BCCI criticises proposed regulatory law

[Trichromatic]

A government proposal that seeks to regulate the operations of the BCCI and other national sports bodies, and bring them under federal transparency and accountability laws, has created some controversy and prompted a sharp reaction from cricket's administrators. The National Sports (Development) Bill 2011 has been placed before the cabinet and is due to be discussed on Tuesday; if approved, it will be placed before Parliament and could be enacted within a few weeks. The bill seeks to reserve at least 25% of federation posts for former players, which means that ex-cricketers will get more play in the affairs of the BCCI; it puts a 70-year age bar for all administrators and limits appointments to only two consecutive terms; it will also mandate the positing of audited accounts of public-access websites. It also puts all federations within the ambit of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) - the BCCI has long opposed measures, including those brought in by the ICC, to put its players under an anti-doping regime. Perhaps its most significant provision vis-a-vis the BCCI is the invoking of the Right to Information Act (RTI), a landmark law that allows members of the public to seek details of the working of federations under the legislation. The cricket board has traditionally been outside the government's purview and, unlike other national sports federations, has not received state funding. However, it has received tax breaks while staging events, including the recent ICC World Cup. While the BCCI already complies with some parts of the bill's provisions, including holding regular elections and limiting terms for its office-bearers, it keeps much of its operations out of the public eye. Its accounts are not disclosed, nor are details of its financial dealings - issues that became controversial following the IPL fiasco in 2010. "Only organizations taking a grant from the government can come under the RTI, and the BCCI doesn`t [receive government grants]," board spokesperson Rajeev Shukla was quoted as saying on Zeenews. The move has put cricket's administrators, many of whom are senior politicians, in an awkward position. Shukla is a junior government minister while Sharad Pawar, the ICC president and still a powerful figure in Indian cricket, is a member of the cabinet that will discuss the bill. Opposition leader Arun Jaitley is president of the Delhi and Districts Cricket association and seen as a future BCCI president and his party colleague and fellow MP Anurag Thakur heads the Himachal Pradesh Cricket association, whose ground in Dharamshala has hosted IPL games. Some former players have, however, backed the bill. "If the government formulates a rule, the BCCI should follow the framework of the guidelines ... I believe the BCCI can work independently but must always toe the government line," Kapil Dev said. "It is good for sports bodies and their professional running," another former India captain, Mohammad Azharuddin, said. "It (law) should be for all sports federations and there should be no exception." Azharuddin is an MP with the ruling Congress party. Sports administration in India has been at the centre of several controversies over the past couple of years. The shambles surrounding the 2010 Commonwealth Games made headlines the world over and eventually resulted in its main organiser being arrested and imprisoned pending trial. The IPL, following last year's dramatic exit of its chairman Lalit Modi, has been the focus of several investigations by federal agencies on charges of financial irregularities. On Tuesday the country's finance minister told Parliament the government was probing complaints of irregularities in the IPL and and "criminal activities" by some of the franchises.

[IKnowU]

:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: Ill pray night and day for this to happen.

[Rightarmfast]

Well, I hope it is for the positive and not a way for our politicians to earn some money at the cost of cricket now. But BCCI has been run by clowns all this while. Someone like an old fart like Sharad Pawar is an outright insult to cricket along with Shukla.

[kabira]

25% reservation only..it should be 75%...

[Trichromatic]

Bill has been rejected by the cabinet. Sports ministry has been asked to prepare another draft.

[Pagalpanti]

Tbh though BCCI isn't using govt money except for tax concession so I don't see why they should come under RTI. While of course they should be more accountable for team's performance and what steps they are taking to improve sports all over India.

[achilles]

It is our right to know what happens behind closed doors. Its our right to know why only Lalit Modi is to blame for financial bungling and no one else. It is our right to know how many N.Srinivasan like Conflict-of-Interest cases exist. It is our right to know what is done with the money and where does every penny go. RTI gives us this right.

