BCCI = ICC =Global Elite
Introduction
Fairness in sports has always been emphasized & its importance highlighted. Use of unfair means including performance enhancing drugs has always been discouraged & severely punished. This also means the same set of rules should apply to all participants & all of them should have equal opportunities of winning with similar standards set before & when the game starts.
Sports require that the playing field be made level, so that every team is competing against others at similar levels. No team should be given unfair advantage over other teams, especially in an international competition, where even the hosts are not given any extra advantage.
When one team starts getting undue advantages & gets to set the rules as it wishes, that is where the line of fairness in sports is crossed. Whether that advantage is gained due to political or financial power makes no difference: injustice has been done & to call the results fair would be an ambiguous & controversial statement in itself.
Recently many cricket experts from many countries have been calling foul of BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) using its financial clout to take advantage in how the game is run & using means to their maximum advantage.
Even the sport’s governing body the ICC (International Cricket Council) is unable to do anything about it as if BCCI runs ICC.
Following are a list of irregularities/injustices in the game by the BCCI, so much so that people & even cricket experts are saying that the BCCI = ICC
1. Gorilla of Cricket
Money is the root of all evil. Why not? – money is the reason that would make a big fat politician to compromise the lives of a million tribals for a mining company, the reason an assassin sets out to kill a president.
In the cricket world, most of the money is in the BCCI; there’s lots of money in Indian cricket. Maybe, the BCCI was a good and noble organization once (probably in the pre 1984 days). But, as more money flowed, more bad-minded people eventually took an interest. Its decisions are arbitrary & money-based
Straight From BCCI’s mouth
BCCI has often taken to interventionist policies to get its way, at least at the global level. A senior BCCI official unabashedly said, “It wouldn’t be wrong to call us the big brothers of international cricket. We enjoy a similar clout in the ICC as the United States of America does in the United Nations.”
An interview with BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah is cited as saying with a degree of candour:
“For cricket, the only market in the world is India. The market is here. So we will control cricket, naturally.”
2. Build up to Big Three
Bully BCCI wants bigger cut of ICC profits
The BCCI is unhappy with the ICC’s system of distributing 75% of its net profit equally among full members.
https://cricket.yahoo.com/news/bully-bcci-wants-bigger-cut-of-icc-profits-050535640.html
It is the big bully of world cricket, and the Board of Control for Cricket in India is ready to open another front against the International Cricket Council and other member boards.
Hindustan Times has learnt the BCCI is unhappy with the ICC’s system of distributing 75% of its net profit equally among full members. It feels it deserves a bigger share and is now looking to extract its pound of flesh.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/751241.html
Former ICC president Ehsan Mani has said an earlier threat by a full member nation to withdraw from ICC events, which occurred during his tenure at the helm of world cricket, had been thwarted by other Full Members standing together. Responding to BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel’s statement that the BCCI had threatened to form a parallel body if they were not given a greater share of ICC revenues, Mani told ESPNcricinfo he found Patel’s comments “laughable” and he was “astonished that the ICC took this seriously.”
“I am talking from personal experience, when I was ICC president, when a country threatened not to take part in ICC events,” Mani said, while refusing to divulge the name of the board in question. “And all I did was to speak to other Full Members, and that included countries like England Australia, Pakistan and West Indies at that time, and they made it clear to this country that was making threats that they would only work within the ICC and would not break ranks with the ICC. And once this country got that message, it realized its threat was absolutely hollow.”
Mani said the ICC leadership as well as the cricket boards of England and Australia had “panicked” in their response to the BCCI threat, instead of calling their bluff.
“They [the ECB and CA] should have just stopped and thought about what is in the best interest of the game, instead of panicking which they clearly did – and started trying to compromise the organisation. What they have done is terrible for the governance of world cricket by their very actions…
This should not have been rushed through, this should have been done pragmatically, looking at the pros and cons. In the very least, the BCCI would have been asked to put its proposals in writing and say fine, we’ll look at it, we’ll have it analysed, and come back to you. But to actually then delegate England and Australia to talk to the BCCI, they started looking after their own interests.”
