The Indian Supreme Court was told on Monday that the Lodha committee's recommendation on "one-state, one-vote" in the Board of Control for Cricket in India would lead to "enormous politics" and pressure within the board, according to the PTI.
The submission made by Baroda Cricket Association to this effect prompted the bench to ask for more elaboration as to how this recommendation would "generate" more politics in the working of the BCCI.
"Can you elaborate what the politics will be," the bench asked Sibal, who was appearing for Baroda Cricket Association and arguing against the implementation of the recommendation for one-state, one-vote in the BCCI. The implementation of the one-state, one-vote policy "has relevance as Maharashtra and Gujarat, which have four and three cricket associations respectively as permanent members, would be left with only one permanent member each in the BCCI." The new permanent members "will instead come from smaller cricket-playing states like Manipur and Mizoram" (PTI, 4/19). The INT'L BUSINESS TIMES' Ashim Sunam wrote the BCCI "earns massive revenues from sponsorship and various other deals." But their income "could be severely hit" if the new ICC revenue model, proposed by President Shashank Manohar, comes into play.
As per the public interest litigation filed by ex-CBI Dir RK Raghavan in the Madras High Court, the BCCI has a deal, which helps it earn 21% gross revenue -- generates to Rs 3,400 crore -- from the ICC for the broadcast cycle of '15-23. But, the board will only receive Rs 2,400 crore ($362M) due to ICC Chair and BCCI President Shashank Manohar's "offer of a 6% cut in the sharing model." The PIL "even stated that the next broadcast deal could lead to even lesser money due to this model in the future." The PIL said, "It remains a mystery as to how the BCCI chief Shashank Manohar could on his own propose such a monumental reduction in the BCCI's revenue from ICC funds guaranteed by contract, and get authorized to negotiate downward revision with other ICC members, as if there is some imminent threat to the fortunes of BCCI." Raghavan and seven others, who had filed the PIL, "do not want the BCCI to adopt such a policy, which will lead to them receiving a share less" than what it was originally settled for -- 21% (IB TIMES, 4/19).