[J P K]

Round one to BCCI as Cabinet fails to clear sports bill The controversial sports bill, apparently aimed at reining in sports federations and possibly have a government grip over BCCI, failed to get Cabinet nod on Tuesday with a number of ministers heading sports bodies strongly said to be opposed to it. At the Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the National Sports Development Bill, steered by sports minister Ajay Maken, was discussed and a number of ministers raised objections, sources said. Subsequently, it was decided that the bill should be re-worked by the sports ministry before it could be again considered. The opposition to the bill came mainly on issues like preserving the autonomy of sports bodies and the age restriction on sports administrators. Sharad Pawar, former BCCI chief and the current ICC president, Farooq Abdullah president of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association, C P Joshi, President of Rajasthan Cricket Association, Vilasrao Deshmukh, president of the Mumbai Cricket Association were among those who expressed opposition to the bill. Besides these ministers, Praful Patel, who is the chief of the All India Football Federation, Kapil Sibal and Kamal Nath were opposed to the bill. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and home minister P Chidambaram were said to be in favour of the bill. The bill had sought to bring in revolutionary changes in the functioning of sports bodies in the country, which included putting an age limit of 70 years and tenure restrictions besides bringing these bodies under RTI. One of the ministers had strong reservation on the age restriction clause and said it was a very subjective issue. The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and several other National Sports Federations had vehemently opposed the bill ever since the drafting stage, saying it was an attempt to interfere in the functioning of the bodies. The IOA had also said that the move was against the Olympic charter and India could be banned from international sports events if the government tried to curb their autonomy. Cricket administrators had also reacted sharply to the proposed bill which sought to put it under the purview of the RTI. The bill, had it been cleared by the Cabinet on Tuesday, would have been introduced in the Parliament in the ongoing monsoon session itself and could have had a bearing on the tenures of several seasoned administrators like Suresh Kalmadi, V K Malhotra, Yashwant Sinha, Jagdish Tytler and Virendra Nanavati who have been at the helm of their respective federations for decades. It could also have brought the cash-rich BCCI under its fold though cricket administrators maintained that it would not be binding on the board which does not take any grant from the government. The sports ministry will now fine-tune the bill and take into consideration the objections raised by the ministers, which means that it may not be possible in the ongoing session of Parliament. Maken had on Monday said that the bill once passed in the Parliament would bring in more accountability in the functioning of the NSFs. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/top-stories/Round-one-to-BCCI-as-Cabinet-fails-to-clear-sports-bill/articleshow/9799356.cms

[akshayxyz]

It is our right to know what happens behind closed doors. Its our right to know why only Lalit Modi is to blame for financial bungling and no one else. It is our right to know how many N.Srinivasan like Conflict-of-Interest cases exist. It is our right to know what is done with the money and where does every penny go. RTI gives us this right.

The Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI) is an Act of the Parliament of India "to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens." The Act applies to all States and Union Territories of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir - which is covered under a State-level law. Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen (excluding the citizens within J&K) may request information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days

[Pagalpanti]

It is our right to know what happens behind closed doors. Its our right to know why only Lalit Modi is to blame for financial bungling and no one else. It is our right to know how many N.Srinivasan like Conflict-of-Interest cases exist. It is our right to know what is done with the money and where does every penny go. RTI gives us this right.

Right to education. It is your right to be educated about the law before commenting :giggle:

[achilles]

Regulatory law would've brought the BCCI under government "control" and the RTI would kick in. Infact, for all of you talking about "education", BCCI indirectly has to adhere to RTI when it comes to- 1. Subsidies by the government. 2. Relaxing of rules and tax exemptions by the government. 3. T&C related to the usage of the stadias. I see no harm in getting the BCCI entirely under RTI. I would be very concerned if I were a politician in the BCCI or a pawarful person.

[urbestfriend]

Its a real shame that cabinet has rejected the bill. But what can we expect when we have ministers like Pawar, Vilas Rao and rajeev shukla. BCCI is making all this money through its monopoly over Indian cricket and they have to be accountable to their fans. If they are transparent and accoutable institution, what are they fearing RTI? Why is Sharad pawar threatening to go to Sonia mummy if this bill is pushed ahead? Considering politicans cutting across the party line are making an effort to be part of BCCI, I have a feeling that there are lot of scams and scandals within BCCI. Modi's 800 crore scam may be the tip of the iceberg.

