England in India 2012-13

Media boycott threatened over BCCI stance

George Dobell

November 13, 2012

Comments: 92 | Text size: A | A

Rohit Sharma checks out a camera, Dambulla, August 27, 2010
The issue of who the BCCI allows to take photographs during the series has caused a dispute © Cameraworx/Live Images

Major news agencies could boycott the series between India and England in protest at restrictions imposed upon journalists by the BCCI.

The News Media Coalition (NMC), which campaigns for media freedom around the world and represents a large number of media organisations, has issued a statement saying it "deplored" a decision by the India board to bar photo agencies such as Getty Images and Action Images. The BCCI have said they will supply their own images of the series, which starts with the first Test in Ahmedabad on Thursday, to be downloaded from their website.

"The NMC, an international organisation which defends the ability of the press to inform the public with independent news material, has urged the BCCI to withdraw the policy which will hit media coverage, fans and the sponsors involved with teams," a NMC statement read. "Getty Images and Action Images and Indian photographic agencies have been barred by the BCCI for this latest cricket series."

Agence France-Presse (AFP) announced they would suspend text and photo coverage unless the matter could be resolved ahead of the series. AFP stated that it "strongly believes the right of the media to cover news events without undue restrictions should be protected", adding it hoped "the BCCI will lift its policy so news media and fans can continue to get independent coverage".

Reuters and the Associated Press also said they may be forced to suspend coverage. Other news organisations are considering their positions, fearing that the BCCI's policy may set a precedent.

"The BCCI has offered to make its own photographs available but this is no substitute for independent and objective press photography," Andrew Moger, executive director of NMC, said. "Despite numerous opportunities, the BCCI has yet to explain why it is discriminating against photographic agencies or indeed whether other news sectors will be targeted. We deplore this move and insult to organisations which have supported cricket worldwide."

BCCI media manager Devendra Prabhudesai said the board was not seeking to bar news agencies. "The BCCI has a policy not to accredit photo syndication services like Getty Images and other similar foreign and domestic agencies," he told AFP. "We have no such problems with AFP, AP or Reuters since their text and photo service is for editorial use only. We have already explained our stand to the News Media Coalition."

The episode is the latest dispute between the BCCI and media organisations in the run-up to the series. Sky TV, which owns the television rights for the tour in the UK, decided not to send its team of commentators to India after the BCCI demanded £500,000 for hosting them in the grounds. Sky refused to pay and will instead commentate from a live television feed in London.

The BBC, which owns the rights for audio coverage in the UK, was also asked for an extra £50,000 but reached an agreement with the BCCI.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: George Dobell

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (November 16, 2012, 10:35 GMT)

@YorkshirePudding Why would the BCCI want to have a studio during the Champions Trophy/when India tour England? They do not broadcast India's away matches, ESPN-Star does and ESPN-Star also happen to be the official broadcasters of all global ICC events.

Posted by PurushothamanSrinivasan on (November 15, 2012, 4:01 GMT)

whover pulls out mate, BCCI will rule over as long as there is indian audience. BCCI is cash rich because of Indian audience within India, any audience or media attention overseas is a bonus but they are not a major market share for them. So when SKY and BBC demand a lot of bucks from poor nations for copyrights i dont think BCCI is doing anything wrong asking them money. i can watch BBC online videos from Australia, only UK audience can watch it free, you have to pay for it otherwise and even a highlights from SKY website is not free, so why are they playing poor? i think BCCI shouldnt budge and ask them to pay or else bye bye.

Posted by Wharfeseamer on (November 14, 2012, 19:49 GMT)

This has nothing to do with money. It's just a petty power trip. They are doing it because they can

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 17:33 GMT)

i'm sure other boards are taking note of this for when they next host an India tour.

Posted by Green_and_Gold on (November 14, 2012, 17:24 GMT)

Its all rubbish. All these people and businesses are trying to get as much money out of the game as possible and at the end of the day its the fans who ultimately pay for it.

Posted by grizzle on (November 14, 2012, 16:05 GMT)

Pathetic from the BCCI, and despite being an Indian, I hope they get what's coming to them!

Posted by A_Vacant_Slip on (November 14, 2012, 16:04 GMT)

@Cpt.Meanster (November 13 2012, 23:39 PM GMT) If it is Christmas and "Santa Claus" BCCI is bringing something to my chimney I will be blocking it up with bale of straw. BCCI "life blood of cricket". What astonishing conceit.

Posted by bobmartin on (November 14, 2012, 15:48 GMT)

Press photographers cost the BCCI nothing...just a press pass to enter the ground that's all. Therefore the only reason for banning them is so that the BCCI can claim copyright of the images taken by its approved photographers and claim royalties on their reproduction..Disgraceful money grabbing at the lowest level. What with that. the TV fees fiasco... the URS farce... can the BCCI sink any lower in the eyes of genuine cricket lovers...

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (November 14, 2012, 15:32 GMT)

Hopefully the ECB will return the compliment to the BCCI when india next tour the UK and during the ICC champions trophy next year by charging them £200K/venue for the privlage of them having a studio....

Posted by sandy_bangalore on (November 14, 2012, 13:08 GMT)

Whatever you guys say, the real losers are the Indian public. Imagine we were looking forward to having nasser,atherton etc commentating, and now we have to put with the likes of SIvarama, gavaskar,collingwood!!!

Posted by judge9847 on (November 14, 2012, 13:07 GMT)

Concerned_cricketer - the point is that Sky believed that they had paid for the facilities within the agreed contract price. The £500k was bolted on after that contract was negotiated and signed. I say let the BCCI go boil their collective cricket balls. In fact I'd take it further: get all the NGBs to agree that unless the normal arrangements are reciprocated in India, don't tour. And don't let players take part in IPL.

This latest action is, without question, censorship so that only what the BCCI want the world to see will be seen.

Greedy, nasty BCCI. Go play on your own in your own back yard.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 13:04 GMT)

Re the Sky point. A personal view - this is simply a bargaining and posturing position and Sky (rightly) don't want to set a precedent. The relationship between sport and the media is symbiotic - no media coverage, the sport will effectively die. IPL/BBL/Big Bash have not taken off in UK because of lack of mainstream media coverage. What is the obverse, ECB trying to charge Pakistani TV £500K, or Bangladeshi TV £500K for coiverage in England. It's a spat. Sky could easily afford it - if they lose a thousand customers because of lack of commentary they lose out (and I'm tempted to cancel - listening to 6 English blokes sat around a TV monitor in West London doesn't give me any feeling of what is happening. I'll be listening to TMS now). This is just the equivalent of a footballers 'handbag' swinging. Let's see whose pockets are deepest, BCCI or Sky (and don't forget STAR could pull out next year!)

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 12:45 GMT)

It's all money money money, what about all the freelance photographers that make a living from selling their photographs to photo agencies?

The cricket authorities just want to make as much money as they can regardless of the damage they might be causing.

Perhaps when India travel abroad to play other countries their respective cricket boards should follow suite, only to India though. Lets see then if they can take what they have been dishing out.

Posted by UK_Chap on (November 14, 2012, 12:29 GMT)

This is disgrace....., as I stated once before, the BCCI are yet again a beacon of light, exuding new innovations on every new tour for the crickting world. With all the evidence before them, there are still plenty of "indian fans" that are so blindly loyal to the BCCi that they cannot see the woods for the trees.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 12:21 GMT)

@Selassie-I I think Indian and UK fans are living in two different worlds as of now regarding the affordability of watching cricket on their TV.Mean 40 pounds is indeed huge to have a TV subscription let alone a SKY specific subscription while the STAR Cricket,the premier cricket channel is subscribed on premier DTH services on a la carte basis for as low as 25 rupees a month.So we don't share your concern about the payment of our subscription fees.I think all your problems start with the ECB selling the TV rights at astronomical prices for what i believe is still a niche cricket audience.Now Sky is taking their expenses to the consumers.So what is the point dragging BCCI and other boards to this payment discussion if your home board ECB is not subsidizing cricket telecasts on TV?You can bear with the hegemony of your home board but not the BCCI or anyone else!

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 12:11 GMT)

@Cpt.Meanste: do you have any idea about the sport of cricket or just talking like other indian fans (not fans I must say fanatics as they don't love cricket, they just love indian cricket).......and get this thing out of your mind that Cricket won't exist without India, surely India's huge population & the fact that India isn't good in any other sport makes India a financial super power in cricket........but real cricket exists out of India, there are millions of cricket fans outside the subcontinent and they will always be there and Cricket is better without all this Politics by your BCCI....go watch some real cricket played on the lively pitches of Australia or England or any other country where the contest between bowler and batsman is even, I am sure you don't follow real cricket,.....

Posted by Procter on (November 14, 2012, 12:08 GMT)

I believe BCCI is correct in not allowing free access to agencies who don't use the photos they take during matches for their own reporting but to market them to others. Why should BCCI allow a middle man photographer to take photos of the match and players and then flout it for money to others? Note BCCI is not stopping accredited media and news agencies from coming to the ground and taking photographs which then they use themselves and not market to others for financials gains.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 12:07 GMT)

This is absurd - I hope that the BCCI end up with egg on their face as this threatens to start a worrying precendent to media coverage of sports in general.

Posted by concerned_cricketer on (November 14, 2012, 11:23 GMT)

Surely, Sky can afford to pay the £500,000/- for the apce they will take up in having a studio there. Why should it be free? This kind of business was the only one that that made a lot of money during the Financial slowdown. People cut expenses by staying at home and probably increa the time watching TV. Sky did make a good profit in these lean times, so nothing wrong in having to shell out some of it. Think of it as an investment.

When Sky bid of the cricket telecast rights and wrested it out of the free channels, surely they must have assessed it to be worth it as a viable business idea. For a business idea to be implemented they wil have capital expenses like any businessman can tell you. This is one of them.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 11:02 GMT)

You reap what you sow - a nice idiom in respect to this:

Usually the idiom pertains to doing something bad, and getting something bad in return.

No doubt when India tour all other countries they will be reaping what they have sown in India.

Posted by Sammurai on (November 14, 2012, 10:17 GMT)

Howmany AFP, AP or Reuters photographers are standing in Bangladesh vs WI Series stads??

Posted by rapamum on (November 14, 2012, 10:05 GMT)

Well even "Getty Images" charge you money if you want to use those images from their bank. So, it is fair for BCCI to charge them.

Posted by PrasPunter on (November 14, 2012, 10:03 GMT)

@ Narkovian , I will be more than happy if (1) happens - Eng gives ind a real hiding silencing one and all. But as you said, that seems unlikely but not impossible, if at all Eng summons all the courage that they had shown in the past and get them. Lets hope for the best. Go Eng !!

Posted by Selassie-I on (November 14, 2012, 10:03 GMT)

@ AndyZaltsHair - LOL! how true. It is worrying, as per my last comment, how much are we payign to see a reasonable ammount of cricket! As I say it's already £500 a year to watch on SKY, and i'm at work for 70% of the cricket!

@ iyergopal85 on (November 14 2012, 02:37 AM GMT) The Ashes is still filling stadia, in both countries after 130 years, funnily enough I just bought some tickets for the 131st year.. I should think we can flog it for a while longer mate!

The big question is WHY are the BCCI just doing this? Surely, international photographers that would have been covering the match tomorrow have already flown out? Is this just the BCCI gazumping them for an extra few quid, like it did to the BBC & SKY?

Posted by IndiaNeedsBowlers on (November 14, 2012, 9:53 GMT)

@ Selassie-I - Completely agree with you. This is all about making money. All others who claim that BCCI is trying to control media etc. sorry but this is only and only about money. If BCCI could make more money by allowing the agencies, they would never stop them.

Posted by Selassie-I on (November 14, 2012, 9:30 GMT)

@ Posted by InsideHedge on (November 13 2012, 23:12 PM GMT) There is more than just the 'Hawkeye' company who provide ball tracking technology. Do you not think that they constantly improve their product so they don't lose the contract to another company? Hawkeye also provide ball tracking to other sports - tennis, snooker etc. - Cricket is not their only client. So these sports strive for improvement as well. I guess you're just believing the BCCI propaganda wheel that they are the centre of the universe and the globe would stop turnign if it wasn't for them. Why should they threaten everyone else and push their weight around, but not have it done back to them? is cricket a BCCI dictatorship now?

Posted by Narkovian on (November 14, 2012, 9:25 GMT)

This is like going back to 1950s/60s when spectators were banned from even taking their own camera in to the grounds !! I realize this has nothing to do with the Indian players, but two things would really please me in the next few weeks. 1/ England give India a good hiding.. not likely but I would love that. 2/ we cancel the whole thing and come home. I wouldn't like that, but i would understand it and support it. Who needs this sort of behaviour from BCCI ? Coming home and leaving them to stew would be a satisfactory result.

Posted by trav29 on (November 14, 2012, 9:17 GMT)

i think all the "sheep" that are blindly defending the BCCI here should stop for a minute and consider the implications of the BCCI basically imposing censorship on independent news agencies

thought things like this only happened in places like north korea

Posted by Selassie-I on (November 14, 2012, 9:10 GMT)

Again, it seems like the BCCI is interested in one thing only, money. Maybe if they focussed as much on developing the cricket they wouldn't have lost every test in Aus and England?

I'm not sure what their game is here, I mean are they trying to make themselves unpopular? I'm really struggling to see that it is anything bar outright greed at the moment.

Posted by sandy_bangalore on (November 14, 2012, 9:10 GMT)

I bet the BCCI offcials have got photos of the various African dictators and Kim jong il in their boardrooms and idolize them. Obvious in the way they run the game

Posted by Selassie-I on (November 14, 2012, 9:07 GMT)

@Posted by iyergopal85 on (November 14 2012, 03:23 AM GMT) maybe you forget that SKY owns the production rights in the UK to the cricket? they are a purely money making, private business (Unlike a cricket board who do actually have some other responsibilities). What happens when in the next series in England they now ask for £1m? They would be within their rights to do so, would you not like to see the Indian players be intervied by the Indian commentary staff etc? Do you not think that cricket should be accessible to the masses? or just the rich few? In the UK a SKY subscription to get the right chanels to watch cricket is at lease £40 per month! I'm nto a huge football fan, so that's more or less £500 a year to watch cricket from my house, if all the boards charged half a million extra, that might go up, bearing in mind I go to watch an England test every year, that's a huge expenditure on watching cricket. I could have a week all inclusive 5* in the carribean for that, and change.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (November 14, 2012, 8:38 GMT)

@Capt.Meanster: I'm afraid we'll have to lock horns on this one! Your rhetorical question: why would the world harm the game of cricket? Just for a moment, try & see it from the other perspective. There are a very large number of people who are asking the opposite: why would India (which, for this purpose, means the BCCI) be doing its darndest to destroy international cricket (specifically Test matches)? There is a building catalogue of issues over which BCCI seems out of kilter with the rest of the world: the veto of the improved DRS (9 countries to one); the new issues over broadcast rights; now press photographers are going to be shown the door as the BCCI operates a high-handed monopoly.. Where will it all stop? Do you think that when the Indian team tours other countries that there will be no 'reciprocal' welcome? This is all so shortsighted & creating a toxic atmosphere & tarnishing hitherto friendly relationships. (At least Rahul Dravid is going to be part of the TMS comm team.)

Posted by shillingsworth on (November 14, 2012, 8:37 GMT)

@GRVJPR - There is nothing professional about excluding media organisations who promote the sport to the wider public. Bad case of 'my national board right or wrong'.

Posted by FredBoycott on (November 14, 2012, 8:36 GMT)

B.C.C.I. = Ban Cricket Coverage in India. Very apt. This power show the BCCI are conducting will slowly destroy the game as we know it.

Posted by roarster on (November 14, 2012, 8:32 GMT)

It's all getting a bit Orwellian at BCCI. We'll tell you what you look at and listen to and we'll decide if you like it too!

Posted by IndiaNeedsBowlers on (November 14, 2012, 8:32 GMT)

Firstly I think the issue is just the way this has been reported. There is a stance that BCCI has taken that they want to sell the pictures, obvious reason is to make money. For people who seem to be commenting for or against BCCI, I hope you all by now have understood that the prime intention of BCCI with respect to cricket is to make money. I doubt anybody in the BCCI even thinks/cares of controlling media etc. If today they could somehow make more money by allowing agencies to take pictures, mark my word they would go for that. Secondly, England itself is a big market for cricket, and just the way other boards think of making money, when India visits their countries, BCCI is thinking of making most out of England's visit.

Posted by anuradha_d on (November 14, 2012, 8:26 GMT)

when the boycotting party is the loser from the boycott.....how can the boycott be effective in achieving anyything

Posted by 200ondebut on (November 14, 2012, 8:21 GMT)

All very pathetic - still gives Sasha Baron Cohen plenty of material for his next film.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 8:06 GMT)

Having seen photo tweets by Finn, Mountford etc from India, may be this policy makes sense. Some of these journos seem to highlight the not so great side of India and still seem to have a negativity that stems from a colonial mentality - I mean Lawrence Booth tweets - ' In Ahmedabad, the locals are friendly but pigeons are a nuisance' - that smacks like a line straight out of king Soloman's mines. And Sky needs to explain for what those charges are being quoted.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 8:01 GMT)

@GRVJPR - agree with you completly @richardor -yes plz play cricket without us ,and lets see how much money you gain or how popular cricket begins i know all these people are just jelous of us ,especially the fact tht we are world champions and will call WC also a meanigless tournement ,just to criticise India .

Posted by dunger.bob on (November 14, 2012, 7:59 GMT)

@ iyergopal85 on (November 14 2012, 03:23 AM GMT): Once again, not a marketer, but I guess 'ambush marketing" is the act of piggy backing an event and selling unauthorised souvenirs and trinkets. I can understand why organisers would object to that, but aren't the image agencies dealing solely with still photo's ? (btw, I'm asking you, not telling you.) I'm not arguing that it isn't the BCCI's right to do it, I just can't see how it benefits the game of cricket in the long run.

Posted by kingcobra85 on (November 14, 2012, 7:24 GMT)

who cares when you have TV ?

Posted by Nutcutlet on (November 14, 2012, 7:21 GMT)

I would like to know whether this behaviour has any precedent in the way these cricketing & media matters are being handled by the local board? Never before have I heard of the discourtesy that is being extended to the media with an English interest (this is irony, in case some readers aren't sure) on this tour. Can we take it that from hereon all visiting teams & their press corps, broadcasters, etc. will be subject to the same welcome? Now, if this proves not to be the case.. what do we call that? Special treatment doesn't quite cover it, but something more sinister does.

Posted by Kitschiguy on (November 14, 2012, 7:18 GMT)

The BCCI will kill cricket. They will kill it dead.

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (November 14, 2012, 7:13 GMT)

If ECB or CA had done this then there would have been glowing articles on "innovative commercial thinking" from these "developed and professional" boards. Oh the hypocrisy of it!!

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (November 14, 2012, 7:11 GMT)

"We have no such problems with AFP, AP or Reuters since their text and photo service is for editorial use only. We have already explained our stand to the News Media Coalition." - Why is the NMC misrepresenting the BCCI stance? Sounds like usual drill of bad mouthing BCCI. Actually if the NMC keeps doing like this then serves them right if they are actually banned!

Posted by karths on (November 14, 2012, 6:47 GMT)

Im fed up with BCCI, but actually i dont hate them nor am i angry at BCCI. @ richardror : other countries would dare to do it because they dont have enough money. Actually BCCI is being professional although crony,they did nothing wrong and are according to the rules. If other boards are fed up with BCCI,they have to grab some balls,unite and stand against BCCI.But they wont do it.It is completely other boards' fault.As Ian chappel said, I blame other 9 member boards for not standing upto BCCI.Sure BCCI controls 80% of money flow,but if others refuse to play aginst them,what would they do?Boards should also stop their players from playing in IPL...the BCCI wont be able to make any money then.So, my friends it is other boards' fault.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 6:38 GMT)

@ iyergopal85 you made some good points...... And then this "it would not be long before players decide to play only IPL and abstain from all other forms of cricket" ...... Oh dear are you a BCCI employee?

Posted by Plz_Dont_Get_Whitewashed on (November 14, 2012, 6:32 GMT)

BCCI to Everyone : "Know your Role and Shut your Mouth" !!! :D

Posted by sweetspot on (November 14, 2012, 6:32 GMT)

@dunger.bob - Don't tell me you never saw any cricket photos from AP, AFP or Reuters. Don't tell me you only buy from photo syndication services! Who is stopping the media? The event is being telecast live, for heavens sake! All news agencies are there. This image syndication business is new and is in the game of making money through syndication. This is a BCCI event, and the BCCI can kick anybody out just like you could at your wedding.

Posted by sweetspot on (November 14, 2012, 6:28 GMT)

@AndyZaltzmannsHair - Are AP, AFP, and Reuters not international enough for you? Did you even read the piece? Photo syndication services have every right to photograph anything in public spaces under their freedom, and do whatever they want with the images they have. They have no right to demand access to an event held by BCCI or anybody else. The BCCI on the other hand, has EVERY right to decide who they want to allow. This is not the BCCI suddenly becoming unkind - it is some part of India suddenly waking up to the looting mentality of these agencies. Get with it.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 6:28 GMT)

My understanding is BCCI has no problem with AFP, AP or Reuters bringing their own photographers, since it can then be used only by that publication. But they have a problem with independent photo syndication services like Getty Images since they can sell these photos to anybody either for print or on the net.

Since other media companies (TV & Internet) are paying so much money to get the rights, why shouldn't BCCI insist on controlling the photos as well. They are Ok with the general press since material they collect is for editorial use only (and in general it serves BCCI's purpose). I don't see how rights to photo is any different from other media rights like video; you wouldn't expect BCCI to allow anybody to use videos of the game for free.

BCCI owns all the rights for the matches that happen in India and it is up to them to use it appropriately. The fact that nobody has sued (in this case as well as in the Sky case) clearly indicates they are legally right.

Posted by MaheshVenkat on (November 14, 2012, 6:21 GMT)

I'm no supporter of BCCI but to look at this as against the sport / free speech, etc. is stretching things too far. This is s business discussion between business folks. I'm sure any business has such discussions / deal negotiations every day except that they don't get coverage. Getty is a commercial entity and they seem to have worked out a model where they can create content for free (or a pittance) and then make money out of it. The report clearly says that news agencies have access but not other types of businesses.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 6:11 GMT)

"Getty Images now operates a large commercial website which allows clients to search and browse for images, purchase usage rights and download images. Costs of images vary according to the chosen resolution and type of rights associated with each image. The company also offers custom photo services for corporate clients." (Source:- Wikipedia) --- And they want to click the images for free? And People complaining here if they are not allowed to do so?

Posted by raghavmadan on (November 14, 2012, 6:11 GMT)

I knew even before reading the article that this would somehow be used to vilify BCCI in the matter against sky.

This dispute over photographs has been going on for YEARS. Don't believe me? Google it.

But how can you expect OBJECTIVE reporting from biased sites owned by conglomerate owning SKY ?

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 6:07 GMT)

"Getty Images now operates a large commercial website which allows clients to search and browse for images, purchase usage rights and download images. Costs of images vary according to the chosen resolution and type of rights associated with each image. The company also offers custom photo services for corporate clients." --- And they want the images be clicked by them for free? And people complaining here if they are not allowed to do so?

Posted by AMAZINGFAN on (November 14, 2012, 5:59 GMT)


Posted by Makkered on (November 14, 2012, 5:13 GMT)

Media Freedom is accepted, Hence forth other media companies are allowed. but some media creating mountain out of moth hole is something BCCI wants to cut out.

Posted by Makkered on (November 14, 2012, 5:10 GMT)

It is a very good move from BCCI, They dont have problem with AFP, AP or Reuters, then why is this NMC making so fuzz. Hope they are realizing time for free loaders are finishing...

Posted by Dhimu on (November 14, 2012, 5:06 GMT)

I think all of need to pause and understand the BCCI side of the story for a sec before bashing them. The article says they have no problems with agencies like AFP and Reuters, as they use the pictures taken during the matches for editorial purpose only. However agencies like Getty actually sell those pics to various printing and publishing houses across the globe. Now if you are making money out of BCCI's event and also copyrighting the pics then they will sure have a problem. Just because no has ever questioned this practice does not make it right.....

Posted by PrasPunter on (November 14, 2012, 5:01 GMT)

I could see the following happening in the near future - No bowler should bowl anything above 130 km/h when playing india. A batsman shall score no further than 50 odd runs. And to top it all, every player must declare at the airport that the "God" is the best batsman they have ever seen on the planet !!! And to say that the BCCI is the only professional board in the world is akin to saying that Barack Obama is the best batsman in the world. Cricinfo, requesting to publish this.

Posted by csr11 on (November 14, 2012, 4:36 GMT)

@iyergopal85 - well said.. @richardror and @vacant_head - please read this.. personally very appalled by some of the vitriol that is being spewed here. fortunately for english cricket it is well represented by sane voices and performances of the likes cook and trott and not by the shrill voices of some of its fans.

Posted by Biggus on (November 14, 2012, 4:10 GMT)

Talk of a split in the cricket world is not as silly as some would have us believe. With the BCCI acting like a spoiled child who has inherited the throne well before they were emotionally ready for it there is a rising groundswell of opinion against their petulant and domineering behaviour, and not just amongst the Anglo-centric cricket boards I would think. Those who say international cricket couldn't exist sans India are deluded. If it came to that the rest of us would undoubtably regard it as a regrettable course of action, but one that we felt compelled to take to save the venerable game of cricket from the rampant orgy of commercialism and cronyism that the BCCI is the champion of. Mark my words, the elastic will only stretch so far before it snaps.....

Posted by sandeepgla on (November 14, 2012, 4:01 GMT)

I think BCCI should charge Rs100/- for each person who wants to watch the series between India and England thats how they can raise more money.

Posted by Vasi-Koosi on (November 14, 2012, 3:51 GMT)

BCCI is just plain stupid. They have the right to be Greedy as they are in a Not-For-Profit organization which is raking profits more than any organization incorporated for profit. They need to do something to lift their image, and they have lost it again. May be they are so arrogant that they do not care about their image

Posted by csr11 on (November 14, 2012, 3:47 GMT)

@richardror and A_Vacant_Slip - grandiose statements. try persuading your diva batsman - yes KP - not to play IPL first..

