Beyond a boundary

Why ICC should have a say in IPL

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has recently stated that the International Cricket Council (ICC) will not have a say in the administration of the Indian Premier League (IPL). The proposal, made at a meeting in Dubai recently, was part of ICC’s larger plan to “monitor” the burgeoning T20 tournaments around the world — IPL may be the richest but every cricketing nation has a similar tournament on its annual calendar. The Indian cricketing body has said that IPL is a domestically organised tournament, just like the Ranji Trophy, in which the ICC has no say. To that extent, BCCI is correct as ICC does not have the jurisdiction to get involved in domestic tournaments until requested, and it does not get involved in similar domestic tournaments in Pakistan, Australia and elsewhere. But that should change.

The BCCI’s apprehensions principally centre on the possibility that ICC would want to muscle in on the enormous profits that the 11-year-old cash cow generates — its brand value crossed $5 billion in 2017. This may be a valid concern, but a disingenuous one too. First, it is worth recalling the IPL concept is not an original one. It came up as a result of some formidable competition from Subhash Chandra’s Indian Cricket League (ICL) that, Kerry Packer-style, was attracting international cricketers — not to speak of BCCI board members — to an attractive tournament format. The BCCI at the time had complained that the ICL operated outside the purview of the ICC. It imposed lifetime bans on ICL players and then launched its own fantastically successful copycat version that killed off the ICL. Its founding values alone, therefore, contradict its current arguments. This apart, unlike the Ranji Trophy, IPL’s enormous profits are predicated on the participation of international players, umpires and a host of other officials who also serve in other ICC tournaments, including the World Cup. Indeed, all other cricketing events on the calendar tend to be put on hold when the IPL is underway. Given that the resources of the global cricketing community are being leveraged, the argument that this most significant tournament in the annual calendar should claim some sort of an exception appears weak.

There is another good reason for the IPL and all other similar tournaments to be under the ICC’s umbrella. Around the world, T20 is becoming the most popular format of the sport, and has the potential for an explosive multiplier effect in creating higher levels of tournaments for cricketers — just as the domestic premier European football leagues feed into the hugely popular inter-club Champions League. A Champions League T20 tournament flopped because it was run by BCCI, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa, without any cohesion among the other major cricketing nations — England, West Indies, Bangladesh, Pakistan. A similar tournament involving all nations under the ICC’s umbrella would have a better chance of success, and also introduce a healthy, genuinely sporting dynamism into T20 tournaments beyond the hoopla of money-making and, inevitably, new standards of corruption. Indeed, the exclusion of the IPL and other T20 tournaments from the ICC’s remit is sui generis in the sporting world. Associations such as FIFA, ATP, or NBA may not be models of great administration but their roles as global supervisory bodies for each sport has enhanced the popularity of their respective sports. Cricket, on the other hand, has a diminishing audience except for the individual T20 leagues. For this format to survive as a sporting property rather than a short-term way for cricketers and administrators to bolster their income, it demands a global not a parochial approach.