Cricket's call for change

Hardly had Nepali cricket fans recovered from jolt due to ICC confirmation that the next two World Cups will be 10-team events, they were given another shock. The news of a few former national cricketers moving the Supreme Court against the activities of Cricket Association of Nepal has surprised many, at the same time raised quite a few eyebrows too.

Much has already been said by the players and officials from Ireland, the most successful of the associate nations in past two World Cups, along with Scotland, Kenya, Canada and other nations about the associates being shown the exit doors. Whether it moves the money minded ICC or not; Whether it has excluded the 'world' from the World Cup or not; Whether that decision will mar the reputation of cricket across the globe or not, the single decision has killed the aspirations of cricketers from the emerging nations. And that includes Nepali players too.

However, the major disappointment, and one which could have long term bearing on the sport, comes from the players' moving court. The disappointment is not merely that the cricket governing organisation has been challenged. The disappointment is due to the fact that some people deemed it necessary that judiciary be involved in sport.

The petitioners have claimed that CAN has never conducted election of its executive committee and the association lacks financial transparency. They also claim that CAN has been exploiting players. We know that these are modern times and transparency is a must. And exploitation? That's a word we don't even want to hear in the sector.

However, one must admit that not everything is fine in our cricket. Less than five years of the present executive committee taking over, a sense of disenchantment has grown in. Talk to those who've been in the association for several years – the ones who have cricketing background - they'd tell you that the political appointees disturb the work. Talk to the so called political appointees… well, they're never available for cricket talk. They can give you enough on why the government formation is difficult and constitution may never be drafted. Cricket is definitely not on their agenda.

If you talk to the players in the national cricket team, and if they have confidence in you, you do hear some murmurs. Dissatisfaction is there. Complains are there, but they never go on record, to save their career. Maybe CAN authorities have not noticed but that affects their motivation during matches too.

And now CAN has a court case to settle.

Time to worry? Maybe not.

Maybe this is an opportunity for those who really want to clean up cricket to come clean themselves. If everything is fine, this could be an opportunity to say so.  If not, this could be an opportunity to correct it. Transparency has not, and never will hurt development.

On the other hand, a few questions perhaps need to be asked to the plaintiffs. Court should be consulted after every other system fails. Was there no alternative left? Or were they in a hurry to get popular? Or how does it help when some from the plaintiffs openly talk only against the CAN President? Is it only him who runs the show? How do you ensure that this is not being vindictive?

This also raises a question. Could those, who moved court, not have stayed within a system and tried to improve it, rather than challenging the system itself? It is a good idea to get into the system and try to cleanse it. Maybe that helps everyone.

Now these are former cricketers and we should give them due respect. But they also need to prove their motive here. If some of these are included in CAN in near future, will they abandon this 'crusade' as they might like to call it?

The questions are many but the answer is simple. Cricket needs to come clean after all the hullabaloo.

(The article originally appeared in The Kathmandu Post, 9th April, 2011, in a weekly column of Yours Truly)

The Inconvenient Truth

It's official now. The honourable Sports Minister is going to lead our contingent at the Asian Games. He will be the chef de mission as we're being represented by our players at the biggest stage in Asia. That, effectively, has killed the speculation and a lot of claims and counter claims over who's to head our contingent as top athletes from all over Asia parade in the Chinese city of Guangzhou.

You would breathe a sigh of relief at such a piece news, or maybe throw your hands in despair, depending upon how you view the participation. But, if you were an athlete, you'd just nod, and say, "Well, what difference does it make?" Given the nonchalance of our sport officials towards the players in previous visits, the lines speak volumes.

There are two sides to the minister's participation – one, of ending the controversy, and the other, of raising more questions. Indeed, Minister as Chef de Mission has ended the present claims and counter-claims from both National Sports Council member secretary and Nepal Olympic Committee officials. Anything that puts an end to controversy in sport is a welcome move.

But another view, and the one which could have far reaching consequence is – should a minister head such a mission? Maybe yes, but maybe not… The chef de mission is a liaison role and it includes coordinating between the Games Organizing Committee as well as other multi-sport organizations. The chef de mission is expected to know the technical part of sport, the rules and the updates in the rules.

With due respect to all the politicians – which is the group ministers belong to – it can be safely said that they, mostly, are unaware of rules of sports. In such a condition how well can our minister perform the role, is a question that does not even need to be answered. All over the world, perhaps without exception, ministers are not given that responsibility. Even if they do join in as chef de mission, it is because they hold some other post in sporting bodies.

More importantly, the ministers, in sports festivals of this stature, are invited by the Games Organizing Committee or the IOC, depending upon the clout of the ministers in the larger body. They're invited as special guests and given VVIP treatment.

Has our minister done wrong not to deserve that treatment? Or alternatively, why doesn't he want to see himself there? The questions have no easy answers.

Meanwhile, the honorable Supreme Court has put an end to the question over which one is the legitimate of the two NOCs. The only flip side is that the one not recognized by the Supreme Court enjoys IOC recognition.

Honoring and acting on the Supreme Court verdict will take time and hopefully, IOC will also honor it. But one important part of the apex court verdict in the past week went unnoticed. It said, sports associations did not need registration under National Sports Council.

While it may have made not have made the NSC authorities very happy, it has perhaps, opened the doors for modernization of Nepali sports fraternity. The verdict said that the sport associations needed affiliation from NSC and not registration. This effectively ends NSC control over sporting bodies in the country.

Sport, in most countries, has flourished because the sport's governing body stopped 'controlling' them. Rather, the governing bodies are expected or should 'manage' the sports association. Gone are the days when some elites would, as an act of benevolence, set up an organization to 'let' sport flourish. These days, the governing bodies facilitate and coordinate with other bodies, rather than administer them.

There's no reason why the same system cannot be used in Nepal. Rather, the question would be: Why should we not adopt for a system that is modern and has more chances of success?

And thankfully, the Supreme Court has given us a start.
(The article appeared in a weekly column of yours truly, in The Kathmandu Post, Nov 6, 2010)