He said that while India does generate of lot of money for cricket, it was India’s economy that used cricket for its own end: “It is not the other way around. And my big issue with the BCCI is that the BCCI does not own the proprietary rights to the Indian economy.”
Mani said had the BCCI’s bluff been called, its own revenues would have reduced considerably “by 70 to 80% because no one would like to see India playing Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and New Zealand day in and day out. It would be worth nothing, the television channels and broadcasters want high-profile teams, teams that play good cricket to play against India. It’s a two-way thing, it’s not a one-way thing.”
Some of the people here saying that ICC would be nothing without BCCI or India need to think twice before they speak. I mean seriously, what are the consequences of saying no to BCCI? Standing firm against them? What maximum can the BCCI do? They will step aside? Make another ICC without any other member? Play cricket alone? lol Come on guys, if every board join hands and stand against this BADMASHI of BCCI, the BCCI wont be able to do nothing, what else would they do, they would stop letting India play cricket? lol that will be a bigger loss for BCCI than to ICC..
The BCCI working committee was insistent on not yielding ground on the matter revenue distribution. The proposal recommends a maximum allotment of 21% of the ICC’s revenues to the BCCI on the grounds that Indian cricket helps generate 80% of ICC’s global revenues. The draft proposal, when handed out to the Full Member nations at a specially called board meeting in Dubai on January 9, did not however contain any supporting documentation for its current revenue distribution percentages or future estimates.
Nobody was ever told why and how the Big Three came up with what were incredibly precise revenue-sharing figures, so precise they gave the illusion that there was a solid methodology behind them. There was not.
3. Putting ICC Events on the Line
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/712253.html
The BCCI virtually served notice on any ICC Full Members opposed to a makeover of the ruling body, indicating that India’s participation in ICC events was subject to approval of the radical draft proposal by the ICC’s executive board. The proposal recommends a structural overhaul of the ICC and proposes bigger revenues and more executive decision-making powers to the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB.
One of the key governance changes proposed in the position paper, pertained to the creation of a proposed Executive Committee (ExCo) – a security-council style group with three permanent members, the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB.
The other big advantage of the proposal, Raman highlighted, was that India could be more free to negotiate bilateral series with another Full Member instead of being obliged to follow the FTP.
The members were also made aware that under the new structure India would host at least one ICC tournament almost every two years, further enhancing its financial strength.
4. Big Three
Earlier this year, ICC went through another restructuring process where cricket’s Big Three—India, Australia and England—would wield more influence on the game, and in return, get the lion’s share of ICC’s revenue over an eight-year cycle starting 2015.
The restructuring also enabled N. Srinivasan, the then in-limbo president of BCCI, to become the most powerful man in cricket for the next two years, confirming his appointment as ICC chairman. ICC declined to comment.
Under the current revenue-sharing model, BCCI gets close to 3-4% of the surplus earned by ICC. Under the new proposal, it is likely to get 21-22% of the gross revenue over the next six-eight years. If ICC earns anything between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion, as reports say, BCCI is expected to get $550-770 million over the eight-year period.
According to a report in South Africa’s Business Daynewspaper, England and Australia are expected to get 4.5% and 2.9% of the revenue share, respectively. South Africa will get only 1.3% of the share.
Haigh, the noted Australian writer, said the existing system wasn’t working and the new one seems to have been created hoping that “if you paid obeisance to BCCI, then perhaps they’d become a more responsible member of the organization”.
However, not everyone is amused about the Big Three.
“I did not believe the move would be beneficial to the game and I am still waiting for evidence to suggest that the game is better off,” said former West Indies cricketer Michael Holding in an email interview.
“As for the governance of the game, I can’t see that improving either without independent voices whose only agenda would be the welfare of cricket and not just how much money can be generated for those in charge.” he added.
