In India, egos rule culture and society, and these extend to positions, designations and titles. The name associated with certain positions or profiles matters more than an accurate depiction of the role one performs in a structure or culture. At times harmless, other times designations and definitions take on a more material role with serious implications. In India, testosterone too plays a bigger part than we would like to admit. Some titles or designations are driven by our cultural and societal wants and aspirations - the lure of ownership and being considered "bosses" obviously trumps mundane middle-management designations that, while uninspiring, are a more accurate reflection of the role that we sometimes perform.
Sports, partly thanks to this obsession, is in a situation laced with irony. We have the business of Indian sports in all sorts of downward spirals because all of a sudden there is frightening talk of "accountability", "transparency" and "governance". All of this is great, but herein lies the challenge: when the foundation of a sector is based on a fluid foundation, it's imperative that the powers that be put thought into what the future structure of their corporate entity will be.
Let's take the example of everyone's favourite scapegoat, the Indian Premier "League" (IPL). Until recently, bigger was substantially better, and the western world's professional sports monikers raced downstream towards their places of honour in Indian sports culture and lore. It started with the adopting of titles that didn't actually reflect the activity or purpose for which they were adopted. We had a 45-day cricket tournament generously laced with a carnival environment being called a "league", and at its helm we had a "commissioner".
Now, real leagues across the world are structured differently than mere tournaments, taking into account governance and compliance platforms that give them the authority and autonomy to function as independent entities, exempt from government intervention except when falling afoul of the law in clearly defined circumstances such as fraud, embezzlement, aggravated torts, perjury, and sometimes anti-trust. Similarly, "franchises" or "teams" too had a far more rigorous compliance list than merely choosing players, cheerleaders and sponsors. And not to forget the "commissioner", who not only ran the entire show, but also made far-reaching decisions by involving a group of advisors, team owners, player representatives and government authorities. A western league's "commissioner" (sometimes called the chairman or the CEO) has broad powers but, more than that, binding obligations and responsibilities. We all know how similar designations panned out in the cricket tournament when it came to meeting obligations and responsibilities.
Of course, it didn't stop there with the IPL: we have a broad range of creative designations for individuals involved. It's anyone's guess what a "team mentor" is, or even a "team principal" for that matter. A team must be careful of designations such as "team owner", "team principal", "chief executive", and other such exalted titles that, unless they are true and depict the actual position of the individual, can be considered extremely misleading. A misleading designation can be harmful for all concerned - the team ownership, the "league", the individual, and any person or entity who reasonably believes that the individual is actually what his designation/title depicts. It may even end up leading to actionable offences.
Sometimes a name's or a title's intent may not even be harmful, but the perception is so negative that one wonders why it ever came into use. Yes, the Board of Control for Cricket in India is much maligned nowadays despite the Indian team's Champions Trophy victory; but the very fact that it is for the "control" of cricket in India instead of the global norm of "committee", "association" or even "council" like its international counterpart makes one wonder why it was necessary to name it thus. Dichotomous designations occur frequently in most sports leagues or sports federations in India. Perhaps in the not so distant past, not enough attention was given to titles and designations, but this argument won't hold water going forward.
Teams should belong to savvy corporations that will need to translate good governance and corporate practices from their respective primary businesses to the sports that they support. Leagues and federations, too, have successful people at their helm. Murky explanations and fuzzy logic won't bail out potential offenders in future, especially if there are clear-cut causes of action against those with a responsibility to others. And that's a sure thing, whose outcome no bookie can change.
The writer is a sports attorney.
He tweets at @dgcsekhri
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
