In yet another news, BCCI seems to have emerged with issues again, only this time with former players, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly.
The conflict of interest has come to light when the board asked several former players including Dada and Master Blaster, to make a choice between their roles for franchises in the Indian Premier League (IPL) and TV stints, mainly consisting of commentary for several matches and events.
What Happened With BCCI?
Since the appointment of the Committee Of Administrators by the Supreme Court has been in order, the matter was raised time and again. This resulted in several cricketers to lose on their multiple roles.
On-going ICC World Cup, witnesses retired Indian cricketers Sachin, Sourav, VVS Laxman, Harbhajan at the commentary. The four in question are associated in IPL as, Sachin being actively related to IPL Winners, Mumbai Indians; Sourav was appointed as Delhi Capitals (DC) advisor for IPL 2019, while he Presidents the Cricket Association Of Bengal; Harbhajan part of Chennai Super Kings and VVS the mentor for Sunrisers Hyderabad.
Previously, BCCI Ethics Officer, D K Jain, raised the issue on the dual roles of former cricketers. What followed, as a result, was, Rahul Dravid giving up on his position of mentoring Delhi Daredevil’s. Following this, BCCI renewed his contract as coach of Indian and India U-19.
Did It Resolve?
Tendulkar had earlier declined to be a part of the Cricket Advisory Committee unless provided with agreeable terms of reference. Now, he has to communicate the same to BCCI, with no option left that. Until the BCCI furnishes the terms of reference and tenure of his appointment in the CAC, he has decided not to be part of any committee of the BCCI including the CAC,” Tendulkar’s legal counsel said in a statement.
Final Verdict!
“Once the BCCI furnished the terms of reference and tenure, he will decide on the course of his participation in the same. Mr. Tendulkar doesn’t consider himself to be part of any Cricket Advisory Committee and will not act as such. In consequence, the present complaint doesn’t survive for adjudication,” Jain said in a two-page verdict.