CAS Precedent does not offer much hope for Amir

Even as Mohammad Amir’s lawyers contemplate an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the judgment of the ICC Anti-Corruption Tribunal, a quick review of the CAS Code and a very recent precedent in a corruption case (involving a Ukranian referee involved in match-fixing in a UEFA Europa League match) does not offer much hope for Amir. Interestingly, the President of the Panel in that case also was Michael Beloff!

CAS Decision in Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA- Brief Facts

(See http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4509/5048/0/Press%20release%20EN%202011.01.18.pdf, from where the summary below has been reproduced)

On 5 November 2009, the referee Oleg Oriekhov officiated a match between FC Basel and CSKA Sofia in group E of the 2009-2010 UEFA Europa League. FC Basel won the match with a score of 3-1. Following investigations conducted by the public prosecutor of Bochum (Germany), it appeared that Oleg Oriekhov was in contact with a criminal group involved in betting fraud and that he was offered an amount of approximately EUR 50’000 to manipulate the match between FC Basel and CSKA Sofia. At the end of an internal procedure at UEFA, the UEFA Appeals Body considered that Mr Oriekhov had violated the principles of conduct and his duty to disclose illicit approaches, set out in the UEFA regulations, in failing to immediately
report to UEFA that he had received offers from certain individuals to take an active part in their match-fixing scheme. The UEFA Appeals Body concluded that a life ban on exercising any football-related activity was the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon Oleg Oriekhov in view of the seriousness of the situation.

On 17 July 2010, Oleg Oriekhov filed an appeal with the CAS to request the annulment of the UEFA decision. The case was referred to a Panel of CAS arbitrators composed of Mr Michael Beloff, QC, United Kingdom (President), Mr Denis Oswald, Switzerland and Mr José Juan Pintó, Spain. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 15 December 2010, during which the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses were heard.
The CAS Panel confirmed the UEFA Decision and concluded that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there were repeated contacts between Oleg Oriekhov and the members of a criminal group involved in match-fixing and betting fraud.

The CAS Panel considered that Oleg Oriekhov deliberately violated the principles of conduct provided by the
UEFA Disciplinary Regulations as he did not inform UEFA immediately of the existence of such contacts. The Panel rejected the arguments of Mr Oriekhov by which he explained that he did not report the contacts because of his inadequate command of English and because he was not aware of to whom he should make such a report. The CAS Panel concluded that, in such circumstances, a life ban from any football-related activity was a proportionate sanction.

Specific Statements in the Oriekhov Award diminish Amir’s Chances

Firstly, in its discussion on the Applicable Law, on the basis of which the Oriekhov appeal was to be determined, the CAS Panel very clearly recognizes the primacy of applicable UEFA Regulations, and confines itself to assessing the UEFA General Terms and Conditions for Referees, Edition 2003, in force since 1 August 2003 and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Edition 2008, in force since 1 July 2008. Therefore, in Amir’s case, assuming the CAS were to admit his appeal, the appeal will be confined to assessing the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Code (and not adding to or reading down the provisions of the Code).

Secondly, in Oriekhov’s case (as in Amir’s case), Oriekhov had sought to rely on his past untarnished record to plead that a life ban was far too severe. In response the CAS Panel made the following remarks (See paras 77, 78 and 80 of the Award, which to me, sets a very firm precedent in dealing with similar corruption cases (such as Amir’s case):

“77. The Panel accepts that, until the recent events under scrutiny in this appeal, the Appellant’s reputation was untarnished, his refereeing skills were well recognized and that he did not instigate the match manipulation. It also accepts that it should proceed on the basis that he did not actually manipulate the match or receive moneys to affect its outcome.

78. However, the Panel has to remind itself that match-fixing, money-laundering, kickbacks, extortion, bribery and the like are a growing concern, indeed a cancer, in many major sports, football included, and must be eradicated. The very essence of sport is that competition is fair; its attraction to spectators is the unpredictability of its outcome.

