Conflict of interest: A tangle that has confronted the BCCI

Conflict of interest: A tangle that has confronted the BCCI: The standard of personal integrity is the paragon of any sort of sporting endeavor with no exception to sports administration. The sporting federations are hence considered to carry the baton of credibility, and honesty forward so that the stature of sport, both on and the off-field can be maintained. This ideal scenario has recently been marred by various management imbroglios of sporting organizations be it archery, sports or cricket. The apple of the eye in all these situations is always cricket because of the power and swathe exercised by BCCI.

The apple of the eye in all these situations is always cricket because of the power and swathe exercised by BCCI. Thus, an analysis of the recent conflict of interest debate becomes all the more apt as it might be the harbinger of a resisted but much-desired change.

The ever persistent issue of conflict of interest gained media attention with the emergence of the fixing scandal in 2013, as apart from the shady issue of betting it spilled many beans of undesirable influences the game was prone to. As is true with many issues, it took the Supreme Court of the country to reprimand and question, as to how could the President of BCCI also the owner of the company, India Cements which was filled with cricketers owned the IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings. It was this question against which Srinivasan was forced to give away, the presidency of BCCI.

The new honcho of BCCI Shashank Manohar has proved to be a messiah of good times as he has left no stone unturned to modify the provision of conflict of interest clause in the BCCI guidelines.

First of all, let us understand that this issue is no newcomer in the cricket scenario and can be traced back to the time when the respected cricket coach Ramakant Achrekar was removed from the junior selection committee of the Mumbai team as he owned cricket academies and it led to the issue of conflict of interest. Recently even Sanjay Jayawant the President of CCI (Cricket Club Of India) was not allowed to be an MCA member because his son was in the under-16 squad.

Thus, why were these standards not applicable to Dilip Vengsarkar who is the vice-president of Mumbai Cricket Association and also runs a cricket academy or Roger Binny who was a national selector despite his son being there in the Indian side. Though Anil Kumble might say that his heading the Technical Committee of the BCCI and running a talent hunt company Tenvic does not involve a conflict of interest, it is a flawed justification bereft of reasons.

To understand this, the definition of conflict of interest needs to be construed. Conflict of interest is not a judgment on the character of the person but rather the influence of the decisions by the socio-economic structures people find themselves in. Human being’s innate tendency of being duty bound in their different rules sometimes may leave them in the lurch, forcing them to take a decision, which might reconcile different interests but will not be the best solution which any of the two contradicting issues would have preferred. This is what happens when unconsciously a choice has to be made between, self-interest and public interest.

This is illustrated by the amendment to the BCCI regulation 6.2.4. Initially, it said that the administrators will not have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interests in the (Board) matches and events. But in 2008, it was changed with retrospective application to exclude events like IPL and Champions League. This very clause which was tailor made to suit the interest of Srinivasan led to his downfall with the Supreme Court scrutinizing it with magnifying glass which actually led to the ouster of Srinivasan from BCCI and paved the way for the Justice Lodha Committee to suggest organizational reforms in the BCCI with a special focus on the clarification on conflict of interest issues which are sure to grab the media eyeballs in the AGM of the Board this month.

As the apex court rightly pointed out that cricket is just another religion in this country with zealous fans cheering it with no financial stake on it. Thus, the amount of public trust the BCCI has to take care of is important to be considered. This was evident when the court brusquely asked Srinivasan, “Whether he wanted to sit over the liquidation of the game in this country?” As an owner of an academy, an owner wants his academy students, to be selected but as a national selector, he wants the best to be selected. This conflict may be solved virtually by ignoring but in reality, the conscious decision by these very prevalent factors leads to the undermining of faith among the dedicated fans and lovers of the game.

It is said, ”At a certain level of learning, right or wrong is not the issue but different interests”. Thus, no one is against Arshad Ayub who is the in the Hyderabad selection committee of cricketers and owns a cricket academy, or against Ajay Shirke, who is a part of IPL governing council as well as President of Maharashtra Cricket Academy and the founder of Cadence Cricket Academy. But we are against the intertwined interests, these officials serve which raises questions of bias and favoritism in a matter of national importance.

Just as a no person can be a judge in his own cause, similarly being an administrator and managing other cricket related activities related to BCCI raises questions of ethical practice and not functional wrongdoing.

The move conceived long ago by Jagmohan Dalmiya and revived by Shashank Manohar is a welcome step towards a long journey of ensuring a clear and transparent administration in one of the most loved games of the country.