to follow in the same way as English spectators follow the careers of sides like Arsenal and Chelsea, packed with brilliant foreign recruits. Athletes like Ponting would force Indian players to lift their game. It’s also a ‘just’ idea: it’s unfair that fine players like Shane Bond and Mohammad Ashraful make a fraction of the money that Sehwag or Yuvraj have come to take for granted simply because they have fewer consuming countrymen watching them on television.

Quite right. The BCCI has for far too long neglected the interests of cricket in India. They might try to convince you that they have the interest of cricket in mind by promising initiatives but actions, like this means that money is the real interest, not cricket, where BCCI are concerned.

Monopolies reduce standards. Only when free markets prevail do enterprises feel the danger of becoming insignificant if they do not perform and standards truly improve. As Kesavan says in the piece, I hope some one does form an alternative cricket league, even if Zee backs out. In any case, there is a bleak possibility of interesting times ahead.

I was about to write a lengthy post but Gaurav Sabnis has already said a lot of what I would have. Do read. As I had said immediately after India’s exit from the world cup, the situation provides a golden opportunity for the BCCI and hopefully, things will improve from now on in Indian cricket.

India has taken a big step. Manish Varma has more on it.

Earlier, India had opposed Twenty20 cricket, whether it was the old Jagmohan Dalmiya regime or the new one. The reasons, as stated by me back then:

As its 40 percent of a limited overs match (in terms of overs and time involved), it results in 40 percent of income… This year, Pakistan has continued with the successful experiment domestically. However, PCB Chairman Shahryar Khan has opposed Twenty20 for international cricket.

So what has changed now? The big factor which Lalit Modi believes in, if summed up - earn money wherever the opportunity lies and let free markets prevail. On free markets, Modi had infact stated precisely that in a detailed interview with Rahul Bhatia a couple of months back:

Absolutely. I believe in free markets deciding everything. If there is no value, there is no value. Let people decide. In certain cases you might lose, in certain you might win. You have to be risk-prone too.

Either that, or pressure internationally has forced the change on Twenty20. Whatever the reason, that and the other initiatives indepth and proper broadcasting of domestic cricket on national television, inter city leagues have been taken. The big question should not be why but why not. India brings in the majority of revenue in the cricket world. So, if the Indian audience wants more, why not give it more cricket. If there can be a market for domestic cricket, why not exploit it?

Domestic cricket has suffered for long. Why not go even further? If the NBA or English Premier League can prosper, why not go for inter city leagues bringing in international stars as well? International cricket is sustained due to the competition and the money generated. As Modi says:

The inter-city league will be on the lines of the Premier Football League (of England), and we will have separate television, merchandising and grounds right for that,’ he disclosed, and added it would not be part of the rights that Nimbus holds.

‘It will probably become the single largest revenue earner for the BCCI in the years to come, if we structure it right. It will also help us drive crowds back to domestic cricket and help build more stars.’

The big dangers in an inter city league with international players would be - 1) could it generate as much interest given international cricket’s interest is based on rivalry of countriesm and 2) There aren’t as much talent base of players in international cricket like say in football.

However, what’s the harm in trying? We may not see a level of an NBA reached in India. However, what we can see is money generated which can be a huge impetus for infra structure and further development of a talent pool of players. I had asked what is forward, BCCI?. One of the points I had raised:

However, domestic cricket promotion and marketing, initiatives to develop the game in the country remain missing.

One step forward has been taken then. The recent initiatives will please most Indian cricket fans who have been deeply saddened at the plight of domestic cricket for so many years. I am one of them.

Three recent pieces of info in recent times leave me quite amazed.

Firstly, some thing Amit Varma pointed out a few days ago:

Not long ago, when the BCCI tried to get mobile companies to stop sending cricket scores as SMS updates to their users, I had a hearty laugh. Did these chaps actually believe that they owned cricket scores? It seemed evident that once these scores were in the public domain, anyone could use them in any way they wanted… Later, there were murmurs about them trying to get Cricinfo to stop ball-by-ball commentary…

A case between a St. Louis company and the internet arm of MLB over the legality of using player names and fantasy league stats is also quoted from The NY Times which shows such matters do not exist only in India.

Read the rest of this entry »

The too much cricket issue has been a point of debate all over the cricket world of late. BCCI added 25 days to the Indian cricket calender to the disgust of many.

Sanjay Manjrekar puts in his perspective in the May issue of Cricinfo magazine:

However, there is a fundamental difference between sport and business: making profits for shareholders or maximising earnings can never be the primary objective for sports administrators. It is important for the BCCI to grasp that it’s top priority should be ensuring the long-term health of the game, including players.

It is a fine piece written by Manjrekar. The magazine also has a piece by Sidharth Mongia which speaks on the poor system of umpiring which exists in India - the result of which is that no Indian is a part of the Elite panel of ICC umpires.