80. It is therefore essential in the Panel’s view for sporting regulators to demonstrate zero tolerance against all kinds of corruption and to impose sanctions sufficient to serve as an effective deterrent to people who might otherwise be tempted through greed or fear to consider involvement in such criminal activities. Match officials are an obvious target for those who wish to make illicit profit through gambling on match results (or indeed on the occurrence of incidents within matches). They must be reinforced in their resistance to such criminal approaches. CAS must, applying naturally to considerations of legality and of proportionality, respect in its awards the approaches of such regulators devoted to such virtuous ends.“

These are very strong statements (and justifiably so). Hence, I have my doubts as to whether the CAS would deviate from its approach in the Oriekhov case and reduce the penalties imposed by the Anti-Corruption Tribunal in Amir’s case. The chances of it happening are all the more less as the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Code do not allow for a ban of any term less than 5 years for corruption-related offences.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Can CAS reduce penalties when the ICC Code does not permit it to?

ESPNCricinfo has reported that Mohammad Amir will appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport against the five-year ban imposed on him by an independent tribunal. “The sanction was the minimum prescribed under the code and Amir’s lawyer Shahid Karim said the tribunal, had its hands not been tied by the code, could have gone below five years. It’s a point echoed by Yasin Patel, Salman Butt’s lawyer, and could be a crucial part of any appeal.” (See http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/499665.html).

It appears that the lawyers of both Amir and Butt are clinging on to the following statement of Beloff i.e “The Tribunal has recommended to the ICC certain changes to the Code with a view to providing flexibility in relation to minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances.“

Beloff’s statement needs to be factored in by the ICC appropriately (and reflected by way of appropriate amendments to the Anti-Corruption Code if the ICC so desires) so as to deal with similar cases in the future differently.

However, I don’t think that a mere recommendation from Beloff can serve as a basis for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to reduce the penalties. Can the CAS read down the provisions of the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Code, particularly those pertaining to the penalties prescribed for offences? If the draftspersons of the Anti-Corruption Code desired flexibility in relation to minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances, the same ought to have been provided for in the text of the Code. Furthermore, watering down the penal provisions of an anti-corruption statute may imply a softening of the stance in the fight against corruption in cricket. It may not send the right message across to the player/administrator fraternity.

More updates to follow…

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Anti Corruption Tribunal: The Lords Test “No-Balls” were bowled deliberately

Mr. Beloff’s statement makes it clear that the “Tribunal found that the charges under Article 2.1.1 of the Code that (respectively) Mr Asif agreed to bowl and did bowl a deliberate no ball in the Lord’s Test match played between Pakistan and England from 26 to 29 August 2010, Mr Amir agreed to bowl and did bowl two deliberate no balls in the same Test, and Mr Butt was party to the bowling of those deliberate no balls, were proved.“

Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Tribunal has found Butt, Amir and Asif of “Fixing or contriving in any way or otherwise influencing improperly, or being a party to any effort to fix or contrive in any way or otherwise influence improperly, the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any international match.“

What will need to be gathered from the judgment is what evidence was placed before, and assessed by the Anti-Corruption Tribunal in concluding that the Players were guilty of the aforesaid offence.

More updates to follow…

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Spot-Fixing Verdict Out: Text of Michael Beloff available on ICC website

For those who are interested in the Doha verdict, which has been released a short while back, please do have a look at the website of the International Cricket Council (See http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=13055_1296919620)

Please do note that the full text of the judgment has not yet been published. As reported by this Blog on January 08, 2011 (http://wp.me/puHlJ-3K), the Anti-Corruption Tribunal has left it to the ICC to determine whether and if so when, the fully reasoned decision in respect of the breaches of the Code and of the sanctions imposed in consequence should be published. Although the Tribunal has also noted that it is their view that it is in the interests of all concerned in the world of cricket that publication should take place as soon as possible.

I hope the wait for the judgment is not too long!

More updates to follow…

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

More trouble brewing for WSH: ESPN slaps lawsuit on IHF

After the FIH letter to all National Associations, which was discussed in this Blog yesterday, there appears to be more trouble brewing for the Nimbus-IHF promoted WSH.

