After more than four months of acting coy, the Indian Cricket League (ICL) has made as bold a statement as possible, parading the 48 Indian cricketers and naming the six overseas players who will form the backbone of its inaugural season. It is as much a statement of intent as a challenge to the Indian board, with which it has been shadow-boxing since the gauntlet was first thrown in April.
The matter is now out in the open; the ICL is an entity the BCCI - nor, indeed, the ICC, which is yet to take a clear stand - cannot wish away. It is faced with a situation it must deal with, and swiftly. It must size up the pros and cons of its current hard line with one eye on the longer term, something it is not always adept at doing. Conventional wisdom says it will not shift from that stand yet this may be the time for some unconventional thinking.
At stake is not just the future of 48 Indian cricketers, though that is weighty enough; an entire domestic season could be held hostage to the simmering feud. Four top Ranji sides - Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Hyderabad - have each lost at least half a dozen players, some of whom have the potential to go beyond domestic cricket. More will join the new league, because it still needs another 40-odd players to make up the numbers. If all these players are subsequently unable to play domestic cricket in India, the effect could be crippling.
And that will be the BCCI's greatest challenge: Playing out its role as the custodian of all Indian cricket and ignoring its more natural instinct to protect a smaller piece of turf, precisely the attitude that has given the ICL enough fertile ground to sow the seeds of secession.
If you want one reason why the ICL exists today, here it is: The BCCI is a monopolistic institution that has not modernised and has, till very recently, focused its attentions on international cricket. The public was obsessed with the identity of stars who would or wouldn't, had or hadn't signed up with the league. However, not a thought was spared for those who keep the wheels of Indian cricket moving - the journeymen first-class players, the umpires, the scorers, the faceless people who perform thankless tasks so that, every season, a Karthik or a Sreesanth or a Chawla comes along.
There is no evidence at hand that the ICL will address the problems of these people. It is, after all, a stated commercial venture. But it has entered a vacuum created by the board's inability - unwillingness, even - to see cricket in terms of a sport to be nurtured and see it instead as a cash cow to be milked. This fight, stripped of all ideological posturing, may be about TV ratings and the advertising revenue they bring in but the ICL is likely to tap into the feelings of insecurity and neglect among those who live in the shadows, feelings that prompted the likes of Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, 24, one of the architects of Bengal's road to the Ranji final last season, to sign up and sign away his India cap.
All this invests in the ICL a greater responsibility to safeguard the future of those who have, as Kapil Dev emotionally put it, had the courage to take their own decisions. If the BCCI remains truculent and slaps the ban it has threatened, the ICL must ensure that the players - not exactly the cream of India but honest practitioners of the game - are not left in limbo. In other words, the Zee group, the ICL's parent company, must not pull the rug from under its feet if the whole venture stops making business sense.
Much of that, in turn, will depend on the quality of cricket the ICL will offer, and the jury is out on that. Suffice to say that few of the players named today are Twenty20 experts; most have made their name in longer versions of the game and some, like Inzamam-ul Haq, are patently unsuited to the whirlwind pace of cricket's newest avatar. The problem can be partially offset, though, by smart packaging, for which the presence on board of Tony Greig and Dean Jones will come in handy.
Yet if the ICL has to establish its credibility - and at the moment the meter reading is set to zero - it can only do so with credible cricket. In many ways the easy bit is over. It is one thing to sign up players, quite another to motivate them when they joined for the money. What will they play for: Pride? Nationality? Regional affiliation?
Today was a day when Indian cricket could have celebrated the emergence, in keeping with trends in other spheres, of a money-spinning league promising more opportunities for its players. Instead there is concern over how it will impact the game in India. The problem is largely of the BCCI's own making; so, too, can be the solution.
Comments
Posted by: Suresh Varma on 08/21/2007
I think this is a positive happening. There may be initial reservations about this but I think it augurs well for Indian cricket and World cricket. The best thing that this will do is to bring the BCCI back to it's feet and in a way cleanse that organisation. The BCCI is a politician's den and that is not good for cricket. A healthy competition from BCCI will hopefully turn the tide with BCCI.