Read the rest of this entry »

The BCCI isn’t pleased that Sehwag has voiced his thoughts. I have already commented on the issue four months earlier and have nothing to add. It must be noted that Sehwag was stopped to write a newspaper column a few months ago as well. Dhoni, meanwhile, has signed an exclusive contract with NDTV to give his comments for them.

I wonder what Dhoni can really speak on as he cannot speak on his team mates and selection issues. The matches? You have to be careful because if you, even for a moment, imply some thing against the BCCI, you can be sure of being taken to task! I did see Dhoni and Sreesanth speaking up in the media on how they have no problem with too much cricket. I see that they have not been reprimanded by BCCI.

Okay, I get the picture. You can speak if you approve of the BCCI’s methods but not if you oppose it. Subtle rules, I must say.

Rahul Dravid had asked for recognition of the player’s association just yesterday. That the player’s association isn’t even recognised yet shows how much the BCCI really listens to the players. Hopefully, it will be recognised now. There is little hope regarding the players speaking their minds and gaining in monetory terms as a result of it, however.

Indian Cricket has suffered for long. My frustrations reached the peak when I called for boycotting Indian cricket in a recent piece.

Things have been surprisingly moving forward in the recent past. The Hindu reports:

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, determined to encourage multi-sports disciplines in India, has given a Rs. 50 crore boost to budding sportspersons in the under-15 age group with ambitions to compete and excel in international meets. The `foster a child’ initiative of the BCCI president, Sharad Pawar, was approved at the Working Committee meeting at the C.K. Nayudu Hall, Cricket Club of India (CCI), here on Sunday.

Now a lot of people do support the idea of providing financial help for other sports. Amit Varma notably pointed out that it is not suitable even to support women’s cricket financially, let alone other sports. My stand is:

Money is just an aid for sport and not the end goal. So if a larger sporting body (financially) gives a small part of their income to a smaler sport to kick start it’s growth, it is very much they way to go forward to boost sport in a country specifically and sport at large.

Coming back to the initiatives the BCCI is taking. The former players are being heard. From The Indian Express:

And showing that the support to Indian cricket’s senior citizens wasn’t just confined to providing them financial security, BCCI president Sharad Pawar acted swiftly upon former skipper Sunil Gavaskar’s complaint about the national team’s support staff sporting the India caps. So, as Ian Frazer’s days of wearing the India cap seem to be over, the committee also decided to extend the existing pension scheme, which covered those who played before 1975, to include those who represented India in Tests till December 31, 1993. Pawar informed that those ‘‘those who have played in 25 Tests or more would be eligible for Rs. 35,000 per month each while those who played in less than 25 Tests would be eligible for Rs. 25,000.’’

The former players missed out on the financial boom cricket is experiencing in the country. Many suffer financially. It is commendable that the BCCI is looking at these aspects. Also, the Indian Cap issue - Sunil Gavaskar has been critical of any one except players wearing the Indian colour. In a test match in the West Indies where Gavaskar was commentating years back, he saw a a spectator wearing a sweater which had the blue identical to one in the official Indian cricket sweater. Gavaskar wondered at the regretfull possibility that a player had given the sweater to the fan. Gavaskar is of the school which says that the Indian colours should be earned and not given away. That increases respect. Finally Gavaskar has been heard to some degree on this minor yet signficant aspect. I do not mind people wearing the team jerseys. But the Indian test cap at least should not be worn by all and sundry.

The spectators at Guwahati were given back their money when the match was not held. The spectators injured from the earlier match in the series were invited to watch a game from special seats. The obvious question would be - why play matches in stadiums which do not have proper facilities. The BCCI says that it is planning to improve stadiums into state of art facilities. There are rumours that BCCI is looking at improving domstic cricket as well. I am more positive this will happen because of 1 simple reason. The people heading the BCCI currently are willing to forward brand BCCI. They seem intellegent enough to possibly realise that India can have a strong domestic inter-city kind of league bringing in foreign players which can be a cash cow in the future
Michael Atherton writes on Modi and the BCCI:

The traditionalists in India, not used to such brash commercialism and naked exploitation, are suspicious of Modi. They see a difference between sport and business: they know that one has a soul, the other does not; that one produces an emotional attachment, the other does not, and that cricket cannot survive without money, yet it shouldn’t exist merely to make money.

Pawar is an sharp politician. He realises the importance of image. So he will do all the image boosting wherever he can. Money will remain the main goal of the powers that be in the BCCI and not cricket. This should not be confused. But if cricket can benefit in the process, I will not complain.

Violence erupted after the crowd waited several hours for the 5th India-England one dayer to start. Excessive rain meant the match was delayed and later called off. Did the Guwahati crowd have to behave in such a manner? Could the BCCI have improved the facilities for draining the water at the ground before scheduling an international match here? Was the security lacking?

Simon Mann writes in his column for BBC: