Cricket's sanctity restored
The Indian media reacts to the Lodha Committee judgment, suspending the owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals
15-Jul-2015
Welcoming the suspension of the owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals, The Indian Express calls the Lodha Committee judgment "a moment of closure that could help reinstate cricket's credibility".
By basing the quantum of punishment solely on the codes and rules of the BCCI, the Lodha panel has held up a mirror to cricket. The tight group that has historically rallied around its own has been told that rules shouldn't just be followed in letter, but in spirit, too. This is a reminder that checks and balances do exist, but motivated overwriting or selective punishment can defeat the most complete constitution. The BCCI has got a public shouting for ignoring cricket's inner voice.
The Hindu says the punishment handed out by the committee "ought to be welcomed by cricket fans and all those who cherish the game's purity", and holds that concerns about players having to bear part of the punishment for team owners' misdeeds are misplaced.
Punishing teams for misconduct is nothing new in international sport. The scandal that rocked Italian football in 2006 led to even a top team, Juventus, being relegated and stripped of two titles. Mr. Lodha has made it clear that the spirit of cricket is larger than any individuals or franchises, or financial losses. In any case, the BCCI has the option to hold a fresh auction for the Chennai and Jaipur franchises, or let the affected players be bought by other teams.
Writing in The Economic Times, Anand Vasu says the IPL's future could hinge on whether the owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals sell their franchise stakes or choose to hold on to them.
It is pertinent, however, to note that no mention is made of either Chennai Super Kings (CSK) or Rajasthan Royals (RR) in the 14,770-word final opinion that the Lodha panel provides. It's safe to assume, then, that the teams might still continue to exist, if the existing owners find suitable buyers and want to offload their assets as they can no longer reasonably operate them.
It would also not be far-fetched to suggest that this is in the best interest of not merely the league itself, but also the other six franchises currently running teams. Both CSK and RR were not merely crowd favourites, but they were, ironically, among the more professionally administered outfits.
Should the respective owners not want to sell brands that have been built with considerable investment of time, money and effort over eight years, the impact on the league could be huge. Certainly, the BCCI could look for two new teams, come IPL 2016. But there is no guarantee that they would attract similarly attractive bids, given the hammering the league has taken in the court of public opinion in the recent past.
In the Times of India, Ayaz Memon writes that the biggest import of the Lodha report is that the shield BCCI has always used to cover itself with, that it is a private society which owes allegiance only to itself, has been busted.
That cricket belongs to fans is the unequivocal message of this report. BCCI's job is only to manage the sport. With efficiency, transparency and probity.
In Hindustan Times, Pradeep Magazine says that the real mission of the Lodha panel will be completed only when it comes out with a detailed blue-print of the administrative reforms the BCCI needs to undertake.
The Indian Board's constitution is a relic from an amateurish past with 'might is right and what is good for us the officials is good for the game' being their unsaid preamble and the governing principal.
The conflict of interest, the root cause of the present ailment which has in its grip not just the administrators but the players as well as their agents, needs to be rooted out of the system.
In the Wire, Sharda Ugra writes that until Tuesday afternoon, a cynicism had prevailed that a gentle slap on the wrist is what would bring the IPL corruption case to its closure. The Lodha panel instead landed a punch right into the solar plexus of everyone involved and everyone watching.
In reality, they did what they had done as judges every day of their professional lives: looked at one set of facts alongside its relevant set of rules and passed sentence. The individuals involved, the consequences of the sentence on the individuals are never factors arriving at a sentence, which at its best, must be an act of simplicity and clarity. As the lawyers say it: these are the facts and this is the law.