Cricketing Apartheid

"It's nothing but a form of apartheid when the board dictates that you can play with X but not with Y.", Kapil Dev was quoted as saying referring to harsh treatment of ICL players by the BCCI.

Clearly some strong words by the legendary all-rounder expressing his displeasure over the standoff between the BCCI and the ICL or the rebel league. It doesn't come as a surprise when decisions taken by the BCCI, more often that not seem extremely immature. There seems to be no respite in the board's bitterness towards the ICL ever since its inception.

While the BCCI chances upon every opportunity to cold shoulder the ICL, the players in its own backyard aren't spared either. It was nothing short of a shocker when the BCCI decided to preclude the participation of its players (V.V.S Laxman, Piyush Chawla and Ajit Agarkar) in the English county circuit involving ICL players. This stance by the board whose sole objective lies in improving the game and provide support to its players is devoid of any logic and commonsense.

Over the years world cricket has been witness to the inability and inefficiency of its governing body (ICC) to take tough stands on its member associations and in tackling issues especially on the game's richest board. There is little doubt over BCCI's hegemony in world cricket. However, it does not have any morality in initiating decisions that could hinder the game or its players. To say the ICL is an "unrecognized" format of the game - is just a subterfuge. With the second season due to begin, one would expect to see the ICL fight for its recognition with the ICC or in the courts with some vigor. A lot of questions continue to remain unanswered and the answer is quite simple. If soccer can have different leagues in one nation then why not cricket?

To forbid players from playing based on such reasons seems just irrelevant clearly indicative of a restriction in freedom of movement which wouldn't stand in the court of law. Over the years soccer and handball have had similar issues eventually impacting world sport. One such case was by Belgium player Jean-Marc Bosman. Bosman’s contract with Belgium club side RFC Liege had run out and he wanted to be transferred to French club Dunkerque. RFC Liege, however, refused to let Bosman leave without the payment of a transfer fee which Dunkerque were unwilling to pay. Bosman claimed that as a European Union citizen, he possessed the right to "freedom of movement" within the European Union if he wished to.

Another case that had a major impact was the ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) involving a Slovakian handball player Maros Kolpak. Kolpak was employed as a professional by a German second division team. As a national of a then non-European Economic Area (EEA) state, Kolpak was not considered by the German regulator to qualify for the benefits emergent from the decision in Bosman case. On this basis the Handballbund club limited the number of non-EEA nationals which a team could field in any one professional fixture. Kolpak suggested that an association agreement between Slovakia and the European Union entitled him to be treated in the same manner as an EEA national as regards treatment once in employment.

The implications of the above cases were largely significant and one among them was the "quota system", that limited the number of foreigners in a team was illegal. This decision augured well for the players and EPL teams such as Arsenal and Chelsea. Meanwhile the debate ceases to rest either within the ECB (England & Wales cricket board)on the Kolpak issue (dual nationality) in county cricket or the FIFA, suggesting for a "6+5" proposal (6 national & 5 foreign players in a team) which if implemented is certain to be challenged again by the EU Law and the ECJ which prohibits any discrimination based on nationality.

Cricket unlike soccer is not a ubiquitous sport restricting itself to a handful of countries. Until very recently, county cricket in the U.K was the only professional format which recruited foreign players to enhance the domestic competition. However unlike soccer cricketing nations thrive on the success of its national teams. And with not enough money in the domestic circuit, for the players a stint with a county team in England meant - great experience in enhancing skills and a sense of financial security. However with mounting broadcast rights, sponsors and new leagues like IPL and ICL cropping up the players are in a better position unlike the ones in the past.

The ICL however has reasons to be optimistic having found some support with the England and Srilanka cricket boards. The Lankan board's decision to allow its rebel players to participate in their domestic competition's might have made the BCCI crimson with embarrassment. Specially coming from a senior statesman like Arjuna Ranatunga who heads Srilankan cricket and regarded as an individual responsible for Srilanka's cricketing renaissance makes it all the more significant.

