The board's objection has little to do with the ICL being a privately run league. There are hundreds of those in India; among the most famous are Mumbai's Times League and Kanga League, which have coexisted with the official system for years, functioning as finishing schools for some of Mumbai's best players, and hugely benefiting Indian cricket. The key difference between those and the ICL is this: the ICL involves television programming, and so treads directly on the BCCI's turf. All else flows from there.

The ICL will be based on the Twenty20 game, the least developed of cricket's three formats in India. The first edition of the BCCI's own Twenty20 tournament sank without a trace, shunted to the end of the domestic calendar last season, when it was in direct competition to the World Cup in the Caribbean. Few recall who won, fewer still care. Least of all, apparently, the BCCI itself: India's provisional squad for the Twenty20 World Championship in South Africa later this year has precisely three representatives from the two domestic finalist teams. That's three among 30 players, and it's anyone's guess if any will make the final cut.

The board can outsource the administration of Twenty20 cricket to the ICL, and let the new league throw up a pool of players who can be cherry-picked for the national team. Unlike the established players, they will have specialised in the shortest version of the game

The opportunity now stares the board in the face. It can outsource the administration of Twenty20 cricket to the ICL, and let the new league throw up a pool of players who can be cherry-picked for the national team. Unlike the established players, they will have specialised in the shortest version of the game. Also, they will have picked up skills not only from the likes of Lara and McGrath but also from, say, Stuart Law, a key member of the Lancashire team that is a serious contender for this year's Twenty20 Cup in England.

The BCCI has never been hot on nurturing a system; the rise of one-day cricket in India - even the World Cup victory 24 years ago - has been more by accident than design. By embracing the ICL, the board can feed off a system that is already in place and is effectively someone else's headache. This way, it can focus on its core competence - making money.

Over in the West Indies, the umbrella cricket board has, after a year's resistance, bought into Allen Stanford's vision for cricket in the region. Last year the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) stymied the grand finale of the Stanford 20/20 tournament, an all-stars game between the best of the West Indians and a South African side for a $5million purse. Stanford bit his lip and tried again, and the upshot is that the next season has the WICB on board, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa interested, and the ICC worried.

The ICL's biggest problem currently is the lack of a venue, with the BCCI leaning heavily on those who own stadiums, at home or abroad, to close all doors to the rebels or risk losing India matches. But the ICL can well flex its own muscles and simply make the down payment on a ten-year lease. Money is not the problem now, and the suits at the BCCI are amateurs against the industrial strength of the Zee group, the ICL's backers.

The ICL has a role model in Allen Stanford, who has his own ground in Antigua © Neil Manthorp

Zee can learn from Stanford here. If the BCCI continues to hold out and play the neighbourhood bully, the ICL, which has already tied up with a leading infrastructure development company, could simply build its own workspace. Stanford's complex, near the airport in Antigua, includes a cricket ground, banks, restaurants, a health club with swimming pool, gym, and aerobics studios; a hotel and conference centre are in the works.

In fact, there is a precedent closer home, in the form of the Sahara group, which has built a plush mini-city in the forbidding rocky hills near Pune in western India, and then attracted a host of big names in sport - Daley Thompson, Anna Kournikova, Boris Becker, Nadia Comaneci and Edwin Moses among them - as brand ambassadors.

Other problems, including hiring players, can be dealt with similarly. The BCCI could yet be hoisted by its own petard: its failure to invest in a cricketing culture, and the resulting lack of viable opportunities for former cricketers, could make any option seem attractive. The carrot of a pension when they eventually retire - approximately Rs 35,000 a month - will not mean as much to a Ganguly or a Laxman as the chance of playing with some big names.

That it should come down to this zero-sum game is a pity. Indian cricket is big enough for two players, or 20, or 200, and it would help if they were pulling in the same direction. Instead of cutting its nose off to spite its face, the BCCI should wake up and smell the coffee - and the opportunity.

The two leagues can definitely co-exist. But knowing the tendencies of the present board, it is hard to imagine ICL having a smooth rollout. The BCCI has become one big greedy giant which does not want to share even a penny with others. And with Lalit Modi at the helm, Indian fans can expect the BCCI to enter into Fortune 500, but never a Cup victory for the national team.

