Cricket and Competition Law

After waiting four years for the World Cup I now face (like about 300 million others) the prospect of a hot summer and no cricket to watch featuring the ‘Men in Blue’, due to television right fiasco and all. As a consumer I feel seriously cheated as I had paid for this entertainment via higher prices of suitings, colas, motorcycles and all the products which our ‘senior’ cricketers endorse.

The losses of the entertainment industry probably run into thousands of crores. We consumers wanted heads to roll and quickly. And now the BCCI tells us that the culprit is Greg Chappell who has been gently sacked! (Frankly, was he ever playing!) Yet, that ‘mother of all bodies’ the BCCI has proceeded to implement all that Greg recommended regarding senior players.

Like naughty school children there is now a cap on their endorsements, they must tell the BCCI before signing up for photo shoots (though if the Board can actually implement is questionable) and now, hopefully, Mr Sharad Pawar will turn his attention to the mundane issue of the state of Indian agriculture. What a mess!

Could any good come from this dismal state of Indian cricket with rating in ODIs likely to soon slip even below the seven of October 2005? Actually it can. That is what this article is about. The silver lining is the desperation of the BCCI (which alone stands unreformed) and the emergence of a new competitor — the Indian Cricket League (ICL). But first, a few facts about the BCCI.

The BCCI (like the ICC) is a private body registered in 1929 under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act. Normally, such bodies are non-profit organisations set up for social purposes like anti-poverty work, research, etc. Yet, such is the pull of cricket in the subcontinent that the BCCI rakes in profits of thousands of crores every year from sponsors.

It also has such a high media presence that politicians are desperate to get on board. Witness the unseemly fight among even normally sensible politicians of the Left to gain control of the cricket governing body of West Bengal. While many of the state-level bodies would like to rebel against the non-accountability of the BCCI, they are unable to do so because of its monopoly control of all cricket activity involving ‘Team India’.

Consider some of the recent reform measures undertaken. Two are important. That selectors would now be paid professionals and that cricketers endorsements would be limited. This begs the question how a body like the BCCI which is itself not manned by professionals can make other professionals accountable.

Second, why is it only in India that politicians are in the limelight in post-game ceremonies? Is the BCCI now becoming a front for political organisations? Is it then any wonder that the game has suffered?

The second action by the BCCI defies logic. It is well known that brand equity that Tendulkar and other senior players then represented made it impossible for the BCCI to take any action for non-performance. Yet, the accountability of the players is best ensured by replacing them with other hopefuls. The corporate sector would then automatically ensure accountability via reduced endorsements.

There is some evidence that this has happened after the recent World Cup debacle. On the other hand, limiting the endorsements unnecessarily restricts freedom of choice of the cricketer and the advertising honchos. Yet, I suspect that the BCCI is loath to take the far more sensible path of removing non-performing players from the team. One wonders why.

There are many other arbitrary actions of the BCCI which could be detailed. Enter the ICL. Given the low level to which Indian cricket has sunk it is appropriate that a body like the ICL challenges the hegemony of the BCCI. For competition is the only antidote for a non-reforming BCCI. Yet, some of the office bearers of the BCCI have argued that they would not allow the ICL to use their resources.

The obvious reference is to the various cricketing stadia. However, these stadia are built by state governments and run by state level cricket boards. Preventing access to the ICL would represent an anti-competitive act under various sections of the Competition Act, 2002. In addition, it restricts the options of the state level associations to generate some more money via additional users.

What about the ICC? There is nothing to prevent the ICL from performing better than the BCCI and laying claim to represent India at the international level. After all, BCCI is not a government sponsored body.

The bottom line? Competition among players, sponsors and organisers can probably do more for the game than the BCCI ever will. It is probably a fit case for the Competition Commission of India to consider. Time will tell.