Another cricket league -- the IPL -- is considered fine. Players who sign up there are still eligible to play for their countries.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Ambati Rayudu and Shane Bond are considered pariahs. David Hussey and Ishant Sharma are not.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Postscript:"[I]t's not acceptable for any [English] county to knowingly sign an ICL player. They need to keep to that understanding, otherwise the trickle-down effect is that none of the English counties could end up being invited to the Champions Twenty20 Trophy in the autumn."
- Lalit Modi, March 1 2008.
Is this a game or a business or a persecution or a witch-hunt or an inquisition or what? I know what I'm going to do: vote with my feet, my eyeballs, my paise. Given that this is the way the IPL is conducting its affairs, I will not watch its matches, whether on TV or at a stadium.
Remember the tyrant of the old like persian empire, romans,etc etc ... BCCI is the cricketing tyrant run by a goon called Lalit modi. Like all the 'great' empires this one will fall too and no one will be there to pick the pieces.
"pariah" is not a appropriate word to use. i'm sure you know it is a dalit caste name. there is nothing wrong with being a paraiyyar.
It is worth noting that ICC, like the International Olympic Association and FIFA and so on, are all *PRIVATE* bodies. They operate on the franchise system wherein each country has a franchise (like the BCCI or the Indian Olympic Association etc.) which has a monopoly for organising events within the country.
In principle, the sports franchises are no different from the "Miss World" or "Miss Universe" franchises. If there is a difference, it is simply that the sports franchises have been successful at brainwashing us into believing that these private bodies represent the "public" interest. (Except, of course, our beloved country where many idiots believe that the "Miss World" competition is some sort of "world" contest to decide who is the most "beautiful" woman!)
Those old enough might remember that the English team used to be called the MCC - Marylebone Cricket Club - because that was what the "English" team was in reality. When they decided to obscure matters by putting on the "England" tag, I don't know.
The fracas between the IPL and ICL is essentially a fight between two private players, in which our government in principle should be neutral. Of course that is not going to happen - what with Sharad Pawar - a politician - at the head of BCCI. [Is there no conflict of interest here in heading a private body while being a part of the government?] Note that even our beloved communists - no friends of the private sector - fail to recognize that the BCCI is a private body registered somewhere in the Virgin Islands (I think).
Personally, I think all these bodies like the IOC etc. should be treated like the private bodies that they are in reality. Abolish the Ministry of Sports and tell the IOC or whoever that if they want to send a team to whatever event, that they raise the revenue from the private sector. Of course that is not going to happen: if nothing else, too many bureaucrats and politicians [give up all those free trips to the Olympics, Asian Games, etc. at the public expense?] and sportsmen have a stake in the continuance of the current system.
Apologies for the long comment.
Sorry for following up, but a google search turned up the following:
"The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) -- a private society registered as an association under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1860 -- was formed in 1929. It is affiliated to a limited company registered in the British Virgin Islands called the International Cricket Council (ICC). As a private society, the BCCI is not compelled to reveal to the general public its handling of cricket, sponsorship, telecast rights details, income and expenditure statements. The BCCI is accountable only to the Registrar of Companies."
Ok; last follow-up to my own post but I got the url wrong in my last post. Here's a tinyurl link:
Umm doesn't this come under the Monopolies & Restrictive trade practices act?
Post a Comment