When the current board took over from the even worse Dalmiya regime, I was one of the fans who were very optimistic. Indeed, Modi immediately started to flex his muscles and we were happy that the Indian board will not anymore bend to the customary high-handedness of the Anglo-Australian boards. Though the board has stayed true to that path,they have done very little to improve the facilities and systems. We are now left cursing ourselves helplessly. Which sporting association or board will stop somebody from devloping the game and the talent pool?

Hope Zee stays true to its vision and takes the BCCI head on since they have the muscle as well as the professional expertise to deal with such scenarios. Let us also be very clear that Zee's objective is not one of social service but they also have huge business aspirations behind ICL. But as they say, competition is always better than a monopolistic market.

BCCI has no rights to stop anyone else entering in the same domain. Everyone has the right to start any business. It is a free world.

The Government of India has to take initiative and allow such interventions by private bodies.

More competition will be healthy, results in more efficient and professional organizations.

If cricket infrastructure is really owned by BCCI then BCCI has the right to decide how to use them. However, if they are lying idle and not making money for them - they will themselves have to come forward and make them available for others.

The Government of India has to take the initiative to ensure that the infrastructure which is not owned by BCCI cannot be controlled by BCCI and they cannot pass any rules or directions.

It is a free world and we should not allow monopolists to control and direct our lives.

When it all sounds great and good for Indian cricket, where is the time for these matches? We are already complaining of too much cricket and player-fatigue. More matches through leagues will mean, the players are going to be more fatigued, and little chance for some of our players to get to play county cricket.
But, if it will all work out fine, this sounds awesome.

VS

Its too much cricket for the so called top 11-15 cricketers . There are 100 other good cricketers in India who wont mind the extra cricket especially when you can get paid well :)

If only BCCI acts a little more intelligent ICL can do a world of good to Indian Cricket. This is when Indian cricket is missing Dalmiya the most.

I'm surprised that the ICL hasn't raised the matter with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices commission. The BCCI is a private organization operating in a sector offering commercial opportunities. By leaning on stadium owners with the threat of witholdoing future business for the sole reason that these stadia do business with a competitor, the BCCI is indulging in unfair trade practices. In addition, pensions are given for services rendered and cannot be stopped simply because the receiver has decided to take another job. For instance a large number of retirees from the civil services in India work in consulting roles for private sector companies. That doesn't mean that the Government of India is allowed to stop their pensions and is it were stopped, that the action can be challenged in a court of law with very high chances of success.

The author has done a nice job logically explaining how ICL and BCCI could work together, and I am assuming the author has some corporate experience and sense of accountability - its imperative to have these qualities to write such an article. Million or billion dollar question is does BCCI care. BCCI is like a MAST elephant. Its big, its at the peak of lust, it owns the jungle - why the heck would it care.

I hope ICL had planned for all this and has some core management minds associated with ICL who can pull off a Chanakya type coup. There are 2 things BCCI can do - dont allow Indian players to play for ICL and stop stadiums from being rented to ICL.

So here is the soln. - ICL cant wait for its stadiums to be completed. It can locate small grounds, maybe soccer stadiums etc. and try to get them ready for this season and then rope in best in class builders to build pre-fab stadiums. My Univ. build a 45000 seat stadium in 10 months, it includes locker rooms, gym, suites, boxes and the whole nine yards.

Now apart form the way to get around BCCI's crap - ICL should sue BCCI for monetary loss on account of monopolistic and corrupt practices, not sure how the laws are in India but if BCCI tried to arm twist ICL with foreign venues and players then BCCI is sure in trouble. And hit it where it hurts - do whatever Zee can do to take away revenues from BCCI. Its all about money and ego, take away the money BCCI will be on its knees.

I dont think two parellel body can run the cricket. It will ruin the cricket totally. A year or two back, Bihar Cricket Association claimed to be run by two different groups and chaos prevailed. Same with USA Cricket Association. Nobody benefitted. ICL will die down quickly because no person from India who wants to play ODI or Test will represent them. Even if they represent ICL, once they become star, they will move to BCCI. ICL has not released the plans of how they will get Indian youngsters, Indian stars etc., Just signing recent retirees may not cut the ice.

Can headache and aspirin co-exist with each other?
Can celebrity and humility co-exist with each other?
Can Isreal and Palestine ever co-exist with each other?

If any of these answers become yes, then that's the day BCCI and ICL can co-exist with each other...

BCCI and ICL can co-exist. They only need to understand that this is not been done to hurt anybody but to improve the game and provide more entertainment for cricket lovers. Its not just money but the love of the game. Care for the game and the public and not for self.

