Cricket Is Big; Greed Is Bigger!

March 2005 was not the usual tough year in my life; having to battle the likes of BCCI and ESPN in the high-ceiling courtrooms of the Bombay High Court was sleep-depriving, to say the least. Being denied the rights despite making winning bids was a huge letdown. Far from these worries, I did have another battle deep within raring to tear me apart. The cricketing battles had brought back the memories of a cricketer in me who died in Kashmir alongside the mass exodus in the wake of terrorism. For days and weeks, I wondered in disbelief at the state of the game which we used to swear by. Way back then, cricket was not just a game but a way of life for most of us, to the extent that our games reflected the characters we held. Nonetheless, on one hand, I have believed that Cricket could play God for people and country and on the other I believe the deep dark web filled with deceit, sleaze and match-fixing has been conveniently made to believe as a ghost. Is Cricket beyond transparency? 

The governance of cricket in India is a complex web intertwined with legal intricacies, leading to numerous obstacles. Over the past decade, the lack of definitive decisions by Indian courts indicates the exclusive privilege of wisdom in cricket governance. My encounters with disputes involving BCCI, Zee, and ESPN across various courts provided invaluable insights into the blind spots that often elude prominent analysts in the media. The prevailing notion that there is no officially recognized Cricket Team of India, apart from the private entity BCCI, signifies the intricate nature of cricket administration in the country. It is this landscape that lays the ground for illegal gambling, betting and the dark web of match-fixing. 

The archaic Public Gambling Act of 1867 remains a pivotal document that renders gambling activities in India in a legal grey area. While some amendments have paved the way for certain forms of betting, the core legislation continues to govern gambling practices across the country. The legal framework surrounding games of skill offers a glimpse into the permissible realm of betting, provided it aligns with the parameters of skill-based competitions. The interplay between chance and skill in activities like cricket raises pertinent questions about the regulation of such practices. The decentralised authority granted to states under the Constitution of India allows for variations in gambling laws, leading to a diverse landscape of regulations across different regions.

In the US, private corporations and associations that are somehow connected to public rights really have a close relationship with the public. Simply put, when a private corporation or association uses a property that is of interest to the public, they must make sure that the public benefits too. Once such a corporation or agency is given governmental powers or functions by the state, they basically become agencies or instruments of the State. The more such an agency or corporation allows the public to use its property for their own benefit, the more their rights are limited by the laws and constitutions that govern those who use it. In this context, a court in 1974 made an interesting ruling. It stated that regardless of the level of involvement when any association or corporation carries out an important public function, it must abide by Constitutional standards. 

Fast forward to 2005, the Zee India squad (later known as the Indian Cricket League) was founded on March 5, 2005 - almost two years before the official start of the ICL and almost three years before the launch of the IPL. The aim of the domestic team was to nurture a pool of talent selected both by public choice and an expert panel led by Kapil Dev. I also wanted Dilip Vengsarkar and Sunil Gavaskar onboard, but they never agreed to meet, possibly due to their own commitments and a potential clash with the BCCI. However, the management changed the concept and the ICL was eventually launched without some key elements that, in my opinion, could have made a big difference. The main change was getting rid of the concept of a ‘board’ and instead:

- Choosing players for each Indian city and town democratically using modern technology alongside traditional methods like postcards and letters

- Having every team compete in a regional league and eventually forming two teams: a domestic team and an international team for India. The domestic team would serve as a feeder for the international team which would play on the international stage.

- The domestic team would take part in a derby as a challenger, bringing out talented players consistently.

- Regulated wagering on cricket

In time, it was 2008, I came up with a format called Indian Cricket Derby, a 10-over format with six players on each side, where people could bet on players, teams, runs, wickets, and more by registering either in person or online. I discussed this idea with the then Sports Minister, the late Sunil Dutt, who was enthusiastic about the concept, as I was open to having it under the Government of India in a transparent manner. Late Dutt Sahab was absolutely delighted that a private-sector undertaking was happy to have government-mandated governance. Later, I shared my plans with officials in Goa, with the help of a friend, as the state had a tradition of casinos, and a significant number of leisure travellers would likely have enjoyed the Cricket Derby. Although I considered Mumbai, I refrained from hosting it there due to the political environment that permits betting on horse racing but bans dance clubs in Mumbai. Additionally, I received an invitation from Kerala to launch this model.

It seems my ideas were too unsettling for some in my own community. Regulating betting in a controlled environment, starting with just one stadium, would significantly reduce illegal money laundering in cricket. I strongly believe that many states in India would support this initiative, given the boost it could bring to local tourism and the economy. I have always maintained that human nature is adaptable, much like water - it will find a way when met with resistance. I previously advocated at industry forums like FICCI Frames that adult content, as seen in the Kavita Nethani vs various TV channels case, cannot be fully banned, and access cannot be entirely blocked. Therefore, regulating it with technology to restrict access for immature minds is a viable solution. 

It's intriguing that games like Teen Patti and Texas Hold 'emare prohibited, while Rummy is allowed. Equally puzzling is the legality of horse racing (susceptible to fixing) due to its skill component, yet cricket betting which also requires skill is banned. Many TV channels, brands, and product launches, including the ISL, hold contests that could be considered betting. ISL, in partnership with a major gold loan company, conducts contests to predict winners, similar to numerous other brands - should they be subject to legal action as well?

The reality we must accept is that banning the BCCI or putting them behind bars is not feasible under current laws. However, individuals have the choice to abstain from watching cricket organised by the BCCI. The relentless criticism of cricket may lead to its corruption, so the focus should shift towards implementing laws to govern cricket and holding the BCCI accountable under the Indian constitution. Ultimately, regulating cricket betting in a transparent manner is crucial, considering that people will find a way to bet regardless - so why not control it efficiently?

Looking at the Middle East's effective management of the internet, it's clear that India lacks the resolve to make tough decisions. While working there, I witnessed their stringent measures to block unwanted content. In contrast, India tends to sidestep making firm decisions, forgetting that impactful decisions have the power to shape destiny. If Subhash Chandra hadn't taken the bold step to introduce television broadcasting to India, would we now have over 1000 channels available in the country?

Dr Ashish Kaul

Guest Author Dr. Ashish Kaul is a business leader with over 30 years’ experience in leading diverse conglomerates including Hinduja Group, Bajaj, Zee & Essel Group. Views are personal