Times of India has reported that Premier Hockey Development Private Limited (PHD), a firm formed by ESPN STAR Sports and IHF in 2004 to run the Premier Hockey League (PHL) has filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain IHF from organizing the WSH with Nimbus, on the grounds that “The IHF had granted to PHD exclusive and unfettered right to use IHF’s name and logo in the promotion and broadcast of the PHL throughout the world“. Further the PHD has drawn reference to a stipulation in its agreement with IHF dated December 31, 2004, pursuant to which the IHF had apparently committed to PHD that “no other national, regional or multi-team hockey league or events which could compete with or prejudice the status of PHL will be directly or indirectly run or sanctioned by IHF or its member associations in their respective territories“

PHD has sought an order from the Delhi High Court, restraining the IHF from organizing the WSH with Nimbus Sport, as well as seeking a redressal of the breach of contract on the grounds that it has secured the exclusive rights to implement the concept of a multi-team hockey league.

While this certainly is more bad news for the WSH, it will be interesting to see what issues have been raised before the Delhi High Court, and how it addresses those issues. The PHL was organized every year between 2005 and 2008, but since then it has gone into cold storage, for reasons which have not been well documented in the media.On first glance, there does appear to be a breach by the IHF, of the terms of the Agreement dated December 31, 2004. However, can PHD obtain the reliefs that it has sought for, considering that the PHL itself has not been organized for the last 3 years? Is PHD willing to perform its obligations under the agreement dated December 31, 2004? Considering the fact that the FIH does not recognize the IHF, will it view the PHL any differently from the WSH? Where does this leave the players who had signed up to play in the PHL, and who have now signed up to play the WSH?

We have certainly not heard the last word as yet on what is brewing into a complex dispute involving the IHF, PHD, Nimbus, FIH and Hockey India. It is a pity that various Indian and foreign players will be at the crosshairs of this dispute and it is they and the sport of hockey who will be poorer due to this dispute.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

World Series Hockey runs into rough weather

On January 15, 2011, this Blog had carried a post which sought to predict some of the challenges that the Nimbus-IHF-backed World Series Hockey league would be confronted with. I had mentioned the following “Unless this issue is first resolved conclusively, the WSH could well be a non-starter, or can run into rough weather post commencement a la the Indian Cricket League (ICL). For potential investors, who are looking to buy a WSH franchise, the regulatory uncertainty would be the single biggest risk factor that they will need to contend with. This regulatory uncertainty can affect the participation of not just marquee Indian players, but also of players of other countries. Since the FIH has refused to recognize the IHF, it is very likely that the FIH will advise member countries to prevent their players from participating in a tournament that is not officially sanctioned by it. If the availability of marquee Indian and foreign players is impacted by such advise by the FIH, it could rob WSH of the much needed quality, glamour and eyeballs, thereby making it a significantly less feasible commercial proposition.“

Barely two weeks later, the FIH has acted more or less on the lines that this Blog had anticipated. The Times of India reports that FIH has written a letter to all the national associations (NAs) affiliated to it, stating that it does not recognize the WSH and “players and NAs will be rendered ineligible to participate in the Olympic qualifying tournaments and the Games if they become part of WSH.” Furthermore, the Times of India report cites the letter as stating that “FIH has received reports from some national associations that some of their players have been approached by agencies supposing to represent franchises that will participate in the new league. FIH states that it does not recognize the WSH. FIH notes that matches in the WSH may conflict with FIH major events, which may compromise an athlete’s participation in their national team program.” “No player and no NSF should accept any involvement in the WSH without first consulting the CEO of FIH, Kelly Fairweather. Any player and any NA that participates in the WSH may render that player and NA ineligible to participate in any FIH tournament, including Olympic qualifying tournaments and the Olympic games,” the letter said.

Predictably, the IHF has responded to the above statement of FIH with a statement from its Secretary General Ashok Mathur stating that the IHF was consulting its lawyers on the future course of action.

These developments seem to have triggered off the age-old debate on the applicability of the restraint of trade doctrine to the sports industry. The landmark decision in this sphere still remains that of Justice Slade’s in the case of Greig v. Insole, wherein Justice Slade held that the the ICC and TCCB (as the English Cricket Board was known then) resolutions banning English cricketer, Tony Greig and his co-plaintiffs from test cricket were void and ultra vires, and constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The brief facts of Greig v. Insole were as follows: In May 1977, World Series Cricket, a company promoted by Australian media magnate, Kerry Packer announced that it had signed up 34 of the world’s foremost cricketers to play in a series of ‘test matches’ in Australia. In July 1977, ICC altered its rules so that players taking part or making themselves available to play in a match previously disapproved by the ICC, after October 01, 1977 would be disqualified from taking part in test cricket. At the same time, ICC issued a resolution specifically disapproving of any match organized by WSC. ICC argued that it was acting reasonably in aiming to prevent players from taking part in a competition which could threaten the existence of official “Test Cricket”.

