COA’s proposed amendments to conflict of interest clause to open up options for former players
Former players could soon be allowed to perform multiple roles at the same time as the Committee of Administrators (CoA) has recommended amendments in the contentious conflict of interest clause in the Board’s constitution.
In the existing constitution, no person can perform multiple cricketing roles at the same time and that has led to a conflict of interest allegations against some of the biggest names in Indian cricket including Sourav Ganguly, who is all set to be elected BCCI president, VVS Laxman, and Kapil Dev.
In its 11th and final status report submitted to Supreme Court on Monday, the CoA proposed amendments to Rule 38 in the BCCI constitution. If the amendment is accepted, former players with less than two-year contracts with the BCCI or state associations will be allowed to have multiple roles. They will be allowed to join multiple committees like the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) and won’t be barred from commentary stints.
“The COA, during its tenure, came across various instances where the rules pertaining to conflict of interest have been applied to positions and scenarios which in its view did not warrant such application,” the CoA, which will cease to exist after BCCI elections on October 23, said in its report.
“Rule 38 (4) in absolute terms is worded in absolute terms and prohibits even former and current players who do not have long term contracts with the BCCI to hold other positions not only in the BCCI but within the entire cricketing ecosystem. A straightjacket application of this rule will result in BCCI and Indian cricket losing valuable experience and expertise in the form of stalwarts and icons of cricket who are already engaged elsewhere not being able to engage with the BCCI and its members in cricketing roles.”
To address the issue, COA has proposed that a former player can perform multiple roles if he or she doesn’t have a long-term BCCI contract.
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule 38, an individual who is a former player and is not engaged by BCCI or its member on a full-time basis under a contraction for a duration of two years or more, may become or continue as a member of a Cricket Committee or Cricket Advisory Committee or a standing committee or a team official, match official, commentator or member of any other BCCI committee (except the Apex Council and Governing Council) in addition to holding any cricketing position within the BCCI, provided he makes the required disclosure under Rule 38,” the COA added.
In his order on Ganguly and Laxman, BCCI ethics officer D K Jain had asked them to choose one role out of the multiple ones they were performing at that point of time. Both Ganguly and Laxman were part of the CAC besides being associated with IPL teams Delhi Capitals and Sunrisers Hyderabad respectively.
Even their commentary stints were questioned besides other former and current cricketers. “It is also felt that proscriptions contained in Rule 38 (4) are too straight-jacketed which is proving to be counter-effective and disproportionately restrictive to players — both current as well as former,” said the COA.