Posted by freo75 on (November 14, 2012, 3:37 GMT)

I wonder if this is an indication that the BCCI isnt quite as financially well off as they would like us to think? IPL is declining rapidly and that particular golden goose seems to be on the way out (thank goodness!), so maybe this latest money grab is symptomatic of a deeper malaise.

Posted by Mahesh4811 on (November 14, 2012, 3:35 GMT)

ANOTHER of those shameful acts! Instead of developing fast bowlers, look where they are using their heads!

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 3:31 GMT)

@maddy20 Well the BCCI official did mention that the policy applies to both foreign and domestic agencies so I don't think local news agencies will benefit from this either. Also I believe that most papers normally get their photos from the photo agencies so you won't be seeing any photographers from the Hindu at the oval because they don't send one. @ IndiaNumeroUno I think the point is that they do pay for access but they are now all banned from the event because the BCCI wants to take, and presumably sell, all the photos themselves.

Posted by iyergopal85 on (November 14, 2012, 3:23 GMT)

@dunger bob. where was this logic when the "ambush marketing" clause was drafted? more products being advertised at the grounds means more advertising money and better for the game was not the logic used then. it is pathetic to see that people who felt that was justifiable at that time because the contract said so whine now when the same contractual commitments are the reason they are unable to get freebies. let us get this clear, SKY has decided to broadcast their commentary from a studio in UK since they could not afford to pay what BCCI is demanding for broadcasting rights from India. What do we when we see a BMW and realise we cannot afford it. we window shop and keep our mouths shut. we do not demand that BMW starts selling the cars at prices affordable to us.

Posted by harikrajeev on (November 14, 2012, 3:03 GMT)

This is bad on the part of BCCI . BCCI always dictates things like this . They should be focusing more on improving Stadium facilities like ticketing , Spectator entry , proper seating and seat numbering . I go to Bangalore regularly for test matches and I take pictures . This will be a bad thing from Professionals as well as Amateurs . This is an attempt from BCCI to control the media . Of late BCCI is getting a lot of stick from media . This has nothing to do with DRS . They had a point or two in favor of their objection towards DRS . Nothing in this case.

Posted by thephill on (November 14, 2012, 3:01 GMT)

perhaps the BCCI will also write their own match reports for the media to purchase from them as well. Maybe even create their own scorecards? They should be back to number 1 in no time!

Posted by SanjivAwesome on (November 14, 2012, 2:37 GMT)

Looks like truly commercial thinking is prevading the BCCI. This explains how they have become financially secure. Through US style demand controls. Free press coverage might become another fatality on the way to the commercialisation of my wonderful sport.

Posted by iyergopal85 on (November 14, 2012, 2:37 GMT)


surprising people have such short memory. the stand that ICC took on "ambush marketing" at the world cup in SA was not bossy? I hope people have not forgotten that school children were sent back because their T shirts displayed products that were in competition to the main sponsors. If countries decide to play against India, then the loss (financial and cricket wise) is theirs. you can flog an Ashes series only to a certain extent. it would not be long before players decide to play only IPL and abstain from all other forms of cricket. Let us admit, as long as we accept they are professional cricketers, we can not morally object to their going for optimisation/maximisation of their playing days.

Posted by maddy20 on (November 14, 2012, 2:30 GMT)

Now this is a bit overboard. While I agree with them blocking sky(you don't get two production studios for the price of one. ESPN STar is already using the one they are allotted per the contract and the contract with sky does not include a production studio clause), this particular action is not justified. If it is a strategy to help the local news agencies gain more prominence, then its good You do not see Indian Express or the Hindu taking snaps at the Oval. If its due to any other reason apart from that, then its bad.

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (November 14, 2012, 2:27 GMT)

Although my previous comment was a joke, the more I think about this the more alarmed I'm getting. Exactly WHY does the BCCI not want international news media present at the grounds? Think long and hard about it.

Posted by   on (November 14, 2012, 1:57 GMT)

Just another example of the BCCI throwing it's weight around. It's all just a bit pathetic really and I hope that it doesn't influence the series too much. We can but hope that actions like this do not escalate.

Posted by GRVJPR on (November 14, 2012, 1:53 GMT)

BCCI is the only professional Cricket Board in the world. There should be reason why they are way ahead of any other cricket board in the world. As far as those saying BCCI ruling ICC, Then Go and Stop BCCI. Ask your boards what's the reason they don't isolate the dictator board. There would be some answer. As far as I am concerned, I have always liked the professional approach of BCCI. Some people just want to sleep whole day and expect a Dinner at Taj Mahal in the Night , REDICULOUS!