[Crookbond]

Whatever happened to accountability? http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/530455.html

Sooner or later every cricketing country is going to need an Argus report, or rather a Crawford review, for that is the one set up to examine the way the game is run in Australia. Don Argus was merely asked to consider the cricketing set-up, and to that end recommended changes to the way the team was chosen and coached. Crawford and other governance experts were invited to examine its structures. Cricket grew up in another age, a period of autocratic rule, or else sprawling committees populated by the earnest or ambitious. Then players were underlings and the game lived upon a pittance. No one played it for money. A man might as well open a shop. As time passed cricket became an industry, and the players hired agents to advance their interests, formed associations and were able to choose between versions of the game, some of them offering rich rewards. Off the field, old-fashioned officials found themselves running an industry. As the players became more professional the administrators remained locked in a bygone age, the over-romanticised time of the amateur. Sport was a recreation, a relaxation; it was not to be taken that seriously. Of course it could not last. Money poured into the coffers, with TV contracts reflecting both the growing middle class in India and the worldwide nature of sport itself. Suddenly it was possible to watch matches on laptops or on screens in remote villages. With a lot of money at stake, the game became vulnerable to opportunists, rorters, conmen and so forth. No longer could cricket assume that the good of the game was in the forefront of official thinking. Accordingly governance became a vital issue - arguably the most important in the game. Experts might debate the lbw law, or discuss throwing, or complain about bad light and other technicalities, but ultimately everything goes back to the quality of decisions taken and the calibre of the men involved (no sign yet of women administrators). And the best way to guarantee that is to develop the sort of accountability and judgement that is expected of the boards of major companies. Events indicate that cricket has too often and too easily fallen into dubious hands. At times it has been used as a means of self-enrichment. Money has changed the balance off the field, pushing cricketing folk into the background while promoting financial experts or those capable of presenting themselves in that light. At the same time the world changed, with the old powers forced to accept a smaller role, reflecting shrinking economies and diminishing influence. Cricket was no longer a British game run from Lord's. The headquarters moved to Dubai, and India became both the main source of revenue and the game's driving force. No country has made the transition from amateur to professional smoothly. Accordingly cricket continues to suffer the consequences of the widespread failure to apply best practices as observed in other sports and fields of endeavour. At present the West Indian players seem hell-bent on suing their board for millions of dollars, presumably as compensation for lost returns. Not that the West Indies board has been sagacious, or even entirely trustworthy, but the conduct of the players seems self-indulgent and destructive. The only way forwards is to seek fresh structures capable of surviving scrutiny and populated by independent members. Ultimately everything goes back to the quality of decisions taken and the calibre of the men involved. And the best way to guarantee that is to develop the sort of accountability and judgement that is expected of the boards of major companies Sri Lankan cricket, too, has been plagued by crises off the field. For years the game has been put in the hands of interim committees, themselves at the whim of politicians. Plainly the system does not work. Far from making a packet from the recent World Cup, the board contrived to break the bank. Critics insist that cronyism was rampant. Nor has Pakistan been able to build sustainable cricketing institutions. Not that it has been easy in so troubled a country. Indeed, that is part of the problem. Cricket is not played by a handful of Nordic nations with much in common. Rather it is pursued to the highest level by a bunch of countries often breathing fire, uncertain of their own standing, and vulnerable to disturbances of various kinds: civil war, and forces of nature, government intervention and so forth. Nor has India been a beacon of proper conduct. Mr Srinivasan, secretary and president-elect, sets the tone by combining official duties with ownership of one of the IPL franchises. No wonder the players pick the IPL before the West Indies tour. As it stands, few countries take Test cricket seriously. Several pay lip service to it, but then organise two-Test series or else send their players overseas a week before the first match is to be played. South Africa has also been shaken by turmoil off the field. Insufficient attention has been paid to the nasty and sustained fight between the two senior officials at CSA, Mtutuzeli Nyoka and Gerald Majola. Inevitably money was the cause of the problem. Majola accepted bonuses from the IPL for extra work connected with staging its second edition, and other events. Unaware of these payments, and grateful for the extra revenue, CSA also awarded bonuses to Majola and other staff members. Attempts to sweep the matter under the carpet were thwarted by a High Court judge convinced that accountability was essential and that an independent examination was needed. The auditors criticised Majola over bonuses and also over the way family members were allowed to travel on board tickets. Majola was severely reprimanded and reminded of his responsibilities. The list could go on. Cricket in the USA has for an unconscionable time been run by a bunch of self-interested people lacking the vision and selflessness required to renew the game. Kenya has not been without its complications. Zimbabwe is slowly emerging from a long period of financial irregularity.At least one of the new franchises' CEOs was sacked recently. Even now player payments are well behind schedule, and the chairman of selectors has conflicts of interest. At least the Australians are trying to modernise the way the game is run in their country. The Crawford report is expected to recommend the abolition of the old system whereby each state sends two candidates to the board, a system calculated to reward long service as opposed to recognising exceptional ability. Happily the ICC has undertaken a similarly rigorous review of its own structures, and likewise promised to adopt and apply the conclusions. It's a vital step in the right direction. Cricket cannot be a healthy and honest game unless it is properly run. Accountability is crucial and it has been in short supply.

