A leaked "position paper" authored by the Big Three of world cricket - India, England and Australia - on the reorganisation of the International Cricket Council (ICC), an issue currently under discussion at an executive board meeting in Dubai, has caused much outrage. The proposal devolves decision-making power to a three-country "ExCo" (executive committee) that will, essentially, corner the lion's share of revenues and leave smaller Test-playing countries (New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, South Africa and West Indies, which are also ICC board members) considerably worse off. Among this "ExCo's" mostly egregious proposals is one that the lucrative World Cups will be hosted exclusively by these three countries and another that future tours will be judged on the basis of "viability". If nothing else, this new dynamic has the virtue of unequivocally acknowledging that cricket has become, like other major sport, all about the money. And that India lies at the centre of this wealth creation - England and Australia can be ignored; they are merely hangers-on in a deal that was reportedly crafted in Chennai, hometown of the Indian cricket board's chief. Even so, every Indian should be concerned at this development if only because it paints the country in a sorry light.
Cricket is now closely associated with the Asian subcontinent in general and India in particular, the result of the riches that growing economic prosperity has bestowed on the game. This has, in turn, made the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) not just the world's richest cricket board but a sporting superpower - albeit in the minuscule sporting world of cricket - and an Indian brand ambassador rolled into one. From that perspective, the BCCI has done neither itself nor the country any favours by piloting this proposal.
Indeed, this latest attempt at dominance highlights the broader problem with the BCCI. Instead of leveraging its dominance and wealth for the greater good of the game and creating a healthy sporting tradition in which smaller teams can thrive, it has created the sorry spectacle of India displaying a breathtaking and brazen self-interest. If this surprises few, it is because the BCCI's meteoric rise to wealth and power has seen an exponential diminution of its reputation. True, the sporting industry globally is scarcely known for rectitude but even by those low standards, the BCCI stands out for the pall of shady dealing and political interference that surrounds it. Its crown jewel, the Indian Premier League, has attracted attention as much for match fixing, spot fixing, and ownership controversies as for the tournament itself. The board's current chief saw no conflict of interest in his son-in-law owning a team in a tournament he oversaw. Nor did he understand the ethics of resigning when the selfsame son-in-law was accused of match fixing. At home, the board has thought nothing of using its clout to muscle the original T20 start-up from Subhash Chandra out in favour of its own tournament. The trouble is that this image inevitably rubs off on India, which is already struggling with abysmal rankings in ease of doing business and a poor image in international investor circles.
