BCCI lost credibility in 2013; Big 3 should not dominate ICC: Shashank Manohar

BCCI PRESIDENT and ICC chairman Shashank Manohar recently visited the ICC headquarters in Dubai, where he interacted with the management and staff regarding the existing governance policy of the apex cricketing body.

In an exclusive interview with The Hindu, the 58-year old laywer-cricket-administrator spoke at length about the loopholes in the ICC's governance policy and revenue sharing formula.

Manohar was of the strong opinion that the prevailing governance system, where the BCCI (India), ECB (England) and CA (Australia) have all the executive powers should be done away with, as against his predecessor, N Srinivasan, who wanted the 'Big Three' concept. 

"I don’t agree with the three major countries bullying the ICC. That’s my personal view, because as I have always said, an institution is bigger than individuals. You cannot guarantee which individual will occupy the top position in either of these countries."

Manohar also said that ICC as a world cricket body should constitute of the best people, no matter which country they come from. 

Members of the BCCI who were anticipating the possibility of the Indian board receiving in excess of Rs. 4,000 crore in the next seven years would be stunned by Manohar's opinion of the revenue sharing formula. 

"I don’t agree with the revenue-sharing formula, because it’s nice to say that India (BCCI) will get 22 per cent of the total revenue of the ICC, but you cannot make the poor poorer and the rich richer, only because you have the clout."

The BCCI president also pointed out several flaws in the ICC's governing structure, particularly one that could possibly cause a huge conflict of interest. Apart from heading the BCCI, Manohar is also the chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC). So if he's at the ICC as a representative of the BCCI, it is his duty to protect the interests of  the Indian board, and in doing so, he's failing as the ICC chairman. 

Also, under the present ICC constitution, the post of a chairman is offered to a BCCI representative. But after the annual conference, an election will be held for the post and he will occupy the chairman's position only till he represents his own country, which is wrong, according to Manohar.

Manohar said that he has spoken to Giles Clarke of the ECB, and that he has agreed to sort the problems of the ICC. He also wants the ACC to stay, which has now become redundant because of direct payments made to the boards.

Manohar had also rejected to become the ICC president in 2011.

"I did not aspire to become ICC president. It’s now changed to ICC chairman, with the powers of the president transferred to the chairman. The president is only a ceremonial post. I never aspired to become the chairman, too. Now it’s fait accompli that I am."

However, Manohar's primary goal as BCCI president is to improve the image of the Indian board. He believes he has fulfilled most of his commitments.

"Whatever commitments I had made on the first day of my election (as president of the BCCI), I have fulfilled 95 per cent of them. There was one commitment with regard to setting up a system to eradicate spot and match-fixing, as also betting in the game. I am working at that and I am quite hopeful that it would be worked out by the end of this month."

Manohar was also positive regarding the eradication of corruption practices among the players, saying that the ICC and BCCI are educating players at every level. But the Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) doesn't have investigative powers, which has compelled Manohar to turn to the Maharashtra State government for help. 

"I have approached the State (Maharashtra) government, not the Central government. The Mumbai Police has all the powers. What we want basically is intelligence input from the government. If the investigating agency shares information with the Board, that would solve most of our problems."

Back in 2011, Manohar had vowed never to come back to the BCCI, but a lot has changed in four years.

"In spite of the IPL, I was still not willing to come back. People wanted me to occupy this position. And I thought that the Board has given me a lot in my life. So when everybody is saying that I have the capabilities to change a scenario, and when it’s time that I have to give something back to the Board that’s given me a lot, I thought it would not be fair on my part to be adamant and say ‘No.’"

Manohar also dismissed that there was resentment in the board regarding the appointment of the ombudsman. In fact, he said it was all the more fair that all members agreed, sensing the need of change in perception. 

"The perception of the people in this country and particularly the fans, is that the BCCI wraps everything under the carpet, that it is a cozy club, they take all decisions on their own and they protect people who commit wrong things. So to remove that perception, here is an independent man, a person with integrity, with legal eminence, and nobody can raise a finger. We have given finality to his judgment. We are not going to sit over his judgment. His decision would be final and binding."

The BCCI honco said that any enquiry regarding the administrator would be handled by the ombudsman, and there should not be an allegation of bias, like it was the case earlier. The enquiry will be conducted independently by a person who has nothing to do with the board, on the basis of the administrator's report. 

Manohar said there is nothing wrong with the BCCI constitution and that they aren't really anxious about the Lodha Committee report. He also shed light on the removal of Roger Binny as selector, since many felt that his son, Stuart was in the Indian team because of his father.

When asked about the reduction in central contract given to men cricketers, Manohar said,

"This is not given as a largesse, you have to earn a contract."

Manohar also highlighted the Indian board had lost its credibility in the last two years after the spot-fixing and betting scandal.

"I cannot say for the period (preceding 2013), but the Board had lost its credibility in the last two years. That much I can say," he concluded.