Justice Slade recognized that WSC posed a short term threat to ICC’s interests, but this threat was held not be not significant, as the profile of cricket could be raised by the ICC. As regards the long term threat, Justice Slade held that it could be countered by the imposition of a prospective ban on players playing in unsanctioned games. On the other hand, Justice Slade held that a retrospective ban, such as the ban on Greig and his co-plaintiffs constituted an unjust and unreasonable restraint of trade, as it would deprive a professional cricketer of an opportunity to earn his livelihood.

The facts scenario in WSH’s case appear to be remarkably similar to those in WSC’s case. According to the Times of India, 70 Indian players have signed contracts to participate in the WSH. On a review of the FIH website, I do not find any rules to have been framed which deal with classification of what is “official” and what is “unofficial” hockey, akin to the rules framed by the ICC in the aftermath of the ICL experience. Therefore, the decision of FIH to sanction the WSH as being “unauthorized” seems to be a retrospective sanction.

Several interesting questions arise in this scenario. Can FIH and HI advance sufficient justifications for banning players from participating in the WSH? Will the Players (supported by IHF or Nimbus) take on the might of FIH in a court of law? If confronted with a challenge against the decision of the FIH (and presumably Hockey India would also implement the directive of FIH), will Indian courts provide a conclusive answer on whether the aforementioned letter from FIH, is in effect a “retrospective ban”, and constitutes an “unreasonable restraint on trade”?

While a lot of noise was made in the media around the bans surrounding ICL players, the bans were ultimately never considered by a court of law in India. It would be interesting to keep a tab on how this dispute pans out in the days ahead.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

“Intrusive Advertising”- First thoughts on the Ten Cricket Show Cause Notice

ESPNcricinfo has reported that Ten Cricket received a show cause notice from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), seeking an explanation as regards the beaming of intrusive advertisements during the live telecast of the recent India-South Africa series. “A show-cause notice has been sent to Ten Cricket channel regarding the violation of Rule 7 (10) of the Advertising Code as prescribed in the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 which provides ‘all advertisement should be clearly distinguishable from the programme and should not in any manner interfere with the programme viz, use of lower part of screen to carry captions, static or moving alongside the programme,’” Raghu Menon, the secretary of the MIB, told ESPNcricinfo. “The channel has been asked to show cause within seven days of the notice as to why action in accordance with the provision of the Uplinking Guidelines and Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 should not be taken against it.”

While the Internet (read ESPNcricinfo and Smoke Signals, to name a few websites/blogs) has been pretty vocal in raising the issue of “intrusive advertising” in the last few days, the panacea that has been suggested by the guilty in the broadcasting industry is worse, to say the least. Sample this statement made by Atul Pande, CEO of Sports Business, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited: “A possible solution for the current problem was a premium fee paid by the consumer for ad-free coverage; England and Australia follow a similar model.“We are more than happy to give an ad-free feed at a higher price. If there is a customer who wants to look at uninhibited watching of a cricket event, and he is willing to pay a price for it we are more than happy to provide a service. We need to get a license expeditiously for that kind of a service, and we should be able to price it the way we want to price it. It’s like any other premium service; if the customer is prepared to pay a premium price for it, he gets a premium service.” How can Mr. Pande reconcile his argument with Rule 7 (10) of the Advertising Code? Why is the consumer being asked to pay for what is a legally mandated obligation? And how on earth is ad-free viewing a “premium service”?

