CBI's Report on Cricket Match Fixing and Related Malpractices (Section 5)

The natural corollary to the fact that disclosures during the CBI enquiry have revealed a thriving player-bookie nexus in India for nearly a decade, begs the question: what was the BCCI doing all these years? CBI has enquired into the role and functioning of BCCI to evaluate whether it could have prevented the malpractices.

CBI enquiry into the affairs of BCCI has not disclosed any direct evidence of nexus of any past or present office bearers of BCCI with the betting syndicate. However, a perusal of statements of present and past officials of the Board like S/Shri I.S. Bindra, Sunil Dev and Jaywant Lele has indicated that there were definite rumours/reports about match fixing and related malpractices from time to time. It is also quite clear that the BCCI never seriously addressed this problem till the lid was blown after Hansie Cronje affair.

It is obvious that, in spite of their public posturing now, all the office-bearers of BCCI over the past decade or so have been negligent in looking at this problem in spite of clear indications of this malaise making inroads into Indian Cricket. The primary reason behind this is the lack of accountability of BCCI to anyone. The structure of BCCI is such that it is very difficult for any person who has not previously held a post in BCCI or affiliate units to get into Cricket administration in India. This not only prevents infusion of fresh blood and ideas but also perpetuates a system of self-aggrandisement. Even in the State Units, it is extremely difficult to become a Member or an Office- Bearer for any person even with good cricketing credentials. Most of the State Units are perpetually in the control of a family or a group since its inception. A case in point is the Rajasthan Cricket Association which is being run by the family of Rungtas since its inception and, at present, even includes 10 employees of Rungta's as Members of RCA. Such members are basically incorporated to ensure that the unchallenged supremacy of a particular group is not threatened during elections. It is also interesting to note that one Ayub Gauri of Jaipur, with suspected underworld links, was in charge of security for a particular gate in a match between India and Pakistan at Sawai Mansingh Stadium, Jaipur in 1999.

One of the important sources of revenue of affiliate units is grant of in-stadia rights for advertising for domestic and international matches. In most instances, in-stadia rights are granted without following a uniform system, thus promoting arbitrariness. There is a need for greater transparency in this area. The system of zonal representation in BCCI and it's Selection Committee also needs to be reviewed since this basically attempts at distributing the fishes and loaves of office which also breeds parochialism. The functioning of BCCI at present reflects a dichotomy between running the affairs of the Board and administering Cricket, in which only the first aspect receives overwhelming primacy.

There are quite a few who believe that player selection at the lower levels, such as Under 19, Ranji Trophy, etc., is not always on merit. Patronage and nepotism operate rather blatantly. A more transparent system based on performance revealed by devices such as the Ceat ratings and ratings as devised by ESPN would greatly enhance the cricket administration's credibility in respect of promotion of talent.

There is no transparency even in the appointment of Coaches, Managers, Physiotherapists, etc. who are elected in the AGM after their names are suggested by some of the members. There is no panel available with BCCI, from which names can be discussed and thereafter ratified on merit. Basically, these appointments are an extension of patronage system to persons who curry favour with the office bearers of BCCI.

CBI enquiry has disclosed that, consequent to the commercial success of Reliance World Cup in 1987, the coffers of the Board started overflowing with big money coming in through sponsorship and television rights. A perusal of the Board's financial statement discloses that from a profit of Rs.5.06 lakhs in the financial year 1987-88, the profits soared to Rs.8.37 Crores in the financial year 1998-99. In normal circumstances, this happy situation should have been reflected in the performance of Indian team in the international arena. The argument here is that swelling coffers of BCCI should have resulted in better coaching facilities, better maintenance of cricket stadiums, infusion of more money into domestic matches, building up of a reserve pool of players and use of professionals, like sports physicians, dietitians, etc. This has not, however, happened in the Indian context. On the other hand, BCCI started a process of commercialisation of cricket without any vision as to how this money could be ploughed back to ensure better performance on the field.

Some of the policies of BCCI during the past decade which have directly contributed to match fixing and related malpractices are -

(a) frequent tours to controversial venues like Sharjah, Singapore, Toronto, etc.; (b) thoughtless increase in One Day Internationals.

CBI enquiry into match fixing allegations has indicated that matches in non-regular venues such as Toronto & Singapore may be more prone to fixing/betting as there is carnival-like atmosphere of nonseriousness at these venues. India is the only country which plays regularly in these arenas even at the cost of not touring regular Test playing nations like Australia, West Indies, South Africa, etc. which makes more sense in cricketing terms. The ostensible reason put forth by BCCI for touring these lesser venues is globalisation of cricket. It is difficult to understand why India should shoulder this burden when countries with a longer cricketing history like England and Australia are not doing so. In addition to this, is the disproportionate increase in One Day matches being played by India vis-a-vis other Test playing nations. For example, in 1999 India played nearly 40 ODIs and is scheduled to play 53 ODIs in the first 13 months of year 2000-2001, which is one of the highest by a Testplaying nation.

The aforesaid factors have contributed to malpractices in two ways: (a) the players are more exposed to betting syndicates in non-regular venues; and (b) a surfeit of ODIs result in lower levels of motivation for players who may get a feeling that there is nothing wrong in throwing an occasional match.

Moreover, due to the extremely busy schedule charted out for the national players, they hardly get any time to participate in domestic cricket matches. This has led to a decline in the standards of domestic cricket, as a result of which hardly any players of International standards are being thrown up. The off-shoot is that the reserve strength of the Indian bench is pathetic when compared to countries like Australia who can put up a world class side from their reserve strength itself. With their positions in the national side not being threatened by the reserve bench strength or fresh talent, it is only natural for members of the Indian team to become complacent and more susceptible to the lure of match fixing, etc. as their position would not be under threat for lack of performance in a few matches.

During this enquiry, no evidence has come forth to prove that officebearers of the BCCI over the years have received any money to ensure India's participation in any tournament. However, a study of guarantee money received by BCCI in some of the tournaments shows an interesting trend which indicates that it is not commensurate with India's standing in the cricketing world. Today, every second person in the world watching cricket 'live' on television is probably an Indian which gives an enormous clout in financial terms to the BCCI. In view of this, BCCI can fix its own terms to tour any country to ensure its participation in an event since the television rights for any tournament featuring India can be sold for a very heavy amount. But this position is not reflected in the guarantee money received by BCCI as illustrated below:

These figures are self-explanatory and indicate that India has undersold itself due to reasons not satisfactorily explained by BCCI office-bearers during their examination by CBI. This enquiry has not looked into the matter of grant of television rights since this issue is being dealt with separately.

In conclusion, the BCCI has been negligent in not preventing matchfixing and related malpractices in cricket in spite of clear signals about the malaise. This is mainly due to the fact that, for most office-bearers of BCCI, running the Board is an end in itself and the future of cricket is only incidental. However, the solution does not lie in the creation of a new administrative structure or overriding bureaucratic control on the existing structure. It, perhaps, lies in making the functioning of BCCI more professional, transparent and accountable to a non-bureaucratic autonomous authority.