Vinay Rao
Here is a number that should disturb everyone who genuinely cares about Hyderabad cricket: 80.
That was the number of clubs a judicial committee found to be effectively controlled by just 12 individuals and their families. Eighty clubs. Twelve families. An association with more than 200 members — supposedly representing the democratic spirit of cricket across an entire state — reduced to a tightly controlled electoral syndicate.
So, when the 2023 order disqualified 57 clubs, one obvious question remained unanswered: what happened to the other 23?
The answer lies hidden in the fine print of the same order — and it is both understandable and deeply unsettling.
Some clubs had already begun reshuffling their committees before the inquiry concluded. Names changed on paper. Positions shifted between spouses, siblings, relatives, and trusted associates. Officially, these were presented as “new” managements. Legally, proving that such restructuring was merely cosmetic is not always easy. And so, many escaped disqualification.
But the order itself acknowledged what was happening. It was observed that several individuals had begun “adjusting their affairs” the moment scrutiny began.
Not reforming. Not cleaning up. Adjusting.
And that single distinction explains why Hyderabad cricket still finds itself trapped in the same cycle even today.
The Disease Was Never the Clubs — It Was the Capture
Nobody disputes the importance of clubs in a cricket ecosystem. Clubs are the foundation of the game. They are where young cricketers train on dusty grounds, where league matches are played, where dreams begin.
No serious reformer wants to destroy clubs.
The real problem was the system that converted clubs into political currency.
In HCA, clubs stopped being cricket institutions and became electoral assets. Own three clubs, control three votes. Control enough votes, and you influence elections, committees, selections, contracts, finances and eventually the entire association itself.
That culture did not disappear when 57 clubs were disqualified in 2023. It merely went underground. It adapted. It waited.
And now, three years later, it is attempting a return.
The present debate is being framed simplistically:
“Three years are over. So shouldn’t the clubs automatically come back?”
But that is the wrong question.
The real question is this:
Are these clubs now genuinely independent, or are they still operating as instruments of the same old networks?
That cannot be answered by looking at a calendar. It requires scrutiny. Verification. Institutional honesty.
A Real Review Cannot Be a Rubber Stamp
If the Single Member Committee is serious about restoring credibility, then every club seeking reinstatement must undergo meaningful review.
The process is neither complicated nor unreasonable. The committee must ask:
- Have the executive committees genuinely changed, or have the same families merely rotated positions?
- Are the new office bearers truly independent individuals, or merely employees, relatives, proxies and associates of previously barred persons?
- Is any individual currently under investigation by the SIT still directly or indirectly controlling these clubs?
That final question is crucial.
Because the crisis in HCA is no longer merely administrative. It has entered the realm of criminal investigation.
The April 2026 High Court observations made that abundantly clear. There are now multiple FIRs, arrests, Enforcement Directorate proceedings and a Special Investigation Team headed by a senior IPS officer examining allegations ranging from financial irregularities to systemic manipulation.
In such an atmosphere, restoring voting rights to clubs potentially linked to individuals under active criminal scrutiny — without rigorous verification — would not amount to reform.
It would amount to institutional amnesia.
Or worse, institutional surrender.
Genuine Clubs Deserve Justice Too
Amid all this noise, one important truth often gets ignored: the overwhelming majority of cricket lovers within HCA are not power brokers.
Most clubs are run by individuals who simply love the game. They organise matches with limited resources, maintain grounds despite neglect, encourage youngsters and survive within a system that has too often prioritised electoral arithmetic over cricketing development.
These clubs deserve representation. They deserve voting rights. They deserve an HCA that works for cricket instead of functioning as a private political marketplace.
Which is precisely why the review process must distinguish between genuine cricket bodies and manufactured vote banks masquerading as clubs.
There may also be clubs that were unfairly grouped during the 2023 exercise. Some may never have received a complete hearing. Such clubs deserve fairness, transparency, and an opportunity to establish their independence.
But fairness cannot become an excuse for carelessness.
Institutional reform requires both compassion and vigilance.
And What About Those Who Were Never Touched?
The most uncomfortable question, however, remains unanswered.
The 2023 order dealt with 57 clubs. Yet the inquiry itself observed that multiple ownership within HCA was “visibly rampant” — a phrase suggesting the identified cases were merely the documented portion of a much larger problem.
Some clubs escaped scrutiny because their paperwork was cleaner. Some because time ran out. Others, according to many within cricket circles, because influence ensured that scrutiny never reached them with the same intensity.
That is why any review confined only to the original 57 clubs risks becoming incomplete and even absurd.
If the Single Member Committee is genuinely examining structural manipulation, then scrutiny cannot stop at clubs named three years ago. Any club displaying the same patterns — family dominance across multiple entities, coordinated voting structures, proxy administration or concealed control — must face identical examination, whether or not it appeared in the original list.
Otherwise, Hyderabad cricket could end up in a bizarre situation where some allegedly reformed offenders face scrutiny, while others who simply escaped the first inquiry continue voting freely without challenge.
That is not reform. That is selective housekeeping.
And selective housekeeping never cleans an institution. It merely rearranges the dirt.
The clean-up, if it is to mean anything at all, must be thorough, impartial and complete. Otherwise, HCA will once again become what it was for years — not a cricket association serving the game, but a voting empire serving a handful of entrenched interests.
