Is Corruption Becoming Institutionalized in HCA?

Special Correspondent

The Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) yet again finds itself at the centre of a storm—one that, according to parents, players, and long-time observers of the game in Telangana, has moved well beyond isolated lapses and into what they describe as a pattern of systemic decay.

What was meant to be a moment of institutional correction under the stewardship of a High Court–appointed administrator, a retired judge, is now, in the view of critics, a phase where entrenched interests appear to have adapted to a changed process rather than been displaced by it. The much-projected image of patient hearings, polite engagement, and procedural restraint is increasingly interpreted by sections of the cricketing community as a surface-level reform—one that, they argue, has yet to translate into visible accountability or structural change on the ground.

As developments continue to unfold, observers say the outcome so far seems to have left long-standing networks of influence largely intact, raising fresh questions about whether judicial intervention alone can dismantle an ecosystem of insiders and vested interests that has evolved over decades.

The HCA’s present crisis, critics argue, is no longer about a few bad actors but about a broader failure of governance and accountability—one that persists even under court supervision. A series of complaints and legal petitions, parents allege, have failed to produce meaningful corrective outcomes. The administrator was tasked with restoring transparency, enforcing constitutional norms, and safeguarding the interests of players. Instead, many stakeholders now believe these objectives have been reduced to formalities, while corruption quietly finds legitimacy through inaction.

For many within Telangana’s cricketing community, the initial optimism that judicial intervention would serve as a reset button has rapidly faded. Parents and former players speak of a system still dominated by familiar power brokers and selectors who continue to “call the shots,” while the administrator’s visible restraint—or helplessness, depending on who you ask—has only deepened the sense of despair among those invested in the game’s future.

In recent weeks, expectations of decisive action rose again after fresh complaints reportedly reached the administrator’s office. Among the most explosive allegations circulating within cricketing circles is that of a ₹24-lakh bribe allegedly paid to an unnamed “power broker” believed to wield influence over selections and administrative decisions. While unproven, the allegation has gained traction precisely because, critics argue, it fits an established pattern that has gone unchallenged.

Adding to the unease, the state Under-23 team’s heavy defeat to Vidarbha reignited questions about the integrity of the selection process. Detractors contend that the poor on-field performance is not an isolated sporting failure but a symptom of deeper rot—where merit is increasingly subordinated to influence, access, and backroom arrangements.

Rumours briefly gained ground that the administrator had finally “cracked the whip” when the announcement of the squad for the next match was delayed and the team’s departure for Mumbai postponed. It was widely believed that explanations had been sought regarding selection criteria and that officials were asked to clarify the status of the alleged bribery complaint.

However, an alternate narrative soon emerged from within the association. According to insiders, the delay stemmed from an internal dispute involving a senior office-bearer allegedly facing scrutiny under conflict-of-interest provisions. The controversy centred on the inclusion of the official’s son in the Under-23 squad—an episode that many parents say has come to symbolise the broader culture of entitlement and favouritism within HCA.

Several parents of aspiring cricketers have voiced deep frustration, stating that repeated representations to both HCA officials and the court-appointed administrator have produced little beyond acknowledgements and assurances. Their concern extends beyond one team or one season; many fear 2026 may become a “lost year” for deserving players sidelined by non-cricketing considerations.

Some parents have gone further, calling this period potentially the darkest chapter in HCA’s history. They contrast the current environment with earlier eras when former cricketers held administrative roles—periods that, while not without controversy, were perceived to have largely preserved the sanctity of team selection.

The governance crisis is further complicated by parallel legal developments involving the Telangana Cricket Association (TCA). Media reports indicate that the Bombay High Court has directed a temporary arrangement under which HCA is to confine its cricketing activities largely to urban areas, while rural cricket development in Telangana is to be handled by the TCA. Observers question whether this directive will be meaningfully enforced or quietly diluted, as has allegedly occurred in the past.

At the heart of the turmoil lies a truncated apex council managing HCA’s affairs following the arrest of the association’s president, secretary, and treasurer after a complaint by an IPL franchise that rents the HCA-managed stadium under a high-value agreement. While these officials have been removed, it bears noting that no court has yet delivered a final verdict on their guilt or innocence.

Legal experts point out that the current administrative setup operates under significant constraints. The HCA constitution and the Supreme Court-mandated Lodha Committee reforms require strict procedural compliance for major decisions such as convening AGMs, SGMs, or amending constitutional provisions. Yet, speculation persists that elections for key posts may be initiated without clear legal sanction—moves that could invite further litigation and deepen institutional instability.

Another development raising concern is the reported possibility of a private cricket academy operator—described by parents as a key “power broker” in selections—being considered for the post of General Manager at HCA. Though unconfirmed, the very circulation of such claims has heightened fears of blurred boundaries between private commercial interests and public cricket administration.

It must be emphasised that several serious allegations—ranging from bribery to systematic favouritism—remain unproven in a court of law. HCA has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintains that it operates within the framework laid down by the BCCI and the judiciary.

Yet, for parents and young players, the issue transcends legal technicalities. It is fundamentally about trust—trust that performance, not proximity to power, determines opportunity. Increasingly disillusioned, some families are exploring the possibility of their children migrating to other states in search of fairer systems.

Ultimately, the future of cricket in Telangana hinges on whether this moment becomes a genuine inflection point or another missed opportunity. The administrator’s role was envisioned as a bridge back to transparency and credibility. Whether that bridge leads to reform—or merely provides cover while old patterns persist—will determine the fate of hundreds of young cricketers whose aspirations rest on merit alone.

For now, the ball remains firmly in the court of those entrusted with reform. If meaningful action does not follow, many believe the only remaining recourse is for the BCCI to dissolve the discredited apex body—now left with just two elected members—and appoint a neutral three-member committee to administer Hyderabad cricket for the next two to three years. The objective would be simple yet critical: restore confidence, protect genuine talent, and realign the system with the spirit of the Khelo India initiative and the National Sports Policy under which the BCCI now also operates.