PCB feels the pressure within its own country for missing out on playing India: Amitabh Choudhary
BCCI acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary. (Source: File Photo) BCCI acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary. (Source: File Photo)
BCCI acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary is India’s’representative on the ICC Board. Ahead of the Board meetings on Wednesday and Thursday, he spoke to The Indian Express on several issues. Excerpts:
Player behaviour is an item on the agenda in the ICC meetings here. What’s the BCCI’s take on that, especially on the heels of Sandpaper-gate?
Player behaviour is important since an international event is seen by the whole world. It’s of great importance from the BCCI’s point of view that the game is played in the (right) spirit.
Why is BCCI averse to including cricket at the Olympics?
It’s not averse. It has reservations on several counts. For example, Olympics need not necessarily take place in traditional cricketing nations. Another difficulty is finding space in the calendar. Third, which is very relevant – since India drives the game of cricket in the world – the time zone that the Olympic venue falls in. There are practical difficulties, major roadblocks…
Overall, there’s a concern in the ICC that when they host events in India they don’t get tax exemption, which in turn affects their revenue. Is it a genuine concern?
If tax exemption is granted to international cricket events, it will certainly be welcomed. And if taxes are levied, that eats into the revenue of the organisation that conducts the event. This is something which doesn’t make the ICC very comfortable. At the same time, it was realised that India’s time zone best suits the telecast. No country is more suitable, or comes anywhere near India, in terms of hosting an international event. Add to this, the legendary in-stadia support that India gives. So there are other aspects which completely offset or neutralise the effects of taxation.
About bilateral cricket series with Pakistan, PCB chief Najam Sethi says the 2014 MoU between the two cricket boards doesn’t mention the government approval clause. What’s your view on this?
That’s not a legal document. It’s not a long-form agreement. Also, why did the PCB agree that the initial draft would be followed by a long-form agreement? The government approval clause would come into the long-form agreement, which never happened. Every time India and Pakistan played a bilateral series since 1952, there had been a long-form agreement.
We would love to play against Pakistan. But there are certain aspects of the whole issue which are not in our control. What can we do about it? We have written to the government a number of times. In fact, we also wrote to the government about the Asia Cup, because we are the hosts this year. And the Asia Cup will not be meaningful unless both India and Pakistan play. So we wrote to the government that if it’s not possible to host it in India, can we still host it in another country where all the major cricketing nations play? The government said, go ahead.
But isn’t it a diplomatic failure of the BCCI that the PCB managed to take the matter before the disputes panel? Also, does it suggest India’s reduced clout in the ICC?
Completely disagree with this for the simple reason that I have explained already. The reason why Pakistan have gone to the Dispute Resolution Committee of the ICC has less to do with what you referred to or alluded to. It actually emanates from the fact that the PCB feels the pressure within its own country for missing out on playing India. It has got less to do with anything else. And it’s not a diplomatic failure because diplomatic failure would have meant obtusity on the BCCI’s part, or being inconsiderate or arrogant on the BCCI’s part. None of the three are applicable in this situation.
A section of the BCCI members feel Shashank Manohar’s tenure as the ICC chairman has proved to be detrimental to Indian cricket. Do you agree?
My personal agreement or disagreement is of little consequence. I must first understand the context of the question. Because, it’s not my nature to unnecessarily find fault with individuals. For example, India had certain difficulties with next year’s World Cup schedule, where India had been scheduled to play their first World Cup match on June 2, after having advanced IPL 2019’s closure to May 19. That left two days fewer than the 15 -day lay-off which has been laid down by the Supreme Court. So we made a request to the ICC and its chairman. He saw reason and agreed. And the schedule has already been altered. So I will approach issues as they are. And on individuals, I won’t like to comment.
Will the BCCI support Manohar’s extension as ICC chairman?
See, the tenure of extension would be two years. The new term is through a system of elections, as described in the ICC constitution, which can contemplate a situation where the incumbent chairman may not remain the chairman only if there’s a challenger. So if there’s a challenger, we will see.
FICA’s employment report on players has issued a sort of red alert for international cricket, citing breakaways from mainstream cricket to franchise-based T20 leagues. Is this a cause for concern?
Again, this is speculative. Not only in cricket, but every walk of life since time immemorial has seen challenges. Every religious faith has seen challenges. But then, the mainstream always adjusts itself and finds ways to face the challenges; sometimes by correcting itself, sometimes by innovations. Similarly, in cricket, Test cricket faced challenges from Kerry Packer. It modified itself, adjusted and survived.
The BCCI doesn’t recognise FICA, but after the Lodha Committee recommendation about the formation of a players’ association, any chance that the BCCI might open the door?
Well, that’s something which needs to be dealt with. Because the BCCI is defined in its constitution and, to that extent, even the Supreme Court order endorses it. The Board consists of its members and office-bearers. So let them decide.
So at a future SGM, any chance that the FICA issue might come up for discussion?
It could. And, if left to me, I would like it to be discussed.
As you have said with regard to day/night Tests, it should be the way forward and India must play the lead. So why is this opposition in India?
In so far as the Board is concerned, there’s very negligible opposition. The idea was to host a day/night Test back in 2016. There was no opposition then. Even today, the cricket management, as expressed by the coach (Ravi Shastri), selectors, office-bearers – all are supporting this. And that’s why there is a proposal to convert one of the two Test matches against West Indies to a day/night Test.
The captain (Kohli) also supports it?
I have personally spoken to the coach and I’m sure he, in turn, dealt with the team, including the captain, and sent in his recommendation after the consultation.
So do you think the CoA reservation is with an eye to the extra cost factor?
I don’t know the anatomy of this opinion. But cost cannot be a very big factor. It can’t be.
For all the latest Sports News, download Indian Express App