Where are the rest of the members in all this, particularly Cricket Australia and the England Cricket Board? In bed with the BCCI, that’s where. On the side of last Friday’s ICC meeting in London, ECB chairman Giles Clarke and Srinivasan were discussing how they could reduce the powers of a proposed ICC chairman, a position which they are apparently afraid will reduce the influence of ICC’s Finance and Commercial Affairs committee, which Clarke currently chairs.
Clarke and Srinivasan have developed a close bond, which has naturally proven beneficial to Clarke and the ECB.
Cricket Australia, meanwhile, have sent their national side over to India for a seven-match One-Day series for which there is no other purpose than to make more money.
It’s left the rest of the Test-playing nations fighting over crumbs and the ICC seem powerless to do anything. It is cricket that will suffer.
5. BCCI’s bullying:
http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cricket/domestic/cricket-bows-to-bccis-bullying-tactics-1598051
The episode between the BCCI and CSA should lead to the ICC reviewing how they intend running the sport. There cannot be a situation where one of the affiliates plays loose with the rules to suit their own ends to the detriment of the sport’s growth and the ICC’s credibility.
Should anyone be surprised at the firm decision the International Cricket Council took in the bitter and protracted saga over India’s tour to South Africa?
The ICC didn’t order India to tour, nor did they promise Cricket SA any compensation for the vast amount of money they stand to lose because of the drastically downgraded schedule.
No, what the ICC did in facilitating a humiliating outcome for SA cricket was to set up an inquiry into the conduct of CSA chief executive Haroon Lorgat about a letter written by a former legal adviser to the ICC.
That’s all the ICC did. They didn’t demand that the Board of Control for Cricket in India stick to the Future Tours Programme (FTP) – something to which all ICC executive members (the Test-playing nations) agreed in June 2011. They didn’t question the BCCI about making unilateral changes to the calendar that included drawing up a tour by the West Indies at the last minute. Nor did the ICC question the BCCI about unilaterally moving forward India’s tour to New Zealand.
While the BCCI has throttled CSA into submission, the ICC has stood by and watched. The world’s governing body is a major accomplice in the death of what would have been South Africa’s premier cricket summer. The ICC has let cricket and cricket fans down tremendously by not intervening in the CSA and BCCI saga.
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-10-23-no-balls-no-spine-icc-lets-cricket-down-in-the-csa-bcci-saga/
The word “cartel” conjures imagination of collaboration of severely wealthy drug barons from Central and South American republics coming together, like a massive political coalition party, to run cocaine exports to Europe and Northern America, maximizing profits while minimizing detection and in-fighting deaths.
This new proposed cricket cartel sounds exactly like that, rich mostly businessmen conspiring to steal world cricket, except that they are committing larceny of our cricket in bright open sunlight, in front of our very faces!
BCCI’s position is, pure and simple, open black-mail.
They know that they have massive finances, so, very publicly, in almost plain non-diplomatic speech, they have told ICC:
“Put up or shut up. Accept what we propose or lose out on our participation and our funding. Take it or leave it!”
6. Appointment as corrupt Indian official as chairman ICC
Another example was Srinivasan’s appointment as the chairman of the ICC, despite his suspension as the country’s cricket chief after he was embroiled in corruption allegations in the Indian Premier League.
The IPL, which is administered by the BCCI, remained under investigation by an inquiry panel set up by the Supreme Court, following an on-going match-fixing saga which emerged from the Indian Premier League. Of particular interest to the Supreme Court is the franchise owned by Srinivasan, the Chennai Super Kings
7. Umpiring Controversies
The first, in 2001, was when India wanted former English cricketer Mike Denness removed from his role as match referee in a India-South Africa bilateral series. His crime? He had accused India’s cricketing demigod Sachin Tendulkar of ball tampering and acted against the player and five others, including captain Sourav Ganguly, for excessive appealing.
