Off Pitch Face-Off

• ICL says BCCI stopped pensions of players who signed up with it, after a mala fide change in rules
  
• BCCI says the clause denying payment to players participating in unauthorised events always existed
  
• ICL says it has the right to set up a cricket league without BCCI's approval
  
• It's Indian cricket's apex governing body, the BCCI counters. Its permission is necessary before holding tournaments
  
• ICL says BCCI can't run cricket like a monopoly; ICL wants to promote cricket
  
• Monopoly relates only to business, not sport, argues BCCI. ICL will quit if the money dries up, damaging the game and players' careers, it says

***

Those doughty spirits who've taken on the mighty Indian Cricket Board (BCCI) say that the fight, always unequal, tends to get dirty—so you leave your finer sensibilities at home. Thus Kapil Dev managed to maintain his cool during a round of aggressive grilling by the BCCI counsel in a case filed by the Essel Group, promoters of the "rebel" Indian Cricket League. Kapil himself isn't saying much, except that the BCCI lawyer was merely doing his job.

But another ICL man, who could be cross-examined soon, says that some of the questions asked of Kapil were preposterous. "He was asked if he remembered that India lost five and won one Test match during his tenure as coach," the player, not willing to be named, said. "He was asked if he remembered that India lost 16 of the 25 one-dayers it played with him in charge!" Kapil's response was that the record books would have the correct figures and that, lest anyone should forget, "I won you the World Cup in 1983".

Kapil was being questioned on the affidavit he had filed in support of the ICL's petition seeking a restraint order against the BCCI for allegedly intimidating players against joining the "rebel" league. His affidavit also seeks the ex gratia benefits given by the BCCI to former cricketers, which were discontinued to those who joined the ICL.

Though the ICL and the BCCI refused to discuss the matter, those familiar with the developments in the ICL camp say the BCCI's tactics are designed to tire them out and discredit Kapil. "For instance, by asking if there were allegations of match-fixing against him and not asking if he was found guilty, they wanted to establish that his credibility is questionable," says an ICL source.

The BCCI, though, had its reasons. In his affidavit, Kapil says he joined the ICL because he wanted to encourage cricket at the grassroots after India's "lacklustre performance" in the 2007 World Cup. A BCCI source poses questions to explain the logic behind the cross-examination of Kapil: "Why did he remain with the BCCI and accept posts with it even after the team's bad performances when he was in charge? Why didn't he launch a league to unearth and develop talent then?" His contention is obvious: Kapil joined the ICL for "short-term monetary gains".

As for restoration of ex gratia benefits, there are differences over the nomenclature—is it pension or gratuity?

Sources say the BCCI stopped paying "pension" to players who joined the ICL after changing the rules in 2007, once the ICL was floated. They, therefore, contend that the change in rules confirms the BCCI's mala fide intentions.

ICL sources say BCCI is trying to tire them out and discredit Kapil. Lawyer Rahul Mehra says ICL is sure to win.

"In the court, the BCCI counsel asked Kapil what monthly gratuity he was being paid before it was stopped," the ICL source said. "But gratuity is a one-time, non-obligatory payment, so it can't be monthly, that's a contradiction. They somehow want to establish that it was not pension."

This apart, the case in the Delhi High Court has raised other questions: are bans on the "rebel" players legally tenable? Do they constitute denial of right to livelihood, a fundamental right, to a professional cricketer? Bans on players associated with the ICL have caused heartburn worldwide. Cricket columnist Peter Roebuck says it's a rule made to be broken. There's pressure on cricket boards to not "kneel before the BCCI" and not ostracise the ICL cricketers.

The ICL's plea to the International Cricket Council seeking permission to hold its tournaments lies pending. The icc's lawyers have counselled that denying the ICL the right to hold tournaments would not be legally tenable, especially after the American tycoon Allen Stanford was given the go-ahead to organise matches in the West Indies.

In India, there's no definitive ruling on a sportsperson's right to earn a living, but there's a precedent in international cricket—the Justice Slade judgement in 1978, which ruled that banning players because of their involvement with Kerry Packer's World Series was "unreasonable restraint of trade".

Twenty years ago, a similar ruling was on the cards in India when, interestingly, Kapil and five other Indian stars were ranged against the BCCI.

Only one body can govern a sport, says BCCI, citing Fifa and ATP. Any challenge to it will hurt cricket, it says.

The six were banned for playing friendly matches abroad after being denied permission. "If a player who refuses to sign the contract can't play even Ranji Trophy matches, it's virtually a violation of a citizen's right to freedom of action," then Chief Justice E.S. Venkataramaiah, part of a two-man bench, remarked. "It's just like bonded labour." Fearing a damaging judgement, the BCCI removed the ban.

The BCCI's detractors say the MRTP (The Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices) Act could be invoked against it. Others counter this by saying that sports governing bodies need to be exclusive in nature. "A sports body trains players with a view to maximising the team's performance at the international level," says a BCCI source. "If we don't do well in a tournament, can we give up and go? No!" He says monopoly is a concept appropriate only to the world of business. "To govern a sport, you can have only one body. That's the reason there's only one Fifa, one ATP. The BCCI can't allow its status as the country's apex body to be challenged. If that happens, it would hurt the sport."

The BCCI also contends that no cricketer has gone to court against it. "Kapil is just a witness for the ICL, and he's being paid by them," says the source.

Supreme Court lawyer Rahul Mehra, who fought a public interest litigation against the BCCI and obtained a judgement that held the board accountable to Indian citizens, says, "ICL's players have a very strong case, they'll win in any court in the world. At some point, the ICL will run out of patience and take the icc to court. Perhaps they don't want to burn bridges yet, perhaps going to court will be the last resort." Indications are that the ICL could opt for the last resort earlier than what the BCCI expects.