 "It's the BCCI's way or the highway")
Given such a history between the two countries (South Africa played its first series after the apartheid era-ban was lifted in India), it was implausible to think that a series scheduled for the 2013 yearend would almost come a cropper. But it did. And it was only on October 22 that the boards of the two countries decided to go ahead with a truncated two-Test, three-one dayer series. India was earlier slotted to tour the African nation between November this year and January 2014 and play three Tests, seven one-dayers and two T20 matches.
| PITCHED BATTLE |
| March 2013: BCCI raises objections to Haroon Lorgat's candidature as Cricket South Africa (CSA) chief executive. July 2013: CSA appoints Lorgat as its chief executive, paying little heed to BCCI's objections. July 2013: CSA announces itinerary for India's tour which was scheduled to begin on November 17. BCCI rejects the itinerary September 2013: India announces home series with West Indies October 2013: India and CSA officials meet in Dubai, nothing much comes out of it October 22: CSA suspends Lorgat from any dealings with BCCI and the Indian board agrees to a truncated tour. |
The series was saved after CSA decided to send its chief executive, Haroon Lorgat, into suspension. The joint statement by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, or BCCI, and CSA , outlining the agreement on the series, said Lorgat had been withdrawn from any business related to the ICC and also "from having involvement in any aspect of CSA's relationship with the BCCI, including but not limited to the upcoming tour."
It was yet another show of muscle flexing from BCCI that made CSA desert its own chief executive to reap whatever financial benefits it can out of a series against India. That Lorgat and BCCI have never got along well is a well-known fact. Lorgat, who was CEO of the International Cricket Council, or ICC, has faced a lot of hostility from from the Indian board since the days he was appointed as the top man in world cricket.
* * *
Ever conscious of its own financial clout in cricketdom, BCCI has historically cocked a snook at any challenges to the way it programmes cricket. Almost as a dare to BCCI, soon after taking over at ICC, Lorgat pushed for mandatory use of the controversial Umpire Decision Review System (DRS), something that BCCI had always considered with abhorrence. The Indian board put everything behind its opposition to DRS, and ICC was ultimately left with no choice but to cede to BCCI's pressure and announce that it was up to the national cricket boards to implement the system in bilateral series.
"The DRS was a start of a difficult relationship between India and Lorgat," says a former BCCI official. Even then, as the same official explains, ties between the CSA and BCCI remained cordial. "Normally, cricket boards don't share good relationship but India and South Africa were close friends," he says. In other words, BCCI was warm with CSA, but definitely cool to Lorgat.
Lorgat tried to salvage the situation and released a statement: "It is clear to me that both our boards are committed to working together to ensure the wonderful relationship we have had for the past 22 years is strengthened. As South Africans we will always be grateful to the Indian Government for the leading role they played in first enforcing the sports boycott during the dark years of apartheid and later, together with the BCCI, facilitating our return to the world family of cricket nations."
However, Lorgat initiated another action at ICC that again got BCCI's goat. The Lord Woolf Commission, aided by services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, was asked by Lorgat to do an independent review of the affairs of ICC after the 2011 World Cup held in the subcontinent. This initiative didn't go down well with the BCCI at all. When the report was tabled in February 2012, the BCCI was even more angry, thought it never made its displeasure publically known.
The Woolf Report wasn't too kind on cricket administration across the world. It called for sweeping changes in the administration of cricket and the functioning of ICC. It recommended "a restructuring of the ICC's executive board to make it more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries", a clear indiction of BCCI's clout in ICC. Till date, however, none of the panel's recommendations has been implemented.
* * *
India were scheduled to tour South Africa in 2013 and it seemed to be a routine administrative exercise to draw up the itinerary. But before that could happen, in March 2013, CSA announced that Lorgat would be its new president. "Knowing that the BCCI didn't get along with Lorgat, his appointment was like a red rag to BCCI," says an official of the Indian board. Before Lorgat was appointed to the post on July 21, a few CSA officials even travelled to Chennai to resolve differences. Nothing much came out of the meeting, and CSA went ahead with Lorgat's appointment.
The first sign of BCCI's displeasure came when it rejected the tour programme announced by CSA. India instead slotted a home series against the West Indies, which would end on November 27. The South Africa tour would have started on November 17 and it was speculated that Sachin Tendulkar would make his last appearance on foreign soil. Tendulkar has now announced his retirement and the West Indies tour will be his last series, and South Africa has missed out on hosting the master blaster for the last time ever.
When BCCI rejected the South Africa tour, it came in for a lot of flak. Gideon Haigh, senior cricket journalist wrote in a column, "Sport is about rivalry, not destruction; the point of a sporting contest is to win on the field, not to subjugate or even annihilate your opponent off it, because by that in the long term you also lose."
But there was support for the Indian board too. "India is a money generator for foreign boards. It draws advertisers, marketers and supporters like no other country. So the BCCI does get away with a lot," says a senior cricket journalist. Cricket commentator Harsha Bhogle, in a column, even wrote, "South Africa ... can ask themselves why they got into a situation where their cricket economy was so dependent on an external power that is always more likely to do what suits itself first. It is just likely that one of the conclusions will be that it was the easy, lazy option to take." When India toured South Africa in 2010-2011, CSA generated revenues of around Rs 400 crore.
BCCI and CSA agreed to meet in Dubai in September to sort out the scheduling issues and the aforementioned BCCI official discloses that CSA was asked to make all effort to resolve the impasse. BCCI Secretary Sanjay Patel even confirmed to the media that Lorgat had phoned him with a proposal for a meeting and had been told that all discussion would take place after the BCCI annual general meeting on September 29.
Lorgat then issued a statement: "There has rightly been concern about reports of a shortened tour by India but I am looking forward to meeting Sanjay (Patel) so that we can work out the best possible schedule under the present circumstances. As custodians we have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the game and all our stakeholders."
Eventually, CSA had to give in and it announced the Lorgat wouldn't have any dealings with BCCI. He was withdrawn from the ICC Chief Executive Committee too. "BCCI, more or less, always gets its way," says a cricket writer.
South African columnist Neil Manthorp, wrote on Wisden India, "The 'joint statement', written by the BCCI and released three hours before CSA released it, indicates a commitment to 'good faith discussions between their respective Presidents about the possibility of agreeing further bilateral arrangements in respect of the scheduled fixtures between the two teams, and taking into account any scheduling imbalances from previous years." That could be translated as: "Keep your mouths closed, your heads down and don't step out of line again, and we'll see about inviting you to play another three or four games in the future to stop you going into overdraft." So the game continues.
"It would have been sad if fans had been deprived of a contest between the two top teams in world cricket due to political and personal issues," says Kiran More, former chief selector of BCCI. More is glad the issue has been resolved, but refuses to comment on how the whole issue was handled. "There are a lot of ego clashes in cricket administration and one should be able to deal with them in a professional manner," he says.
BCCI, it seems has got its way. But it once again raises questions about the power that BCCI wields. N Srinivasan, the controversial BCCI president, refutes all charges of BCCI being the bully. Earlier this month, in relation to the South Africa tour, he told reporters, "There is no attempt to bully world cricket. All I want is a fair deal for BCCI."
Fair or unfair, it clearly seems it's the either BCCI's way or the highway. CSA couldn't afford to lose millions of rands riding on the Indian tour and had to give in to the demands. Lorgat, meanwhile, became a pawn which had to be sacrificed to assuage the financial king of world cricket.