And in 2008, all it took for BCCI to get angry was a wrong decision by West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor against Tendulkar in a Test match against Australia. The match also had wrong decisions against Andrew Symonds and other omissions.
In any case, BCCI eventually had its way & Steve Bucknor was replaced by another umpire, an action unprecedented in the recent annals of the game!
“I was supposed to give the trophy today,” Kamal said. “It is my constitutional right. But very unfortunately, I wasn’t allowed to do so. My rights were dishonoured. After I go back home, I will let the whole world know what’s happening in ICC. I will let the whole world know about those guys who are doing these mischievous things.”
This snub came after Kamal angered the ICC, which is heavily influenced by India, by questioning an umpiring decision that went against Bangladesh in their quarter-final loss against India.
Among other scathing comments, Kamal suggested India’s win was “pre-arranged” after Rohit Sharma was given a reprieve when he was caught off a full toss no-ball which only appeared to be waist high.
India’s power comes from its huge following which brings in the lion’s share of TV revenue, helping to prop up other cricket playing-nations. Some critics say this means India acts in its own best interests, as opposed to those of the sport.
In interviews with Bangladeshi TV channels, Kamal said he had been denied the opportunity to present the trophy for “speaking the truth” and would reveal more about the inner dealings of the ICC.
8. Favorable pitches
The raging turner prepared for the match between India & Pakistan at this world t20 2016:
It’s not what the home team had planned, as some might very naturally argue, thinking India wanted spinning conditions to negate Pakistan’s pace advantage. This is bad advertisement for India and BCCI for a few reasons. There’s an understanding between cricket-playing nations that T20 World Cups have to be high-scoring. The ICC is clear on this and advocates “hard” pitches with “true bounce” that don’t offer “lateral movement or spin”.
A glance at the matches in this edition of the event shows several venues have failed to adhere to this guideline. After Nagpur and Dharamsala, where the ball turned and prevented stroke making, Kolkata is an inglorious addition to the list.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cricket/news/Victory-for-India-Defeat-for-BCCI/2016/03/20/article3336974.ece
Besides pitch preparation in favor of India @BCCI I think you would of been better off playing in Dharamsala? Least you share a point! @ICC
Wesley Barresi (@Pepe_Barezi) March 15, 2016
http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/netherlands-cricketer-wesley-barresi-delivers-burn-icc-bcci
He made fun of how the pitch has been prepared, leaving it unsaid how he thought it had been a strategic ploy which had turned upon the Indian team. However, he was not done. His tweet also suggested that India should have played New Zealand in Dharamshala so that they could have got at least one point.
“Former Pakistan pacer Sarfraz Nawaz has accused the ICC of favoring the Indian team in the ongoing cricket World Cup (2015) by providing the defending champions pitches tailor made to suit their strengths.”
You look at the matches played so far in this World Cup that where India has played the pitches have been prepared to suit their strengths,”
BCCI continued to do so right until the end:
9. Only Other Countries called for match-fixing
Famous Indian Cricketer Suresh Raina was caught talking to a bookie according to the English press:
“The Cricket Board on Sunday described an English newspaper report of BCCI keeping quiet on Suresh Raina accompanying a woman allegedly linked to bookies during the Sri Lankan tour as “baseless”, saying that she was the agent of the Indian batsman.
A report in London Sunday Times claimed that ICC’s ACSU is probing why Indian Board kept quiet about a report by Sri Lanka Cricket of Raina being seen in company of a woman linked to an associate of a bookie.
Terming the report as “baseless and false”, BCCI secretary N Srinivasan said the Crcket Board has not received any such complaint from the SLC.”
According to the newspaper report, it is the reaction of the BCCI secretary N Srinivasan that has led to the ICC investigation. Instead of acting on the report, Srinivasan is alleged to have got the Sri Lankans withdraw it.
Case of Danesh Kaneria
Rashid Latif accused the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) of making Kaneria a scapegoat.
