Not just Srinivasan, even BCCI should choose between Team India and IPL

The BCCI likes to tell everyone that is a private body and therefore it has the right to operate free from outside interference. It fed the Supreme Court this very line in Wednesday’s hearing of the Mudgal Committee report case, when it said any investigation by outsiders would compromise its autonomy. The only problem with this argument is the BCCI also claims the right to select the national men’s and women’s cricket teams and the power to regulate the game and those who play it. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that these functions “can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions.” The BCCI is effectively in a private-public partnership with itself. [caption id=“attachment_1844663” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] The BCCI likes to claim it is a non-profit body even though it runs the IPL, a for-profit tournament. BCCI[/caption] As long as there wasn’t much money to be paid from cricket, the BCCI’s two faces co-existed peacefully. But when cricket began to transform into a commercial property, the fault lines between the board’s dual identities began to show. Think of this situation as the board’s original conflict of interest. The BCCI regulates the game but also wishes to make money from the game. Imagine SEBI running its own stock exchange with the power to rule other stock exchanges illegal and ban brokers from trading on them. The backlash would be a tsunami. But that’s exactly the position the BCCI occupies with regard to cricket and nobody questions it. It is why the BCCI was able to ban the Indian Cricket League, and the players who played in it, to ensure the Indian Premier League had no competitors. In 2010, Surinder Singh Barmi, “a cricket fan from New Delhi”, challenged the BCCI’s cricket monopoly before the Competition Commission of India. The board argued that it was not subject to regulation (its standard argument) as it is a not-for-profit society and does not fall under the Competition Act. Thankfully the CCI did not fall for the ruse and in its order dated 8 February, 2013, concluded that the BCCI’s “activities related to IPL such as grant of franchise rights, media rights and other sponsorship rights, where huge revenue is involved, are different from so called non-profit activities. “These activities fall in the commercial sphere and the whole tendering process for such rights is motivated by profits”. It also stated in unambiguous terms that the BCCI had failed as a regulator and handed it a fine of roughly Rs 52 crore.

BCCI’s economic power is enormous as a regulator that enables it to pick winners. BCCI has gained tremendously from IPL format of the cricket in financial terms. Virtually, there is no other competitor in the market nor was anyone allowed to emerge due to BCCI’s strategy of monopolizing the entire market. The policy of BCCI to keep out other competitors and to use their position as a defacto regulatory body has prevented many players who could have opted for the competitive league. The dependence of competitors on BCCI for sanctioning of the events and dependence of players and consumers for the same reason has been total. BCCI knowing this had foreclosed the competition by openly declaring that it was not going to sanction any other event. BCCI undermined the moral responsibility of a custodian and defacto regulator (emphasis added).

As part of the remedy, the Commission instructed the BCCI to: i) “cease and desist from any practice in future denying market access to potential competitors, including inclusion of similar clauses in agreement in future.” ii) “to cease and desist from using its regulatory powers in any way in the process of considering and deciding on matters relating to its commercial activities. To ensure this, BCCI will set up an effective internal control system to its own satisfaction, in good faith and after due diligence.” Of course, there was no way the BCCI was going to comply with an order that whittled away its powers, let alone set up effective internal controls. That would be anathema to the way it functions. The board appealed and the order was stayed until the CCI Appeal Tribunal heard the case, which it has not yet done. The logic of CCI’s order, however, not only needs to be upheld, it needs to be taken a step further. The BCCI should be stripped of its regulatory powers and allowed to operate solely as the owner of a private T20 tournament. The regulation of the game should then be transferred to a new sports federation whose sole objective is to manage cricket in India and select national teams. Selectors can be appointed for fixed terms and based on predetermined criteria – e.g. those who have played at least 50 Tests (for the men) – to limit government interference. Conflict of interest isn’t limited to N Srinivasan. It is the bedrock of the BCCI. But the board cannot be allowed to have it both ways anymore. If the BCCI wants to be a private body in name, let it be a private body in fact.