I am inclined to sympathise with the commercial rationale offered by Mr. Pande for the ad-clutter. “Given the status of rights fees for most of the Indian tours you’ve got broadcasters trying to generate as much revenue as possible. It’s possibly leading to a clutter of advertising across all channels because they have to also monetise the property. The underlying principle is that there is a significant amount of pressure to monetise Indian cricket events, and the monetisation structure is such that there is pressure to generate money through ad sales.” However, there is an equally strong argument that can be thrown back, which is “Too bad Mr. Pande, but that is an inherent business risk which Ten Cricket and every broadcasting channel knows of and such is the environment that these channels have chosen to operate within. So the rules cannot be bent (at the cost of the consumer) to make your business risk-free.” Either broadcasters chose to wait for the Indian sports market to diversify beyond cricket (and be picky and choosy about cricket properties till then) or they risk making losses on marquee cricket properties in the short-term while hoping that an element of rationality sets into the market.

Subjecting the viewers to intrusive advertising or to a fee-based model for clutter-free feed are not viable options. One is unviable, strictly from a legal perspective and the other is unviable, from a consumer perspective.

Incidentally, I am not sure whether the Government would actually go the whole hog and ban a channel for “intrusive advertising”. Section 20 (1) Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 reads as follows: “Where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may prohibit the operation of any cable television network in such areas as it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” Lets assume instances of intrusive advertising occur during the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 games. Can and will the Courts and the Central Government be brave enough to prohibit the operation of ESPN, Star Cricket and Star Sports in India?! That would be the ultimate litmus test for law enforcement agencies in India!!

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Ajay Maken starts off on the wrong foot!

India has a new Sports Minister, Ajay Maken. Sample what he had to say in his first media briefing, and it does not make for a rosy picture for the Indian sports industry:

“I request and wish that sportspersons be given a greater role and opportunity in federations and sports bodies. I don’t think someone who hasn’t played a sport at any level can be as passionate about administration as someone who has been a sportsperson,” Maken said.

“Those who manage sports bodies should have played the game at some level and transparency and reforms (with regard to tenure and age limit) also need to be implemented. But these bodies can be given time and it can be done in a staggered manner. We can’t have a confrontational approach. We have to talk to these administrators and ensure that they agree to what we want,” Maken added.

The minister also said that he was open to dialogue with officials of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has withdraw customs duty exemption for import of goods by the BCCI after it failed to submit relevant documents to register as a National Sports Federation.

For Gods sake, Mr. Maken, you are the Minister! You can’t be “requesting and wishing” that sportspersons be given a greater role and opportunity in federations and sports bodies. You need to empower sportspersons to play a more significant role! A la the Karnataka boys who barnstormed the KSCA!

While a non-confrontational approach in dealing with sports federations sounds great in principle, those in charge of the NSFs are not waiting to be asked to leave. They need to be shoved out if they are in violation of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports’ guidelines on age and tenure in sporting bodies.

And going by the muted reaction in the media, the BCCI has hardly broken a sweat over the customs duty exemption being withdrawn for its failure to submit the necessary documentation to register as a NSF.

Maybe I am being a bit too judgmental so early in the day, but it is worth watching where Maken goes from here.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Does Indian Sport have Gary Wichard-like Agents?

Yesterday, I came across this interesting story of a NFL Player, New York Jets’ Jason Taylor dedicating his season to his agent, Gary Wichard (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=6038764), courtesy one of my LinkedIn connections, Lewis Howes. I must confess I have no knowledge of the NFL (either the sport or its business).

What however caught my attention was the many layers in the story of Jason Taylor and Gary Wichard. On first glance, it makes for a fascinating story. Wichard has been Taylor’s agent since 1996. As Taylor mentions, Wichard has grown to be a “father-figure” for him over the years, guiding him on matters as varied as the teams that he has played for, to his marriage, to performing on a TV show ‘Dancing with the Stars’ to counseling him on a limb-saving surgery in the dead of the night!

Another fascinating incident is the one where Taylor thumbs his nose at an $8.5 million Redskins contract, asking to be released because he wanted to be near his wife and kids. Taylor then signed a one-year, $1.1 million contract with the Miami Dolphins, sets an NFL record with his sixth fumble return for a touchdown (whatever that means!!) and then gets an offer to play for New York Jets. Taylor says the following of Wichard: “He never once said, ‘Hey, that’s a lot of money you gave up,’” “Or, ‘It’ll be tough to make that money back up.’ It wasn’t about that. At that point, the money wasn’t an important thing to me. And he was 100 percent on board with that.“

This to me, appears to be a relationship that is based on trust. A relationship that transcends the lure of money, and a relationship that transcends formal contractual arrangements. Very few player-agent relationships are characterised by such innate trust.