“Right from the onset the ECB did not have a strong case against Kaneria.
It seemed that it was just to show the world that their county cricket was clean from fixing,” Latif said. Kaneria was banned in June last year after his Essex team-mate Mervyn Westfield blamed the Pakistani leg-spinner for pressuring him to concede an agreed number of runs in an over in the match.
His appeals against the ban and for a reduction in his punishment were rejected earlier this year.
“The ECB’s ego got severely hurt that an English cricketer got busted in a fixing scandal but because of the other case of Pakistan cricketers (in 2010), the ECB wanted to prove a point that Pakistani cricketers are the ones who are at the wrong end,” said Latif.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1032754
Why does the British press not take up the issue of IPL. The IPL is the biggest gambling den in cricket and is currently undergoing an investigation with many cricketrs still in the lock-up.
Oh I forgot, this is the same ICC who was very actively involved when three of our cricketers were caught in allegations over spot fixing and remained silent when the BCCI President N Srinivasan’s son-in-law was given a life-time ban over betting in cricket.
10. Banning other countries players ONLY
Pakistani off-spinner Saeed Ajmal has said India’s Harbhajan Singh and R Ashwin are “chuckers” and blamed International Cricket Council (ICC) for being silent on the duo. The 38-year-old Ajmal, who was banned from bowling by the ICC due to a suspected illegal bowling action, has now remodelled his action. However, he is currently not part of the national team.
In an interview to a Pakistani news channel, Ajmal hit out at ICC for being “one-sided” and targetting Pakistan bowlers for exceeding the 15 degrees bowling action limit. Ajmal said both off-spinners Harbhajan and Ashwin exceed the permitted 15-degree limit while bowling. “I have been watching Harbhajan Singh and other bowlers. They are still chucking. They are not being stopped (by ICC),” Ajmal said in the TV interview yesterday (November 2).
Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/sports/cricket/controversy-saeed-ajmal-calls-harbhajan-singh-r-ashwin-chuckers-1916985.html
Sae has happened with other Pakistani bowlers Hafeez, Bilal Asif etc
Even West Indies & Sri Lanka bowlers but never Indian bowlers or the Big Three!
Now ‘ICC’ has banned two Bangladeshi bowlers over illegal bowling actions which were ‘coincidentally’ deemed unfit just days before their t20 world cup match against India!
11. Opposing DRS
After India won the World Cup in 2011, commercial might met on-field success. Seven months after that Sydney Test, in July 2008, the Umpire Decision Review System (now simply DRS) was tried out during India’s tour to Sri Lanka. In the three Test-match series, India managed to get one out of 20 referrals correct.
While some countries use DRS, India has doggedly resisted any move to make it “mandatory” in bilateral series. To no one’s surprise, ICC gave in to BCCI and made the review system an optional, bilateral arrangement between the teams playing the series.
Thanks primarily to resistance from India, the ICC had abandoned attempts to introduce mandatory use of the Decision Review System after only three months.
“The symbolic value of the DRS is much greater than arguments about technology. It was the means by which the BCCI made it clear that the game will be played under the terms that satisfied them and they reserved the right to say no to whatever they didn’t like,” he added. “It (DRS) has become the thing that the BCCI can’t say yes to because they’ve said no to it for this long.”
Pulling up the International Cricket Council for its “toothlessness” in allowing the BCCI to get away by opposing use of the umpire Decision Review System in bilateral series involving India, former England captain Mike Brearley on Saturday said the technology could not be held back for long.
“It seems absurd to me that there should be separate technology arrangements in Test matches involving India from those involving every other team. Imagine if all the Premier League football matches use the goal-line technology, except the matches involving Manchester United,” he said speaking on the topic “In the zone, cricket, leadership and governance”
He termed as “toothelssness” the ICC’s failure to stand up to the “arrogance” of the BCCI.
“It’s a sign of the toothlessness of the ICC and the arrogance of the BCCI that this is allowed to happen. The BCCI should argue their case as forcefully as they can, but go along with the vast majority,” sid Brearley.
