ON OCTOBER 10th, the BCCI/IPL governing council took the unprecedented step of expelling/terminating the Rajasthan Royals and the Kings XI Punjab, and put the Kochi franchise on notice, providing the latter a ten day window in which to resolve all ownership/shareholding patterns in a manner that would be amenable to the IPL Governing Council Version 2.0.
With the Rajasthan Royals taking on the BCCI and moving the Bombay High Court, legalese such as ‘show-cause’ or ‘due process’ will no longer be terms that are open to one-sided, exploitative interpretations in contracts or notices that are reek of inequality and level bargaining power. And, while the ongoing legal battle has thrown IPL IV into disarray, what remains to be seen is what the future holds for Cricket and Professional T/20 league cricket in particular.
Globally, such strong-armed tactics from a professional sports leagues’ governing body are unprecedented. From what one can gather, the expelled teams were not given any notice as to the impending termination of their franchisee contracts, nor were the basic tenets of due-process provided to either team.
Due process in this particular case can don two different mantles at any given time – the legal component and more importantly, the good-faith element to any contract or business understanding between the Office of the Commissioner/IPL Governing Council on one side, and the team owners/ individual teams on the other. The IPL as an entity has been notoriously tightlipped over the terms & conditions and/or the representations and warranties that comprise the franchisee contracts; the confidentiality clauses and the one-sided nature of the contracts in favor of BCCI have likely ensured that the details have been kept under wraps.
There seems to be more than meets the eye with regard to the latest public offering that the great Indian road-show has offered to its global viewership base. There have been internal and external rumblings as to the nature of the IPL’s calendar, and the adverse consequences of expanding the league vis a vis the international calendar.
Perhaps a leaner IPL with a brick and mortar balanced approach would enable fiscal and international component sustainability from the perspective of the powers that be, although one can’t say for sure.
There could also be additional motivating factors for expelling these particular teams, and bringing into the fray a potential corporate team owner known to be extremely keen to buy a team. Incidentally, the said corporate’s vexing decision to withdraw from sponsoring an unprecedented event in a nascent and growing sport has led to the extradition of the event to a rival nation.
While the Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010 organising committee has become the unwilling mascot for corporate (mis)governance heresy, the BCCI’s knee jerk reaction to ‘irregular ownership patterns’ has profound implications for much of what ailed Indian sport in the pre-IPL era. The difference now is that Cricket is no longer immune, immortal, or invulnerable. The powers that be must tread a fine line between corporate governance & transparency on the one hand, and competition/extinction on the other.
This is no longer an industry or a sport that can survive on reputation, monopoly, a monopsony, or even an oligopolistic cartel. The business of sports is a domain that will correct itself over time through market forces, albeit with unique externalities / game theory components. Let’s hope Cricket gets the memo before it’s too late.