The ICL certainly has its limitations which probably doesn't align with the BCCI's objectives and the way it functions. Country representation, selection issues are some concerns. But to treat the rebel league and its representatives as pariah is setting a sad example. If the BCCI has any objections with the rebel league it has to take it up on a different platform. It's high time cricket had its own Bosman's and Kolpak's to fight against the system and get rid of the monopoly of the board's on its players.

An article by Simon Boyes from the Nottingham Law School clearly sums it up - "It ensures that sporting institutions have the power to promote a sport in a manner which they consider to be the most consistent with their objectives, provided that their choices do not give rise to discrimination or conceal the pursuit of economic interests."

At the end of the day one has to realize that an average sports persons' career lasts for not more than 5-6 years. Very few manage to be at the peak consistently and it only makes sense to maximize the opportunities in the short span. To deprive them of their bread and butter would be insane.

Bye Bye BCCI

Remember the phrase "Fire in the mountain run, run run" when you were a kid !! This is what the BCCI(Board of Control for Cricket in India) is upto hypocritically , unable to accept the fact that it has been given a shot in the arm by the new league started on similar lines to the BCCI which intends to add a new dimesion to cricket in INDIA called the "Indian Cricket League ", famously called the ICL.

While there is a definitive peril involved in starting a parallel venture as against the BCCI,one must admit it indeed is a bold move by the originators of the ICL. But the fact remains to be seen if the ICL can survive and its performance can be guaged over the next 3 or 4 years.To say it would be the future of Indian cricket as some would imagine would be too premature in comparison to the BCCI having governed cricket for more than 60 years.

With an handful of domestic players with the likes of Ambati Rayadu,L.R.Shukla along with Indian discards S.Sriram,Dinesh Mongia,Rohan Gavaskar and a few more signing up for the ICL, the BCCI in its inner conscience would be aware of what it has already lost in the process and the challenges that would need to be factored.While these are wake up calls for the BCCI ,losing key players is an sad indication for any sports organisation.

While its a win-win situation for a few stars like Brian Lara,Inzamam ,for some of the domestic recruits it comes as a blessing in disguise who even after a series of brilliant performances were overlooked by the selectors owing to favourism,Quota system and votes which would help them stick to their positions long enough.Though not part of the ICL ,a key example could well be S.Sharath of the Tamil Nadu,considered one of the better middle order batting prospect for INDIA in the mid 90's, even after key performances for over a decade doesn't get a look in because of the board's politics.

While not many are ready to vent out their frustration over the board there are a few like Bengal bowler Saurashish Lahri, 26 yrs of age who was quoted saying in one of the newspapers wherein he was referred to as a "veteran" by one of the East zone selectors. If this is kind of motivation that a zonal selector can offer, then the BCCI better not be surprised.

With paltry match fees and job insecurities at the domestic level it doesn come as surprise if more and more domestic players move into the ICL.After all what benefits do these players get slogging for 20 years,be it in the board or in terms of monetary gain. A state selectors job ? Pension from the BCCI?

With the ICL offering a lucrative sum of 90 lakhs for a period of 3 years for the domestic players and a massive 10 crore for an international player there's hardly any doubt one would be tempeted to jump the ICL bandwagon along with getting to play some cricket!

While the ICL is not the only league of its own, a similar venture was started by Allen Stanford in the West Indies to improve the standards of their countries cricket called the "Stanford 20-20 cup". Although some cricket pundits regard these leagues as a step in improving the standard of cricket, only with time can one know how beneficial they prove to be.

In the wake of such a turnaround what would be BCCI's next step? Wait and watch the mass exodus of the players signing with ICL and stating "We are not worried by the ICL, no beneifits for the players in future" or will the administration pull up its socks now finally, which predominantly is run by a bunch of people who have no or very little knowledge about the game?

While its certainly not the end of the road ,the board needs to realise that its exitstence is largely because of the players and there is not much the board can ponder about.The fact remains to be seen if it can bring out a revolution of sorts in the way the game has been run and the BCCI is all but itself to blame.

At the moment though its ICL which is having the last laugh.