Posted by: arijit on 08/21/2007
I guess we could keep all our ideological questionings aside. This is one bunch of profiteers pitted against the other. I am sure the ICL organisers will offer as little to the qusetion of seeing cricket "in terms of a sport to be nurtured" and is another budding agency to "see it instead as a cash cow to be milked". Forget Kapil Dev, this is still a venture of people like Mody (whoever he is) who is not aware of the words "Boje" and "match fixing"....let them have some more hours in the sun. They are certain to prove themselves to be as moronic as the our "official" custodians of the game.
Posted by: Aman on 08/21/2007
It promises to be an exciting competition this time between BCCI and ICL rather than players. Let's see if the boards around the world would actually bite now or was it just a bark. No matter what ICL signed players or Organizers say, it is all about money and money only. Most of players are not sure about their international future and thereby the big bucks that comes with it. So its not surprising we see them signing for the millions of rupees that ICL offers.
Good luck to these guys, they have put themselves in a boat in a wild sea with GPS missing at the moment.
Posted by: sivaraman on 08/21/2007
I am sure ICL is a great development for indian cricket. A person like sharad pawar who does not know what is cricket is irresponsible being the head of BCCI. I think Mr. Dalmiya was better than him. Also, sacking kapil from NCA is not good for indian cricket future. But ICL will be successful and should kick this useless politicians from heading sports offices in india. I think Sharad pawar should be sacked and some ex-indian cap should become BCCI chairman. ICL is the future for india and will definitely bring our natural talent in the game more to the outside world. Long live Indian cricket !
Posted by: Shoaib Mir on 08/21/2007
The success or otherwise of the ICL will depend on whether its organizers will be able to convince and contract the very best cricketers that we have today to play in their League - and not just a bunch of players who have retired, have been discarded or are simply have-beens. Remember, Kerry Packer pulled it off because he roped in the best 'active' players of virtually the entire cricket playing world at that time, including the alternative infrastructure, pitches, grounds, etc.
Posted by: Rakesh Zinni on 08/21/2007
Come now, everyone knows that cricket is the last thing on the mind of the BCCI politicos: having a hand in the couple of thousand crores BCCI piggy bank is. There is a reason why Sharad Pawar is chairman of BCCI and not the Farmer's Suicide Karne Se Bachao Committee (although that would be a more apt post for the Central Minister for Agriculture): there's no money in the latter post.
None of the journalists want to bell that cat, even though I read thousands of comments hitting that nail on the head so much that it's about an inch inside the wood.
Posted by: Naresh Ranvah on 08/21/2007
I cannot understand why the cricket administrators in India think that England should be the only ones holding a county like tournament. Why can't India nurture and develop a similar competitive domestic league where foreign players can play with and against Indian players. Similar models are popular and progressive in other sports - Football being a frontrunner. Board only shows its fear of having to compete with another administrative body. There is no reason that we can not have leagues where our youngsters get to play against the likes of Lara, Warne. Instead a little more progressive dialogue could bolster the move by having current players like Peterson, Sarwan, Kallis, Pollock, Asif, Shoaib, and alike competing with Indian youngsters. I do not know why the baord would want to rob the youngsters of the only chance they have to be in teams with these players and play against them.
Posted by: Lakshya Agrawal on 08/21/2007
I think that ICL is a very good step to end the BCCI-monopoly in the first place. A step like this was essential especially after the shameful collapse of the Indian team at the World Cup. With ICL, there will not only be a challange to the BCCI, they will also eventually have to accept it as more and more players seem to be joining ICL. These young and talented players are the future of the Indian cricket and if the BCCI decides to ban them from the selections forever, they might have scarcity of players to represent the national team.
So, as seen by me, it is a good business and a cricket-developing step by the Essel group. Three cheers for them!!