“I am angry that in the old regime of cricket England and Australia had the power and used it to suit themselves. I am equally angry that India has sometimes done the same, and that England and Australia joined in, on India’s side a couple of years ago.”
90% of Indian fans want DRS but BCCI stands in the way:
Shouldn’t an over arching body like the ICC be able to tell the BCCI to use DRS or get f……?
The ICC can’t tell anyone to get f……..
This is the greatest misconception about the ICC – that they’re a genuine governing body. They’re not. The ICC is a private members club run to serve the interests of (three) individual cricket boards. It has no power over anything except the labels “Test”, “ODI” and “T20I” cricket.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/40lx41/is_it_possible_to_say_enough_is_enough_to_bcci/
12. Restrictions on Indian commentators
One of the requirements for a BCCI commentator is the willingness to avoid a list of taboo subjects, including Indian selection, DRS or administrative matters
Chappell told Hindustan Times on Tuesday that when he asked what the restrictions were he was told he couldn’t talk about Indian selection, DRS or administrative matters. “I responded saying I didn’t feel I could do my job properly under those circumstances and therefore declined the offer,” Chappell said. The Hindustan Times report was referring to the ongoing limited-overs series, but Chappell’s account of his turning down a commentary offer applied to the Border-Gavaskar series earlier in the year.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/679135.html
13. Corruption in BCCI
After three Indian Premier League players were accused of spot-fixing by Delhi Police, three of the highest officials in the Board of Control for Cricket in India have resigned or stood down.
So numerous are the scandals, it might be appropriate if the acronym of BCCI were to stand for the Board of Cricket Corruption in India.
Any hope that such a Board will ever put its own house in order is surely in vain. Since the 1996 World Cup – staged in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – so much money has flooded into Indian cricket, thanks to those enormous audiences, that politicians cannot keep their noses out of the trough.
In the last couple of years the International Cricket Council has tried to de-politicise boards around the world, but without any apparent effect in India.
It won’t happen, though. The ICC’s decision-makers are the heads of those national boards, with too many hats, too many troughs, too many vested interests. It won’t happen, that is, unless cricket’s genuine supporters protest loudly and bring the maladministrators down.
14. Abolition of FTP & breaking promises (MOUs) on tours
http://www.cricketcountry.com/news/india-pakistan-series-pcb-approach-icc-over-bccis-refusal-396688
PCB have argued that BCCI should not have signed the MoU if they were uncertain of government clearance for the series.
PCB has taken up the issue of cancellation of bilateral series with India last December, as per an MOU signed between the two boards in 2014 to play six bilateral series, with the ICC. An official in the board told PTI that chairman Shaharyar Khan had brought up the issue at the recent ICC board meeting in Dubai and stressed the need for boards to respect bilateral agreements. “Shaharyar did take up this issue at the ICC meeting and pointed out that India had not played Pakistan in a bilateral series since 2007 and it had caused loss of millions of dollars to the PCB in estimated revenues,” the official said
He said Shaharyar made the point that if the BCCI had to seek government clearance to play Pakistan in a bilateral series it should not have signed the MOU in the first place.
“He made the point that it was strange that when India can host Pakistan at home for an ICC event like the World T20 it was reluctant to play in a bilateral series and constantly kept on giving the excuse of not having government clearance,” another source said.
The source said that Shaharyar had stressed that the PCB wanted good relations with the BCCI but the MOU was a legal binding document to play bilateral series and the PCB had the option of using it to seek compensation.
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/28782/are-icc-and-pcb-bowing-down-to-bcci-again/
Later on, Najam Sethi took over and accepted India’s rules in terms of the Big Three, only because of the illusionary Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that allows the two countries to play only five bilateral series over the next eight years.