I think its just an over-hyped issue. There isn't anything that should threaten the board of losing its monopoly over the game. But, trying out tactics like restricting players from joining the ICL or putting a ban on the usage of any stadium or board facilities will in one way fuel doom for the board. As it will be in a way, advertising the tournament and also lead to more and more retired or unselected cricketers join it, as one may have seen in the past few weeks. It can also lead to a total overhaul of the system that controls cricket as the ICL is likely to go into a long legal battle. The BCCI which is already in grave difficulty over Dalmiya's acquittal may also find him joining the rebel group. The board should realise this and douse fires by just allowing them what they want to do. One can easily see how the Ranji and other domestic championships are losing their popularity and status in the eyes of cricket lovers. So, the BCCI should wait and watch what ICL produces. They should take any decisions only after assessing the response this tournament gets. With aggressive advertising and promotion the ICL will churn out huge crowds if not in the beginning then atleast in a couple of years helping in the resurgence of domestic cricket. Though one understands that Subhash Chandra is not here to help the cause of cricket but of consolidating his sports telecast business that has been in shackles since a few years. His channel Zee Sports was unable to broadcast any live matches and even after offering a higher price for the World Cup and Champions Trophy, it was unable to secure the rights. Even then none can disagree that if the BCCI and ICL join hands, Indian cricket will see the start of a new era.

I think both cannot exist; probably ICL because it doesn't have much power like BCCI.

As an outsider my knowledge of BCCI is only what I read from cricinfo, bbc sites and similar sites. Therefore it may not be totally accurate. But I do think that the BCCI tends to be focussed primarily on one area - making money for somebody somewhere. The growth and development of cricket within the country of India does not seem to be an active focus of their attention. They are more concerned on finanical stability for the BCCI. Yet this is not a solid foundation. They may have large sums being talked about as income from media rights etc but that will change with the next renewal unless the Indian cricketers start winning. TV sponsorship will be there while there is a continued audience. But if the team keeps doing poorly or only average then the audience will loose inteerst and so income will be reduced. You don't need a degree to figure this out.

Then when you look at what the BCCI has done for the development of the game in India in the last 20 years it is hard to find anything much positive. There has been little done within the country to bring through new blood into the exisiting structure. So this has led to the vacuum into which ICL has walked. They saw potential for something and want to work towards developing potential young cricketers. Whether it has been tackled right or not is beside the point. What is happening will possible be a help to the future of cricket in India.

Both the BCCI and ICL must learn to work together for the benefit of the game of cricket in India. If not both will suffer financially and more to the point Indian cricket will not move forward as quickly as it might and we will possibly miss the future "sachins" and likes coming to the fore.

If only the two bodies could swallow their pride and work together for the best future for cricket in India.

No doubting that the two can co-exist. However, the question here is whether both would want to co-exist. And, it may be very easy for us to say that BCCI to smell the opportunity, and try to use it to improve Indian Cricket. But, if the Board were to be that "fond" of Indian Cricket and it's actual operations, they would have shown and proved that interest much earlier. I can foresee a revolution in not only Indian Cricket, but also, World Cricket in general, and that is due to the two highly, beureacratic, we-are-never-wrong top bodies, the ICC and the BCCI running the show. This is a bubble. The froth needs to cleaned off, and ICL is just a first over in a high-scoring fifty over match.

Earlier i used to think that the accredited body should be running the game, which is as in this case BCCI. But then looking at the opportunity and the willingness of big international players think there is good business sense in promoting the league. The author's idea of outsourcing the Twenty 20 to ICL is very interesting. As finally everything boils down to Vitamin M in this world BCCI can make good money by allowing ICL to run it and take a royalty by leasing the stadiums when it is not used by BCCI. It is a workable solution when everybody sees it as a WIN-WIN for all.

When Dalmiya went everyone felt thngs will get better at BCCI. But now I think Dalmiya was a better administrator. The current grp is power hungry bunch of people who have really taken us take a backward step. BCCI should have just looked at the opportunity and give their full support to ICL. Instead they are trying to kill it.

The BCCI is reminding me of the ICC itself. They turned the World Cup in the West Indies into a farce. I was hoping that some rebel organizations would come along and create some decent tournaments. Compare the lackluster World Cup to the great success of the Stanford Twenty20. It was a great idea, and it will only get better in the coming years. Screw the idiots at the ICC. The same way, I have no doubt the ICL can be a great success, whether the BCCI likes it or not.