Posted by: Bhai on 08/21/2007
You have hit the nail on the head. I wish the media would do more to throw light on this issue. This is definitely the coming of age of Indian cricket. If you look at the way Major League Baseball emerged in the US, you will see a pattern emerge. However, I am more peeved at the way players already contracted by the board have behaved. I am talking of the muti-gazzillionaire galacticos who are in the fag end of their career. If few of them take a stand and "do the right thing" this could mean a titanic shift in the way Indian cricket is run. This would also bring the BCCI to the negotiating table and force it to hammer out a compromise which benefits everybody.
Posted by: Easwar on 08/21/2007
I am sure that the people behind ICL are starting this venture to see if they can catch some of the spoils of cricket that the BCCI monopolises. Even if this does not directly "nurture and improve" cricket in our country and abroad, it has already pushed the BCCI into paying higher salaries to the domestic cricketers, about whom I have always wondered - they get paid paltry sums for the number of games they play, get put up in cheap hotels when they travel, have minimal if not no support from the host associations and at the end of the day, don't even get a courtesy call if they were considered for selection to the national team but don't quite make the cut. These players deserve better treatment and pay from this board that has become a juggernaut that steamrolls everyone in their way and has the audacity to demand a tax break from the government anytime they conduct an international tournament in India. If this board cannot be sacked enmasse, this ICL venture has atleast prodded them to get off their fattened seats and share some of their spoils with the deserving cricketers. So I hope that the ICL venture lasts long enough to change the mindset of the board even slightly and not take its players for granted. Unfortunately, the players who now have signed up with ICL, might end up being the sacrificial lambs that get this change going.
Posted by: Samir on 08/22/2007
Kudos, Cricinfo's comment by JG was quite balanced.
Overall I think ICL is a positive development. The monopoly that is BCCI needed to be shaken up. The BCCI has brought lot more 'commercial' sense to the way cricket is organised (thanks to the sponsor money), but now they have to face what any monopoly business eventually faces in a free market, competition! While it's true as a previous comment said - one bunch of profiteers pitted against the other - let's not forget that ICL and its backers are putting up sizeable money of their own to back their words, can we say the same about Sharad Pawar or BCCI?
And Kapil's emotional appeal was right on dot, the players now have the chance to determine their own future to some extent instead of being pawned by babus who have very little skin in the game.
Here's my prediction - ICL may not be wildly successful, but it'll provide enough shine for some other potential investors to come up with more moollah to make it commercially more appealing.
Posted by: Lakshmikanth on 08/22/2007
I am sure, ZEE group has the might and will take care of the bold few who have taken this decision putting their careers and lives at stake.
The first step is to get the ICC's recognition, after that if required let there be another parallel team representating India internationally.
The stronger team will getter better endorsements and support from viewers.
It is time and an era that monopoly will not work.
Posted by: Rahul on 08/23/2007
The only positive from the ICL episode is that the BCCI has woken up and the first step they have done is to increase the wages of the players in the domestic circuit. Also, what are the players playing for in the ICL - Indian Cap? Regionalism? Money?. It definitely cannot be the first 2 and it surely has to be money (and rightly so as cricket is their chosen career). So if BCCI starts paying the players the wages ICL promises, i am sure the players will return to the fold of the BCCI as it also has the lure to play for the country. So the only improvement that the ICL could have pushed the BCCI to do (which is the wages of the domestic player) is already taking effect and am sure once the players who have signed for ICL feel they are getting a better deal from the BCCI, the ICL will cease to exist. Also, so far ICL has just been talking big and emotional (typical of Kapil Dev who thinks emotions are better than reason)but have so far unveiled no plans for the development of cricket as a sport in the country. Except for signing some big-has been names, there has been no talk of infrastructure development in terms of grounds, pitches,etc. The infrastructure that is going to be used by the ICL is the same that is existing in the country and there are no plans to set up anything new.So all in all ICL is an offshoot of not getting the telecast rights from BCCI, and a poor effort of the packer "world series"...As for suggestions/comments made by some bloggers that we should have a parallel team representing india is laughable...Playing for the country is not a monopoly but an honour and only the best 11/14 can be chosen to play for the country...else we can have all the teams that play Ranji Trophy representing India, and the viewers can take their pick and support them.
Web Feeds