[urbestfriend]

Iframe: Open in new window

Ajay Maken's interview with Barkha dutt...Hats off to Ajay for trying to bring all the sports federation under RTI act. I'm sure parliament will make sure that this bill doesn't get passed but we, the people have to make sure that this bill gets passed and we'll have better sports administration in the country.

[King Tendulkar]

All BCCI officlais/stroke bigwig politicians jumping up and down against this. From Shukla to Abdhulaa all aginst it. Shamelss money grabbing, corrupt mofos!!

[Rightarmfast]

It is our right to know what happens behind closed doors. Its our right to know why only Lalit Modi is to blame for financial bungling and no one else. It is our right to know how many N.Srinivasan like Conflict-of-Interest cases exist. It is our right to know what is done with the money and where does every penny go. RTI gives us this right.

For once, we are on the same line and I agree with you. Doesnt matter what the other guys on the forum are saying. It was pathetic to see SHukla, Pawar and the co defending their stand even though being politicians themselves. As if they want to take the sport forward. High time these old farts and money makers are shown the door.

[Trichromatic]

It's not about BCCI alone. There are many sports associations which need more transparency and participation of players in the administration.

[yoda]

Yes, the government did a great job with CWG which was totally under their control, let's bring more Rupiah under their control. :hahaha:

[achilles]

For once, we are on the same line and I agree with you. Doesnt matter what the other guys on the forum are saying. It was pathetic to see SHukla, Pawar and the co defending their stand even though being politicians themselves. As if they want to take the sport forward. High time these old farts and money makers are shown the door.

On our ICF, we have the regular debaters who hang on and talk for the entire duration of a thread. The other guys on the forum are just here to have a piss around and then disappear once the debate becomes serious/when their bluff gets called. See, no man in his sanity can oppose Ajay Maken, for Maken isn't planning to "control" and do voodoo magic to bring BCCI under his power. He's asking for things that will make the politicians uncomfortable- 1. RTI: This would make the politicos and the jholkaris become accountable to not just the govt, but the Indian public. (And yes, this is ofcourse "controlling") 2. Sportspersons: BCCI seems to have this secured to a certain extent. But do the players have a vote and say in the policy-decisions of the board? 3. Tenure: I disagree with Mr.Maken here. The limit should instead be 65. No player after 65 will be able to hold the position at the top. No politician after 65 should be running sport, something which is not even his forte. Notice that BCCI's arguments have NEVER been pinpointed, like their accusations against Jagmohan Dalmiya and Lalit Modi. They are simply evading the debate by making rather baseless arguments. If I were a journo, I would ask- 1. Give me 3 reasonable reasons why BCCI should not come under the RTI? 2. Give me 3 reasonable reasons why sportspersons should not be a part of the very sport they played for 20yrs? 3. Give me 3 reasonable reasons why we must have just 1 person at the helm of affairs for 20yrs, until he finally passes away?

[TheYuvi02]

If India's England tour is some indication of the future of Indian cricket then clowns like Shukla should be get ready for their a**** to be kicked... bunch of jokers