One Academy, Many Hats: Six Questions Hyderabad Cricket Cannot Dodge
Special Correspondent
The pressure is mounting on the Telangana High Court-appointed Single Member Committee (SMC), Justice P. Naveen Rao, which was entrusted with sweeping powers to clean up the mess that has damaged both the image of the game and the credibility of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), a founder member of the BCCI.
Yet, even as the SMC is expected to restore transparency and credibility, fresh allegations are surfacing about a private cricket academy on the outskirts of Hyderabad emerging as an influential pipeline for State selections.
The academy in question, NextGen Cricket Academy, is reportedly enjoying the association and support of former Test cricketer Wasim Jaffer, who was appointed to a coaching role by Cricket Administrator and former India player Ambati Rayudu. Rayudu, in turn, was appointed under the present HCA administration headed by Secretary Jeevan Reddy, a non-cricketer.
That raises a question that HCA stakeholders and affiliated clubs can hardly avoid: How has a relatively new private academy come to occupy such an influential position in the State selection ecosystem?
There is another question that demands an answer. If the Cricket Administrator himself is frequently seen visiting the academy, does that create, at the very least, a perception of proximity between those exercising influence over State cricket and a private institution whose players compete for State places?
Perception matters. Conflict of interest is not confined to proven wrongdoing; HCA’s own rules recognise situations that merely create a perceived conflict.
And that brings the spotlight directly back to the SMC.
Is the Committee unaware of what is happening under its watch? If it is aware, what action has it taken? And if the allegations are serious enough to warrant independent verification, why should the Committee hesitate to seek assistance from the appropriate investigative agencies, including the CID or an SIT?
These are not accusations of guilt. They are questions arising from allegations that require verification.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeHNxxxR0Iy/?stkn=MW5mZHc2aHpiZjFuMA==
But the questions themselves are not difficult.
HCA’s own rulebook appears to have answered most of them already.
Six Questions. Six Uncomfortable Answers.
1. Can an HCA appointee publicly promote a private academy?
Not if the association amounts to an endorsement or professional engagement creating a conflict of interest.
Rule 38 of the HCA Rules and Regulations treats “endorsement” or “professional engagement” with a third party as a potential conflict where it compromises, or is perceived to compromise, the person’s primary obligation to the game.
So the question is straightforward: Can a person entrusted with developing Hyderabad cricket simultaneously become publicly associated with a private academy competing for Hyderabad’s players?
If the answer is yes, HCA must explain why.
If the answer is no, the rule must be enforced.
2. Can one person coach the State team, a TG20 franchise and a private academy?
HCA’s own illustration appears to leave little room for interpretation.
It states: “A is the Coach of a team. He is also Coach of a TTL Franchisee. A is hit by Conflict of Interest.”
The TTL referred to in the rules is HCA’s franchise league.
If coaching a State team and an HCA franchise already constitutes a conflict, what happens when a third layer is added — a private academy whose players are competing for State selection?
One coach. Three competing interests. How is that supposed to inspire confidence?
3. Can a selector run an academy — or select a team in which his own child is competing?
Again, the HCA rulebook appears brutally clear.
Its illustration says: “A runs a cricket academy. He is appointed as a selector. A is hit by Conflict of Interest.”
Another illustration says: “A is a selector. His son is in the zone of consideration for selection. A is hit by Conflict of Interest.”
And it goes further: “D is a Selector. He is also the coach of a TTL franchisee. D is hit by Conflict of Interest.”
Then what is left to debate?
If these situations are prohibited by HCA’s own rules, why are stakeholders still asking whether such relationships exist?
And if they do exist, why has action not already followed?
4. Can support staff wear three hats at once?
Apparently not.
Rule 38 applies to every “individual associated with the HCA in any capacity”. HCA’s definition of team officials encompasses coaches, managers, physiotherapists, trainers and analysts.
The principle is simple: a person cannot simultaneously occupy positions whose functions could make one role “beholden to the other”.
That is precisely why conflict-of-interest rules exist.
The issue is not whether someone has actually manipulated a selection. The first question is whether the structure itself permits a reasonable suspicion of influence.
A selection system that repeatedly requires parents to wonder who knows whom has already failed the credibility test.
5. What chance does an unaffiliated child have?
This may be the most important question of all.
Private academies are not the enemy. Most perform an important job by developing young cricketers.
The danger begins when the same ecosystem controls coaching, selection and access to State teams.