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (November 14, 2012, 1:43 GMT)

They'll be charging us on posting comments on anything related to Indian cricket next. I'm scared a bill's gonna show in my letterbox after posting this.

Posted by dunger.bob on (November 14, 2012, 1:00 GMT)

@ Cpt.Meanster "that would be like Christmas without Santa". Only if you happen to be Indian. For most of the rest of us, it would actually be more like a picnic without the ants. ... I'm no marketing specialist but it does seem counter productive to alienate the media. When they distribute their photos around the globe, are they not promoting the game and helping to raise awareness and interest in it.? .. the stance also smacks of censorship, if I'm reading it correctly. It seems the BCCI wants to be the sole arbiter of which photo's the public gets to see. Apologies if I'm wrong about that, but if I am right I would be very worried about that level of control if I were you. At the end of the day its just a game of cricket they are reporting on, not the secrets of Area 51 ...

Posted by neerajprasher on (November 14, 2012, 0:08 GMT)

BCCI should charge England Players as well to playing in their grounds. England media should be for everything for the facilities.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (November 13, 2012, 23:39 GMT)

@richardror: Now I am not a BCCI supporter. However, your comment is ridiculous. If you want the rest of the world to STOP playing India, then cricket as a sport will virtually shoot itself in the foot. Cricket as we know will CEASE to exist. Sure, England, SA and AUS will continue to play cricket but that will be like Christmas without Santa, presents, and cakes. BCCI IS the life blood of world cricket. Why would the world try to harm the game of cricket ?

Posted by InsideHedge on (November 13, 2012, 23:12 GMT)

@richardror: You should be grateful to the BCCI that the DRS has improved since India refused to use it in its initial format. The latest revision that we see between Australia and SA is due to the BCCI requesting improvements. The inventors of technology such as Hawkeye, HotSpot have admitted issues with the technology. Pls. educate yourself before you indulge in anti BCCI commentating.

Finally the BCCI's latest demand is nothing to do with it dominating the ICC. As the report states, SKY is not sending its commentary team to India. So, you see? If you don't like the demands, you can stay away. I think that suits everyone, quite frankly.

Posted by   on (November 13, 2012, 23:08 GMT)

Well done BCCI.

BCCI do keep fighting the good fight !

Posted by   on (November 13, 2012, 23:02 GMT)

Haven't they tried pulling this stunt before? Maybe the first IPL?

Posted by A_Vacant_Slip on (November 13, 2012, 23:01 GMT)

@richardror (November 13 2012, 22:17 PM GMT) agreed completely.

Posted by richardror on (November 13, 2012, 22:17 GMT)

@IndiaNumeroUno - Yes the media does pay for photos and access thus they are allowed to 'invade' a stadium as you so put it. Personally I believe countries around the world should refuse to play India until India agrees to use DRS and stop demanding outrageous sums of money. The cricketing world is getting very angry and fed up. Its only because they dominate the ICC that this is allowed, any other country WOULD NOT get away with this, without question.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (November 13, 2012, 21:29 GMT)

Just hope we dump it all back on them next tour. Do they actually want to play our teams?

Posted by   on (November 13, 2012, 21:09 GMT)

Just, exactly... How much money can BCCI squeeze out of these tours? It is like a mammoth herculean conglomerate in itself

Posted by SSRajan on (November 13, 2012, 21:00 GMT)

Finally.. We can get rid of the media.. Hopefully BCCI sticks with this.

Posted by A_Vacant_Slip on (November 13, 2012, 20:58 GMT)

I find myself thinking "why am I not surprised".

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (November 13, 2012, 20:57 GMT)

"The BCCI has a policy not to accredit photo syndication services like Getty Images and other similar foreign and domestic agencies,"... I don't see any problem. Also, why does the press think they have a right to invade a cricket stadium? Have they paid for the photos and access? Do they share their sales profits with BCCI which has to bear the cost for the series?

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
George DobellClose
Tour Results
India v England at Dharamsala - Jan 27, 2013
England won by 7 wickets (with 16 balls remaining)
India v England at Mohali - Jan 23, 2013
India won by 5 wickets (with 15 balls remaining)
India v England at Ranchi - Jan 19, 2013
India won by 7 wickets (with 131 balls remaining)
India v England at Kochi - Jan 15, 2013
India won by 127 runs
India v England at Rajkot - Jan 11, 2013
England won by 9 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days