Not cricket

After the issue of whether the Pakistan tour would be scrapped due to the disagreement over whether the guests would play in Gujarat, cricket fans in the country are once again being subjected to uncertainty, this time over whether they will be able to watch a live telecast of the series.

While the matter plays itself out in the Madras High Court, the Board of Cricket Control of India's (BCCI) chief Ranvir Singh has made a public statement that there will be no series if the row is not settled.

While Mr Singh's statements may appear motivated, given how the body has been a hotbed of intrigue and politics over the years, the logic given by him is that the International Cricket Committee's (ICC) rules do not allow a series without a live telecast, since the third umpire cannot then function.

This is a technicality since ICC rules do have the provision for providing a live feed for the third umpire even when matches are not telecast.

Moreover, BCCI has not even applied to the ICC for any exemption (with which it can have a series without the telecast) and the Pakistan Cricket Board is reported to have said that they have not been consulted.

While the matter is in the Madras High Court, where Zee TV has filed a suit saying BCCI is obligated to give it the telecast rights since it won in a competitive bid, part of the problem springs from the Supreme Court verdict which ruled that BCCI is not an organ of the state.

Since it has been declared to be a private party, BCCI can do as it pleases, indeed it need not even call for a tender for telecast. After all, when is the last time you heard of a complaint that Reliance Industries or Tata Steel didn't give an L1 supplier the contract?

The Supreme Court must have had good reasons for giving its verdict, but there are issues here which cannot be ignored.

One, the BCCI row affects millions of people and crores of rupees. Second, the team that BCCI sends out to play does so under the Indian flag, and is universally recognised as the national team.

This places a certain onus on BCCI to function while keeping its stakeholders in mind, just as any large company does.

The problem of course is that sundry carpetbaggers from the business and political worlds have got into the tent, and if mutual recriminations are to be believed, both motives and actions are suspect in several ways.

This is no way to run the country's most popular sport, nor is it the appropriate way to deal with large sums of money. BCCI should clean up its act.

If it does not, the Supreme Court should be asked to take a fresh look at its verdict from the public's standpoint.