BCCI is angry with former women cricketers

During this year’s Indian Premier League (IPL) the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in its bid to honour the former cricketers rewarded six former women cricketers. They were given a one-time payment by the BCCI for their contribution towards Indian cricket. The decision was taken by the Committee of Administrators (CoA). Deepa Kulkarni, Sangita Dabir and Arundhati Ghosh got Rs. 25 lakh each while Behroze Edulji, who is the sister of CoA member Diana Edulji, Sunita Singh and Vrinda Bhagat were given Rs. 15 lakh each.

But this incident was not to the liking of some former Indian women cricketers. According to reports, BCCI has received five to six applications from former women cricketers. They have asked the BCCI about the basis on which the six players were selected. They also demanded similar amount for themselves by claiming that they have also done their duty for the national team. This has left the BCCI officials scratching their heads.

Wait! There’s another problem

But that’s not the end of problems for BCCI. The CoA decided to give Rs. 15000 to former women cricketers who have played between one and four Tests and Rs. 22,500 to those who have played 10 or more Tests. The decision is yet to be approved by the treasurer, but the officials have already started facing the problems. Many former cricketers have already started applying for the pension.

But formerly, the players used to play under Women’s Cricket Association of India (WCAI). BCCI took the charge from them later on. But they don’t have any records which can validate the claims of the cricketers and hence, no one knows whether they actually played or not.

According to BCCI officials, the board wasn’t ready to give the one-time payments to the cricketers. It was a policy decision which can only be taken by BCCI, but the decision was taken by the CoA. Sunita and Vrinda played just a couple of Tests while the sister of Behroze just played one Test.

“The same thing is happening with the pension also as it is a policy decision and needs to be taken at general body level,” said a board official while speaking to Hindustan Times. “The feeling in the Board circles is that the CoA didn’t take into account the gravity of the issue,” he further added.