Since the MoU has been signed, there was clearly a one-sided effort by PCB to play series against India. PCB Chairman Khan, after a few weeks, visited India to convince BCCI Chief Jagmohan Dalimya for the series and it was purposed that the first of the five bilateral series will be played in December this year.
However, the technical part is the MoU signed between India and Pakistan.
Does it hold any value?
Does it have any credibility?
The Big Three received Pakistan’s vote on the basis of the MoU, now if the terms are not being fulfilled, who will be answerable?
Cricketing ties are being cancelled over political reasons, where is ICC and its rules now?
15. Altering cricket rules to favor their batsmen
More batsman friendly laws have been recently adopted to extend coverage timings (more advertising revenue), and helping out strong Indian team batting lineup.
Cricket is at its best when there’s balance between bat and ball. Changing this rule will bring back some parity on the pitch.
- Limit on number of bouncers a bowler can bowl
- No ball-free hit
- Bigger size & thickness of bats
- Decrease in number of fielders at different time of innings
- Increase in number of power plays
http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-news/rule-load-game-favour-batsmen/42997
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/891619.html
So 2015 world cup was a total batsman’s world cup:
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/feature/7836541/Its-a-Batsmans-World-Cup.html
16. Abandonment of test championship
They are delaying ICC test championship as India has failed to achieve 4th position in test rankings (required for qualification).
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/oct/11/test-championship-england-icc-drs
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/422574.html
Julian Hunte, the West Indies board president, has said that the Indian cricket board shot down a proposal mooted by the ICC to organise Test cricket around the four-year Test championship cycle.
Hunte’s revelation – the first official disclosure by an ICC board member following reports that the Test championship plan had faded – came in his report at the annual general meeting of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) this month.
17. Tim May
May, who was last month controversially ousted from an International Cricket Council players’ committee amid allegations of pressure from India, said he was tired of battling the governing body.
“More and more we see allegations of corruption and malpractice on and off the field dominating headlines,” he said, stepping down as the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (Fica) chief.
“A vital ingredient of any organisation is the ability of its leaders to set the moral and principled example to others, and to police its organisation from top to bottom to ensure adherence to those principles.
“Yet cricket increasingly seems to be pushing aside the principles of transparency, accountability, independence, and upholding the best interests of the global game, in favour of a system that appears to operate through threats, intimidation and backroom deals.”
May has previously challenged all national cricket boards on issues ranging from tour scheduling to the Woolf report, which tried to revamp ICC governance but was rejected by India.
Tim May had won the election 9-1 before a re-vote was called
The recent election of former Indian leg spinner Laxman Sivaramakrishnan as player’s representative on the ICC’s cricket committee smacks yet again of BCCI overreach. According to news reports, the incumbent Tim May—who has spoken frequently about how the BCCI exerts unfair influence on the ICC’s decision-making and how its stand against the Decision Review System (DRS) is harming world cricket—had won the election 9-1 before a re-vote was called. This time, he lost 4-6. The representative is elected by captains of the 10 Test cricket-playing nations.
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/bcci-arm-twisting-icc
Angus Porter, chief executive of the Professional Cricketers’ Association in England, was quoted in The Indian Express as saying, “The evidence shows that a number of captains were asked by their respective boards to change their votes.”
18. Against expansion of game
It’s more than 130 years since Test cricket was first played and in that time the sport has expanded to include only 10 countries who play it seriously. Cricket remains insular and if the BCCI had their way, even fewer would.
BCCI has also done its bit to oppose cricket growing as a Olympic sport.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/755009.html
Raja Randhir Singh, the Secretary General of the Olympic Council of Asia and till recently India’s sole representative at the International Olympic Committee, has said cricket is giving up on the chance for “global expansion” by staying out of the Olympics.
Responding to a report on ESPNcricnfo that cricket at the Olympics is likely to remain a distant dream, Singh said, “If cricket was on the Olympic programme it would give a great boost, it would not be restricted to the few countries where it’s played and it would come on a global stage where all the greats of the world of sport are playing.”
