Former ICC chief Mani calls BCCI breakaway threat ‘laughable’

'Moral strength' would have halted India's attempts to establish new world governing body outside of ICC

Ravichandran Ashwin of India is congratulated by his teammates after dismissing Hashim Amla during the ICC World Twenty20 semi-final against South Africa at Sher-e-Bangla Mirpur Stadium on April 4, 20Show more

The former head of the International Cricket Council (ICC) has called “laughable” the threat by India’s cricket board to form a parallel ICC.

That threat was revealed by Sanjay Patel, secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over the weekend.

Speaking in Hyderabad, Patel spoke on how the imminent and vast restructuring of the game’s governance came to be. “We got criticised by many in the media and a lot of them did not agree, but we told them that if India is not getting its proper due and importance then India might be forced to form a second ICC of its own.”

That, went Patel's implication, is what forced the boards of Australia and England to come together and form the Big Three.

But Ehsan Mani, who was president of the ICC from 2003 to 2006 and has emerged as a staunch critic of the restructuring, claims such a threat would not have withstood concerted opposition from other members.

"The threat by BCCI that it would have formed a parallel ICC is laughable," Mani told The National. "If the ICC, supported by the ECB [England Cricket Board], CA [Cricket Australia], Pakistan and South Africa, had the moral strength to stand up to the threats from BCCI, BCCI would have, without doubt, backed off once it realised that it could not make money by playing only against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, New Zealand or West Indies.

“I have no doubt that Sri Lanka would not have supported BCCI in such a situation. It is the opposition that matters when it comes to commercial values. BCCI would have found out that its so-called financial clout was a paper tiger.”

The Big Three’s proposals, which redistribute a major amount of the ICC’s future revenues into the hands of the India, Australia and England and Wales boards, as well as control over decision-making, have been agreed upon by every board. Implementation of the changes is to begin after the ICC annual general meeting in Melbourne this month.

The central basis for the changes, as Patel reiterated in his comments, was the fact that India, as an economy, contributes between 70 and 80 per cent of the game’s revenues. The return from that, at least from ICC events, has been distributed equally among all full members.

Mani has consistently challenged the proprietorship the BCCI takes over the Indian economy, arguing that the money generated has little to do with what the board does.

“It is not BCCI that generates money for cricket out of India, it is the attraction of the game for the Indian broadcasters and major corporations and the professionals who run these businesses,” Mani said.

“With only second-tier opposition the real value of BCCI’s financial contribution to world cricket would have been exposed. In fact, it would have shown England, Australia and South Africa what their contribution to the BCCI coffers was really worth.

“Instead of putting the game first, ECB and CA saw this as an opportunity to make money for themselves and take control of world cricket.”

Follow us on Twitter at @SprtNationalUAE