AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        If ever proof was needed to establish that Indian cricket operates in extremes then look no further than from what the BCCI has come up with to curtail the commercial interests of the players. The board, impelled to be shown as being strong and in authority in the light of India's disastrous showing in the World Cup, has come up with a series of suggestions that are not only draconian, but also seem desperate. A devious desire to deflect all the blame on players away from the administrators can also be detected here. The problem with BCCI's current thinking is that it has got more to do with control rather than cricket. The diktats carry in them an overwhelming effort to show who is the boss. Unfortunately, the mood of the masses find a mirror match in the BCCI's new line of thinking (after all, there is little different between what the BCCI is saying and what those who broke players' properties and their effigies emotively rhetoricised). This will only embolden the Board's mandarins to lull themselves into believing that their ideas are vindicated by popular thinking.

        The Board has cut the players' match fees, done away with contracts, taken two of them to task for speaking to the media, and above all decided that it will control the way players make money through endorsements. The BCCI blueprint has not at all zeroed in on what went wrong on the field. There seems to be a blissful assumption that whatever wrongs that were committed on the field were a direct offshoot off it. This is a facile, but patently misleading, reading of the situation. Sure enough, the commercial interests of many players hampered the team's preparation and its focus. More importantly, it was also clear that the sponsors had more space than that was desirable to operate. But who allowed the sponsors to call the shots in the first place? Who ensured that money spoke the loudest in Indian cricket? Guess who made Indian cricket a marketing man's fiefdom to start with? The answer is very much known to the world.

        It cannot be anybody's case that BCCI should not wield the whip. But when it indeed does it has to be backed by conviction and reasonability. Most of BCCI's recommendations cannot get past the touchstone of law. A smart lawyer is bound to raise the uncomfortable question of restrictive trade practices. The BCCI cannot, in these days of market economy, curtail the avenues of earning of players. At any rate, there is also the question of morality as players' careers are generally shortlived while the board officials seem to the enjoy the privilege of power and pelf in perpetuity. The Board would have done well if it had sat down with the players with an open mind and tackled the money matters rather than go for some sweeping measures. It is not as if there are no merits in any of the suggestions of the BCCI. The insistence on players taking part in the domestic circuit is long overdue. The advisory to prepare lively tracks is another step in the right direction. De-linking the selectors from their associations is welcome, but needs more serious thought. The appointment of bowling and fielding coaches makes sense too. But what makes Board's ideas look suspect is that on one hand it has stopped players from having exclusive contracts with media houses (again, a welcome move) while on the other it has appointed an ad-hoc manager for the next tour who is now a full-time media man (Ravi Shastri). The irony is glaring and hits you in the face, not unlike India's poor showing on the field. Systemic change is the need of the hour and not a player purge.