In India, my own personal experiences (based on the time I’ve spent tracking the sports market) can’t point to even one such relationship! Even in a sport that is relatively more exposed to the agents business, very few cricketers have agents who have been with them for 15 years. Most players view agents with a high degree of suspicion. Not that agents have done much to inspire confidence in the players. The relationship between a Player and an Agent is very transactional and very short-term in nature. If an agent does not have an endorsement deal on the table for a player in a quarter (regardless of the underlying market conditions), the Player begins to scout for an alternative agency. Likewise, the moment a Player loses form, the agent begins to look at other Players who could probably be more marketable. Players also tend to believe that they can do without agents and strike commercial deals with sponsors directly. While I don’t intend to argue that agents are indispensable, most Players do not have the time, or the commercial maturity to negotiate sponsorship/endorsement agreements themselves.

Perhaps, there is a need for both Players and Agents to reassess their attitudes towards the other and take a long-term view of their relationship. There has to be a recognition that neither of them can do without the others support. Will there ever be a day in Indian sport when a cricketer dedicates his ton or his five-for to an agent who has toiled behind the scenes to give the player the much needed financial and moral support? Or is it a completely utopian thought?

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Has the BCCI really lost its NSF status?

Yesterday, my attention was drawn to the following circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by my good friend at Rainmaker, Aju John.

Status of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as National Sports Federation / Apex Body for the game of Cricket- Regarding
Circular No.5 / 2011-Customs

F.No.528/12/2010-STO (TU)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs
Tariff Unit

229A, North Block, New Delhi -110001,
17th January, 2011.

To

All Chief Commissioners of Customs / Customs (Prev.),
All Chief Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise,
All Commissioners of Customs / Customs (Prev.),
All Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise,
All Director Generals under CBEC.

Subject :- Status of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as National Sports Federation / Apex Body for the game of Cricket- Regarding.

Sir / Madam,

The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has informed that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has not complied with the mandatory requirements of submitting the necessary documents to the Government of India for annual recognition as a National Sports Federation (NSF) /Apex Body for the game of cricket in India. Thus it has ceased to be a National Sports Federation (NSF) /Apex Body for the game of cricket with immediate effect.

2. In the aforestated circumstance, it is informed that henceforth BCCI would not be eligible to avail itself of duty exemption under notification no.21/2002- Cus. dated 1.3.2002 or any other Customs notification. Thus, goods imported by BCCI or certified by BCCI for import are not entitled to any exemption benefit which is available to sports goods / equipment / consumables imported or certified by a National Sports Federation (NSF) or Apex body in terms of any Customs duty exemption notification issued by the Central Government.

3. Difficulty faced, if any, may be brought to notice of the Board.

Yours faithfully,

(B.Timothy)
Senior Technical Officer (Tariff Unit)

Circulation: As usual
Notification No : Circular No.5 / 2011-Customs
Source : ,

I waited for a day to see whether this was perceived as an issue at all. Not surprisingly, the BCCI issued a typically bland response to the aforementioned circular today. “BCCI was always an autonomous body. A lot of pressure has been created in the last few months that we should register with the government.. the Sports Ministry (but) there is a different feeling within the BCCI,” BCCI Chief Administrative Officer Ratnakar Shetty said (See http://cricket.ndtv.com/storypage.aspx?id=SPOEN20110167132&cp)

While Prof. Shetty may well be within his rights to state that BCCI is an autonomous body, the point that is being missed here is that the Government of India follows a process by which it recognizes a body as the apex body for a particular sport. By not choosing to submit the necessary documents to the government, the BCCI has exposed itself (theoretically) to a claim from a parallel body that such body is actually the apex body for cricket in India. What would be even more interesting is if such parallel body were to apply for recognition by the International Cricket Council (ICC). How would the ICC view such an application? Would it not recognize a body that has been recognized by the Government of India and instead side with the BCCI?! Or is this merely a case of my overly legal mind being at work?!

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.