The emperor's new clothes

[Sachin=GOD]

Ayaz Memon | July 4, 2011, 12.00am IST

In 1975, when the first cricket World Cup was played, winners West Indies got 4,000 pounds. In 2011, 36 years later, the winning team India earned $3 million. Even taking inflation into account, that is a staggering increase. Embedded in this is the fascinating story of how the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)'s influence over cricket has substantially changed the game. India's victory in the 1983 World Cup was a watershed moment in cricket history. Interest in the game surged, the arrival of colour television gave it further boost, and from 1991 when the country opened up to economic liberalisation, India went on to become an indomitable force in world cricket. The `India Factor' is crucial in understanding cricket's present and where and how it is headed in the future. With a billion-strong fanatical following spread across all continents, India provides almost 70% of the eyeballs for television viewership and 75% of the game's finances. That is not something to be pooh-poohed. Telecast rights for Indian cricket (including tournaments like the Indian Premier League) run into a couple of billion dollars. A vibrant economy coupled with shrewd (some argue Shylockian) sense of business by the BCCI means that Indian cricket is expected to grow bigger and richer. This pronounced skew holds both threat and salvation for the game. Other cricket establishments - even the International Cricket Council (ICC) - are often at odds with the BCCI on issues major and minor. Yet, there is no gainsaying the fact that without the financial wherewithal provided by Indian cricket, it would be a struggle for the sport to survive. But is this current dispensation being openly challenged today? Is the simmering discontent over India's money power and clout threatening to reach boiling point? At the recently concluded ICC meeting in Hong Kong, even traditional allies like Pakistan took issue with India over the extended term for the ICC chief which BCCI had proposed. The other major ally, Sri Lanka, is palpably upset over the BCCI's decision not to allow Indian players to take part in the proposed Sri Lanka Premier League. Stories of bullying by India are getting louder and they are no longer confined to the usual suspects of England and Australia. The BCCI has long been accused of arrogance, but there cannot be any doubt that the Indian cricket board has given cricket a tremendous boost which has benefited everyone. It is all too easily inferred that the BCCI is content to make money and play spoiler, but history shows otherwise too. Indeed, had India not challenged the status quo in the wake of the 1983 victory, the World Cups may still have been the preserve of England. The BCCI - along with ally Pakistan - had to fight tooth and nail to get the tournament to the subcontinent first, and by rotation, everywhere in the cricket world. But with power also comes responsibility, and here it is possible to raise serious questions about the BCCI's investment in the future of the game. The Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), which has been cleared in the recent ICC meeting albeit in a watered-down version, affords a test case of the BCCI's stubbornness and pettiness. The steadfast refusal to agree to using technology to augment umpiring decisions in spite of all other countries, 90% of all players and 90% of Indian players being in favour it appears to have been sheer ego, bolstered perhaps by the views of a few top Indian cricketers. Since the BCCI and its players simultaneously complained about umpiring decisions and some particular umpires, the resistance to technology was contradictory. My contention is that the issue is not so much technology as conformity and consistency. Imagine a school classroom in which every other student adheres to the norms laid down about uniforms, but one student won't comply because her parents are major donors for the school! To insist on foolproof technology is specious logic, for technology is always in a state of imperfection. It is also true that it gets refined and become cheaper with time. Indeed, accepting the UDRS should have been a no-brainer while perhaps more discussion was needed on subjects like no runners for batsmen or more than two new balls per innings, which are fundamental to the structure of the game. These were accepted without ado by the BCCI. To say that the BCCI has provided no virtue to cricket is not only hackneyed but untrue. However, allegations that India is failing to take a leadership role in the future of the game are partially true. At least in some cases, pique and ego have taken precedence over professional and dispassionate thought. The relationship between politics and sport is hardly new or unusual and the journey of the Olympic Games since their revival from ancient Greek times is testament to that. Otherwise friendly governments have confronted each other for the right to hold the world's biggest tournament. Football and the shenanigans of its governing body provide enough fodder for everyone from the press rooms to Parliament. But it is also true that trends and influences are cyclical and there is little to suggest that today's emperor may not be tomorrow's flunky. Where cricket is concerned, England and Australia will testify to this. In which case, it is even more imperative that the BCCI take its nose out of its money bags and pay greater attention to the legacy it will leave behind. The writer is a sports columnist and commentator.

Link