48,390 crore reasons to do as you wish
“Do you mean that your commerce should overtake the enjoyment of the game?”
This was observed in 2016 by then Chief Justice TS Thakur, in the context of the number of advertisements during IPL matches.
Six years down the road, this observation by the top judge of the highest court of the land seems somewhat naïve and hopelessly idealistic — after all, what matters more than money?
The Indian cricket board (BCCI) has been flouting, seemingly without fear of punishment, the rulings of the Supreme Court on several issues, including the length of the terms of its office-bearers.
There are 48,390 crore reasons that BCCI will probably continue to act in defiance of the Supreme Court’s rulings, and its own constitution.
Rule 1(A)(q) of the BCCI’s constitution states: ‘IPL refers to the Indian Premier League which is the franchise-based Twenty20 tournament conducted by the BCCI for a maximum period of 7 weeks.”
This year, in blatant defiance of its own constitution, BCCI organised the IPL over 65 days — and it’s going to expand further over the next few years. The next two IPLs will have 74 matches, too, but the number rises to 84 matches each in 2025 and 2026, and to 94 matches in 2027.
BCCI secretary Jay Shah has said that the next ICC Future Tours Programme will have a two-and-a-half-month window for the enlarged IPL. “Let me inform you that from the next ICC FTP calendar, IPL will have an official two-and-a-half-month window so that all the top international cricketers can participate,” Shah said, adding: “We have had discussions with various boards as well as the ICC.”
It’s very likely that the other international boards will agree to BCCI’s request/demand, for one simple reason — money.
IPL’s money
IPL’s money is so powerful and that it can make cricketers retire from the international game, or make them choose an IPL team over the national team. This year, for instance, South African players Kagiso Rabada, Lungi Ngidi, Marco Jansen, Aiden Markram and Rassie van der Dussen chose to play in the IPL, not the Test series against Bangladesh. What fun playing for your country over five hard days of contest — for a relatively paltry fee —when you could play some Twenty20 matches, with a maximum four overs to bowl or 30 balls to play as a batsman? From the point of view of personal economics, it’s a no-brainer — money from a league over the notional pride of playing for your country.
Only a few years ago, cricket boards were willing to take the hard line over their players in the IPL. In 2009, Cricket Australia punished batsman Matthew Hayden for suffering or exacerbating an injury while playing for CSK in the inaugural IPL in 2008 — his annual retainership was cut down.
But the impact of the IPL money was huge right from 2008 — a survey done by the Australian Cricketers’ Association that year showed that 47 per cent of the national players and 49 per cent of the state players were willing to give up international cricket in order to play the IPL or the ICL in India. So much for national pride.
So Shah and Sourav Ganguly could well be right, that the various international cricket boards and the ICC would accept BCCI’s request for a window of 75-odd days for the IPL — saying no could mean rebellion and exodus of their players to the IPL.
The hypocrisy
Being a mercenary is not such a dishonourable thing — while there are many factors in finding employment, most of us go to the highest payer for our services. It’s happened in cricket before — Don Bradman’s interest in club cricket in England, for an annual consideration of £1,000, divided opinion in Australia in 1931. Ultimately, three Sydney businesses came up with an alternative by which Bradman would write and broadcast on cricket, and also promote men’s clothing, to make up for income lost by giving up a contract with the Accrington Club in Lancashire.
Obviously, money has been chased before. It’s only natural that the massive sum of Rs 48,390 crore the BCCI would earn from media rights for the IPL for the next five years would change opinions. Former captain Sunil Gavaskar, known for his deep commitment to Test cricket, is now an IPL commentator and fan. Yet he can also, rightly, write this about cricketers: “Many of them are quite happy to do that as they get more money playing the IPL than the domestic circuit and so are quite content to be limited in their ambitions. Once again, these are a fair few so Indian cricket doesn’t really gain much from that.”
BCCI president Sourav Ganguly also harps on about the ‘primacy’ of Test cricket, recently tweeting: “Whatever format u see..whatever the colour of the jersey u wear ..none beats such a game of test cricket ..no comparison@bcci@ICC ..let’s keep this format the pinnacle..”
Yet, at the ICC, he’d be negotiating for a reduction in time to play Test cricket. The hypocrisy is staggering.
