BCCI rule on Conflict of Interest is a ‘disservice’ to India’s own cricket ecosystem | Cricket News – Times of India

MUMBAI: Have the set of rules determining BCCI’s conflict of interest – first recommended by the Justice RM Lodha-led committee – been specifically designed to only make Indian professionals in the cricket ecosystem suffer?
Because, it’s clear that overseas professionals who come looking for work in India – which, by any given standard is close to 70% volume of all globally-generated cricket employment – are not bound by any such rules of conflict, thus creating high levels of disparity for the locals.
Put the other way round, a professional working in India’s cricketing ecosystem cannot undertake more than one assignment in a year – be it commentary, franchise-related work, coaching, mentoring, analytics, training, physiotherapy, or any association with the BCCI or its members, etc – within India.

India’s massive cricket circuit clearly appears to be a prisoner to a very ‘warped rule’ that the BCCI and the judiciary needs to take a look at once again.
Ponting & McDonald can but Tendulkar, Dravid & VVS can’t
Take Rahul Dravid for example. By virtue of being the director at the National Cricket Academy (NCA), Dravid cannot work anywhere else in Indian cricket or overseas – even as a consultant – and can neither get involved with commentary. If a VVS Laxman decides to indulge in commentary, a case of conflict gets filed because he’s a mentor at Sunrisers Hyderabad. Sachin Tendulkar‘s 12-year-old association with Mumbai Indians becomes an unwarranted talking point simply because he’s part of a fundamentally defunct cricket advisory committee.
However, the same professional can work for the IPL while he or she is employed with an overseas national team, an overseas franchise in a separate T20 league, the International Cricket Council (ICC) or the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), etc.
All this, thanks to an archaic Rule 38 in the Board’s constitution – one that’s clearly not been thought out enough.
While Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman have conflict rules to bear in mind, Andrew McDonald – Australia’s assistant coach under Justin Langer – is free to ply his trade in India when the IPL is on and become the head coach at Rajasthan Royals.
The list of overseas professionals in India or lesser-known Indian professionals working overseas while also being part of the IPL gets shoved under the carpet at the cost of well-known Indian names who cannot do the same.

Gavaskar can only do commentary, McCullum can do it all
Take Sunil Gavaskar, for example. The 71-year-old cannot associate himself with any role in Indian cricket because he does commentary. So much so that Team India batsman can’t even spend a week under Gavaskar’s tutelage because he does commentary. However, Brendon McCullum is free to do commentary overseas and then turn up as the head coach of a franchise during the IPL (McCullum also coaches Trinidad Knight Riders, part of the same property).
MCC president does world feed, BCCI president can’t
Kumar Sangakkara, the former Sri Lankan captain, is the president of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), a highly-respected honorary position. Simultaneously, Sangakkara is also free to do commentary on the game, and is part of the IPL’s team of commentators delivering the world feed.
However, Sourav Ganguly – the president of the BCCI – cannot get involved with the same commentary team because a certain Rule 38 in BCCI’s constitution does not permit him.
Anil Kumble, the head coach at Kings XI Punjab, is chairman of the ICC cricket committee, while also running his own company Tenvic, a firm that – among other services – provides talent as human resource in the cricket industry.
Kumble is allowed multiple roles but Pravin Amre, a talent scout with Mumbai Indians and one of the finest batting coaches in the country that players vouch for, cannot offer his guidance to any First-Class team.

Australian national coaches can work in IPL, India coaches can’t
Team India coach Ravi Shastri, bowling coach Bharat Arun, fielding coach R Sridhar and the support staff of the Indian team cannot work on any assignment even when they’re free (off-season) while Australia’s batting coach Ricky Ponting can be the head coach of an IPL franchise.
In fact, Ponting was offered the role to coach Delhi Capitals after Dravid had to vacate the position when he decided to work at the NCA in Bangalore.
Perth Scorchers appointed Simon Katich in a strategic list management and mentoring role in the Big Bash League last year, around the same time when Katich was appointed as the head coach of Royal Challengers Bangalore after a prior stint as assistant coach with Kolkata Knight Riders.
However, the iron-clad conflict clause in BCCI’s constitution will not allow a single First-Class coach across the country, or any coach associated with the NCA and its zonal centres to work with any IPL franchise.
There are several such examples in the IPL, where individuals working overseas can work with the T20 property in India but within the country, even if a coach is seen running a small club or an academy in a Tier-2 or a Tier-3 town will be looked down upon and marked, if he goes looking for employment in the IPL, state associations or even consider honorary positions.
Here are more examples:
* In 2019, the West Indies Cricket Board announced that AR Srikkanth, the Kolkata Knight Riders’ team analyst, as the new West Indies men’s Team Analyst, on a two-year contract.
* Delhi Capitals analyst Somayajula Sriram is also the analyst with the Afghanistan national team.
* Srinivas Chandrashekharan Sunrisers Hyderabad is also a high-performance analyst with the Bangladesh national team.
* Lakshmi Narayanan, employed with Chennai Super Kings, happens to be the Director of operations & analytics with Bangladesh Premier League side Comilla Victorians.
* Navaneeth Krishna, who works with Royal Challengers Bangalore, also does digital broadcast stints with the ICC.
There is nothing wrong with these individuals looking for work in a highly competitive freelance coaching / expertise market. What is wrong is the apples and oranges theory the BCCI’s constitution dictates and the said clause (38) clearly needs to be considered once again.
“It is, after all, the ‘Indian’ Premier League. And what does it do? Shows ‘Indians’ the rule book but doesn’t mind allowing the same leverages and more to ‘overseas professionals’. Whose loss is it anyway?
The rules on conflict, by the way, are ideally supposed to be viewed as ‘tractable’ and ‘intractable’ — which means, resolvable and unresolvable.
How about giving it a re-look?
BCCI constitution’s rule 38(3) says: Conflict of Interest may be either Tractable or Intractable.
A) Tractable conflicts are those that are resolvable or permissible or excusable through recusal of the individual concerned and / or with full disclosure of the interest involved.
B) Intractable conflicts are those that cannot be resolved through disclosure and recusal and would necessitate the removal of the individual from a post or position occupied so that the conflict can cease to exist.
Rule 38(4), however, further complicates matters. It reads: “It is clarified that no individual may occupy more than one of the following posts at a single point of time except where prescribed under these rules: a) Player (current), b) Selector / Member of Cricket Committee, c) Team official, d) Commentator, e) Match official, f) Administrator / office-bearer, g) Electoral officer, h) Ombudsman / ethics officer, i) Auditor, j) Any person who is in governance, management or employment of a franchise, k) Member of a standing committee, l) CEO & managers, m) Office-bearer of a member, n) Service provider (legal, financial etc), o) Contractual entity (broadcast, security, contractor, etc), p) Owner of a cricket academy.