BCCI stance on Sports Bill creates cricket governance conundrum
· deals
Cricket’s Governance Conundrum: A BCCI Stance that Raises More Questions than Answers
The Indian cricket board’s recent affidavit in the Odisha High Court has left many within its state units bewildered. The National Sports Governance Act, which aims to bring transparency and accountability to sports governance, appears to be at odds with the BCCI’s stance.
Cricket has not been designated as a “designated sport” under the Act, despite being passed in 2025. Several state associations had assumed that fresh elections would remain on hold until December 2026, as per the sports ministry’s notice issued last year. This assumption was based on the understanding that cricket is indeed a designated sport.
However, the BCCI has filed an affidavit stating that cricket does not fall under this category. This stance is puzzling, given the BCCI’s previous criticism for its opaque governance practices and lack of transparency. The recent development only serves to reinforce these concerns, raising questions about the board’s commitment to adopting best practices in sports administration.
In a parliamentary discussion in August 2025, Vijayawada MP Kesineni Sivanath welcomed the bill, stating that the BCCI already adheres to its core principles. However, this statement contradicts the affidavit filed by the BCCI’s legal team. The confusion within the board is palpable, and it’s clear that this issue will have far-reaching implications for Indian cricket.
The state associations are divided on whether to follow the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution. This internal conflict can only be detrimental to the sport as a whole. Long-serving office-bearers, such as Rajiv Shukla and Devajit Saikia, will complete their terms next year and in 2028 respectively. If the BCCI does eventually come under the ambit of the NSB, these individuals would not be subject to the mandatory cooling-off period.
The ambiguity surrounding this issue raises important questions about the BCCI’s motivations. Is it a genuine attempt to resist unwanted regulation, or is there more at play? The perception that the BCCI is more concerned with protecting its own interests than with adopting best practices in sports governance only serves to reinforce this suspicion.
As the next hearing is scheduled for September 1, one can only hope that the BCCI will clarify its position and provide a clear direction for Indian cricket. Until then, the sport will remain stuck in limbo, waiting for a resolution to this complex web of rules and regulations.
Reader Views
- PRPat R. · frugal living writer
It's astounding that the BCCI would argue against being designated as a "designated sport", given their own admissions of opaque governance in the past. However, I'd caution readers not to jump to conclusions - this might be an attempt to shield themselves from greater accountability rather than an outright rejection of transparency. One possible explanation lies in the Act's provisions for external oversight, which could potentially limit the BCCI's autonomy and authority over state units. Until we see more, it's impossible to tell whether this is a genuine stance or just a clever tactic to avoid scrutiny.
- SBSam B. · deal hunter
The BCCI's affidavit is a masterclass in doublespeak - they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they've been advocating for transparency and accountability in sports governance, but on the other, they're arguing that cricket isn't a designated sport under the Act. It's high time they clarified their stance and made a public commitment to adopt best practices. The ongoing uncertainty is suffocating Indian cricket, and it's only going to get worse unless the BCCI takes decisive action to rectify this mess.
- TCThe Cart Desk · editorial
The BCCI's affidavit is a thinly veiled attempt to cling to its outdated governance practices. What's striking is that cricket's exemption under the National Sports Governance Act seems more about safeguarding entrenched interests rather than embracing reform. The board's opacity on this matter only fuels suspicions of a power struggle between state associations and the BCCI. One crucial question remains unanswered: what's at stake if cricket were indeed designated as a "designated sport"? Would it trigger fresh elections, ushering in much-needed change?