THIS SHOULD BE GREAT.WHY THE PEOPLE THINK ITS NOT GOING TO WORK.ITS DEFINATELY WORK BECAUSE THE GREAT KAPIL DEV IS THERE AND ONE THING FOR SURE HE WILL TRY TO IMPROVE CRICKET AND NOT LOOK TO FILL IN HIS OWN POSCKET AS THE OTHER BLOODY PEOPLE AT THE TOP POSITIONS IN BCCI DO.THEY DONT BOTHER ABOUT CRICKET,THE ONLY THING THEY WANT IS MONEY.THEY HAVE SPOILED THE CRICKET IN INDIA.IN MY OPINION THEY SHOULD BE BANNED AND KAPIL DEV SHOULD BE MADE THE TOP MAN IN CRICKET AND A FEW MORE TOP PLAYERS LIKE MOHINDER AMARNATH,SUNIL GAVASKAR,RAVI SASTRI,KRISNAMACHARI SHRIKANT.ROBIN SINGH,ROGER BINNY,JAVAGAL SRINATH,AJAY JADEJA SHOULD BE THERE TO ASSIST HIM AND MANAGE CRICKET IN INDIA.THE POLITICIANS SHOULD BE BANNED TO ENTER INTO BCCI.THEY ARE RUBBISH FOR CRICKET.THEY WILL RUIN THE GREATEST SPORT IN INDIA.
BCCI IS DERAILING THE YOUNG PERSONS,THEY CANNOT ENCOURAGE GUYS TO GIVE THEIR 100 PERCENT TO THE GAME.
KAPIL SHOULD BE GIVEN THE TOP AUTHORITY AND IF HE IS THEN WE ARE NOT FAR FROM AUSTRALIA,AND THE NEXT FEW WORLD CUPS COULD BE OURS.

"I have a new way of living, I have a new life divine" - I feel elighted to hear that there is a competitor to BCCI - I call it as a competition coz any such similar organisation will trigger BCCI to improve its standards.

I hope this evolves india to a better team

BBCI has done nothing for domestic cricket in India. It has all th emoney in the world but cricket infrastructure and facilities are pathetic in India. If ICl wants to promote cricket(let them make money, cos BCCI also does the same), we should let ICL do the 2020 season. India is one of the few countries in the world with not even a single domestic sport attracting crowds. All other countries have domestic tournaments for different sports, which have more fan following than international level sports. I think ICL is a perfect idea.

Domestic cricket has continued to falter under the leadership of the BBCI, the sane with all the other cricketing boards the world over except a few...Most of the board members don't want the players to be able to enjoy their sports while being able to provide for their families...it's more than just being 'loyal' to the variopus boards. They (the boards) are not loyal to the players...they use them up and just shunt them aside...
With the ICL & Standford 20/20, I hope they both get together and do something. With or without the boards approval or the ICC...I whole heartedly agree with the NZ chief, support it as long as the international game does not suffer...

If a company were to sponsor ICL, would the BCCI also hand a life long ban on the company from sponsoring BCCI's brand of cricket. Would be a wonderful scenario if say, Sahara or LG were to jump ship!!! Food for thought eh...BCCI!!!!

This is a good development. Its a free world and no one organization can claim monopoly over the game. I wish all success to ICL and Kapil Dev since its more opportunity for aspiring players and also a decent chance to make some money for their retirement. Also this is an awakening to BCCI of the things to come. Unless BCCI comes out with a clear strategy for development of Indian cricket and players, we can see more of such leagues which is as I mentioned before good for aspiring players as they have more remunerative options before them.

First things first: It's high time somebody filed a Public Interest Litigation against BCCI and the so-called legal expert Shashank Manohar. The BCCI team that represents "India" can no longer be called the "Indian Team". I think we now need a court order to restrain the BCCI team to call itself Team India or represent India. If a private body decides not to pick good players simply because they have played in a rival league, it simply means BCCI have given up their right to represent Indian cricket. The team that plays England is nothing more than a BCCI team - not an Indian team. If I play gully cricket, which isn't authorised by the BCCI, can the board impose a blanket ban on my selection?

I hope there is a spate of cases filed againstBCCI. The more you keep Shashank Manohar busy in litigation, the better for "Indian" cricket.