Why BCCI has every right to keep its commentators on a leash

When Rahul Gandhi went off on the ordinance to save convicted legislators from disqualification, calling it “complete nonsense”, a Times Of India headline said he had shamed the government . His was criticised for undermining and belittling Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the UPA leadership, with the media going so far as to raise the spectre of the PM’s resignation . All this because Rahul had gone against the government’s line on the ordinance. [caption id=“attachment_1171167” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] The BCCI is no different from any organisation when it comes to controlling its employees public positions. Reuters[/caption] Rahul was able to prevail because he is Rahul Gandhi and it was the party and government that changed their stand. But it is common practise for an organisation to expect its employees, or in this case its party members, to toe the party line. In this the BCCI is no different. Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and any other commentator contracted to the board is effectively an employee of the board. The board therefore has every right to expect those commentators will, at least publically, support the board’s point of view. The BCCI has been an ardent opponent of the DRS. It has been so because the India players are not fans of the system. In this case at least, the board is taking up the cause for its players, which it should do. Expecting commentators it is paying to represent that view on air is what any organisation would do. Expecting anything else is foolish and to misunderstand how the world works. The likes of Gavaskar and Shastri are on air as independent experts. They are there as paid employees. In that respect, they are no different from the rest of us. There are plenty of organisations that even have codes of conduct for how employees use their private accounts on social media because what they say can still be seen as representing their organisation. The board, therefore, is well within its rights to decide what is out of bounds for its contracted commentators. Why should it allow itself to be shamed by having its own commentators criticise it on the air in front of millions of viewers? If an individual does not want to be bound in this way, he or she can refuse to sign a contract with the BCCI, as Ian Chappell recently did. Where the BCCI can be faulted is in pretending that this is not the case. N Srinivasan told ESPNcricinfo that the “BCCI doesn’t tell the commentator you say this, you cannot say this and things like that,” but there’s no reason to pretend. Perpetuating the illusion of independence while restricting does neither the board nor the fans any good. It makes one look foolish and sets the other up for disappointment. The downside, of course, is that the quality of the commentating suffers because certain topics are off limits. There is also the fear that the BCCI is able to control the message to a degree that is unhealthy for the game. But thanks to the internet, there is the option of muting the television and listening to commentary from Alternative Cricket and others like it. The BCCI does receive a lot of criticism for a variety of reasons. But expecting the board to undermine itself by giving its commentators free reign should not be among them.