Stakeholders allege that influential private academies have repeatedly found their way into coaching and selection structures, while HCA’s own academy — which belongs to Hyderabad cricket as a whole — has remained neglected.
The 2023 report of the Supreme Court-appointed Single Member Committee recorded that the HCA academy had been “literally closed from 2017”, while a director had drawn nearly Rs 90 lakh over three years. The Committee revived the academy and recommended continuation of its staff and selection committees for two years specifically to prevent “undue interference in team selection, for money”.
If the public academy is allowed to wither while private academies become increasingly influential, the consequences are obvious.
A child without a private academy, influential coach or powerful patron starts the selection race several yards behind.
A defunct public academy, meanwhile, is arguably the best advertisement a private academy could ever receive.
6. Can the SMC remain silent when its own mandate and HCA’s own rules are clear?
This is where the matter becomes unavoidable.
The High Court has vested the SMC with extensive powers, including the authority to appoint coaches, selectors and support staff, streamline selection at various levels and take decisions binding on stakeholders.
The appointments and selection structures operating under that authority therefore cannot be insulated from scrutiny.
When allegations involving conflict of interest, academy affiliations, selection influence and inconsistent fitness standards reach the Committee, silence is no longer a neutral position.
It risks being interpreted as indifference.
And that is precisely what the SMC cannot afford.
Why This Matters
The 2023 report had already recorded serious complaints concerning selection, including allegations of bribes, parents paying for selections and talent being suppressed in favour of those willing to pay.
Those allegations must stand or fall on evidence.
But the remedy recommended then remains relevant now: selection must be transparent, structured, performance-based and insulated from influence.
That principle becomes meaningless if the people controlling selections simultaneously have professional, financial or reputational links with private academies whose players are seeking those very selections.
Even a genuinely fair selection can become impossible to defend when the structure surrounding it creates a reasonable perception of bias.
That is why Rule 38 matters.
It does not merely prohibit proven corruption. It recognises situations that “bring, or are perceived to bring” a person’s interests into conflict with the interests of the game.
That distinction is crucial.
Hyderabad cricket cannot wait for a scandal to become a scandal before acting. Prevention is the purpose of a conflict-of-interest rule.
The same principle applies to fitness testing.
A fitness test is legitimate only when the standard is predetermined, uniformly applied and transparently recorded.
A test that is compulsory in one season and disappears in another — particularly if influential players reportedly fail it in the first instance — inevitably raises questions.
A standard that changes when the names change is not a standard. It is discretion.
What Must Happen Now
Publish every conflict disclosure. Rule 38(2) requires office-bearers to disclose potential conflicts within the stipulated period and provides for such disclosures to be placed on the HCA website. The disclosures of coaches, selectors, mentors and support staff should be made public.
One role, one responsibility. No State coach, selector or support staff member should simultaneously occupy a role that creates a conflict through an HCA franchise or a private academy.
Mandatory recusal. Anyone with a close relative, academy ward or other direct interest in a player under consideration should recuse themselves from that selection.
Record selection decisions. Minutes of selection meetings should be maintained, with reasons and relevant records available for legitimate scrutiny.
Fix fitness standards before the season. The same eligibility and fitness standards must apply to everyone, without exception.
Revive the HCA academy. It must function as a genuine public pathway for every talented child, not merely as an institution on paper.
Refer complaints to the Ethics Officer. Every credible conflict-of-interest complaint must be examined independently, with the outcome placed on record.
Is There No Hope for HCA?
There is.
And the irony is that HCA does not need another committee, another report or another court order to begin cleaning up its selection system.
The rules already exist.
The powers already exist.
The safeguards already exist.
What appears to be missing is the courage to apply them without fear or favour.
The real test of the SMC is therefore not how many appointments it makes. It is whether it is prepared to question the appointments and structures operating under its authority.
The real test of HCA is not how loudly it speaks about cricket development. It is whether a talented child without a powerful academy, influential coach or connected parent can walk into a trial believing that performance alone will decide his or her future.
And the ultimate test is brutally simple:
The person who decides a player’s future must have no stake in the result.
Until that principle is demonstrably enforced in Hyderabad, every selection will invite suspicion, every omission will invite questions and every parent without a patron will wonder whether the game is really being played on a level field.
Hyderabad cricket does not need another season of explanations.
It needs the rules enforced — now, before the next selection is made.