The opposition to a push for cricket to return to the Olympic fold for the first time since 1900 is being led by the BCCI and the ECB. Singh says he has been “very disappointed” with the BCCI’s attitude on the issue for the last few years. India refused to send either their men’s or women’s teams to the last Asian Games in Guangzhou in 2010 and Singh hopes they will change their stance for the upcoming Asian Games in the Korean city of Incheon in September.
“They should send a team and I hope they do so. Even China is putting up teams and other countries in Asia are following suit. Why not cricket, the sport needs to be expanded.”
Cricket was part of the 1998 Commonwealth games in Malaysia. South Africa beat Australia to win the gold medal
One of the BCCI’s objections to joining the Olympics is their concern over giving up its ‘member autonomy’. Over the last few years, the BCCI has steadfastly kept its distance from the Indian Olympic Association as well as the sports ministry. There is a view in the BCCI that if the national team participates in multi-discipline games their position may come under scrutiny. Singh recalls how despite “trying very hard”, the BCCI refused to accept cricket as part of the last Commonwealth games in Delhi
19. Some Public Comments
Though as a cricket fan I hate this arm twisting and preferential treatment . I am enjoying observing the events as BCCI is pushing other boards to the brink bases on money power. I would like to see who all submit and who all take a stand . The fun part is major opponents of BCCI and official saviors of cricket ECB and CA are part of this evil plan too. Now let’s see who the minions will complain to 🙂
Definitely India is making Cricket as a business. Such as IPL. Why they don’t concern about game rather business??? Since IPL became commercial, the cricket is not being as a game. BCCI is trying to control everything just because of money? They supposed to arrange game based on Indian cricketers. So, this will prove how actually cricket works in Indian. BCCI don’t know how to respect the world actually. This is why they are trying to do whatever they want and just because they are making cricket so commercial. Just pointless!!!
I don’t believe this is just about developing the sport. If it were, then I am sure none of the other boards would disagree. The problem is, you cannot have someone sign a blank agreement with a promise of a golden package. You have to show the golden package before one will sign the dotted line. The Big 3 may claim all they want, but until they put pen to paper, outline the 5-year plan that they intend to put into action to “develop the sport”, it is extremely challenging to absorb their intent as being noble.
Cross-subsidization has nothing to do with this draft proposal, empty stands notwithstanding. Here’s a business term for you mate – COLLABORATION. I’d like to see the big 3 implement that and dilute their proposal in favour of this concept. Any takers?
It’s a complete blackmailing from BCCI to ICC not participate in any ICC event if this radical proposition not passed in their favour. BCCI for god sake leave the game of cricket free from POLITICS please.
” Once upon a time cricket was a game of gentleman then India started dictating the game itself and things just turned around”
Wow! The poll says almost 80% is against. So it means, majority understands it’s a wrong thing to do. Only 7.5% says it’s correct. Well, I don’t know why any country will support this, except the big three, even big three, I’m not sure 😛 So funny!
Solution
NOW is the Mauka (opportunity) to raise one’s voice against oppression, injustice & blackmailing. As many boards along with their governents as possible must raise their concerns, otherwise cricket may soon become a dead man’s game….
However I believe probably many boards including PCB have gone straight into the hands of BCCI & probably nothing will be done at their level…..
It is all a continuation of the tactics of the global elite, which I have been mentioning in my articles.
Latest Example:
Recently ICC allowed Indian players to wear Army caps in support of Pulwama false flag, thus politicizing the game.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/230811-indian-cricket-team-was-granted-permission-to-wear-army-caps-says-icc
Although England all-rounder Moeen Ali, was banned in 2014 for wearing wristbands bearing the slogans ‘Save Gaza’ and ‘Free Palestine’ on the first two days of the third Test against India at The Ageas Bowl. Double standards by ICC in favor of BCCI once again.
Your style is really unique compared to other folks I’ve read stuff
from. I appreciate you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this web site.