This is a response to my article yesterday, titled “Time for BCCI to Break Free from Rotten State Units,” published in these ‘Special Reports’ columns. The response comes from a Club Secretary of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), who prefers to remain anonymous in view of the prevailing volatile situation. We welcome similar perspectives—whether in support or in opposition—to carry this debate forward in the larger interest of the game. —Editor
I am not against anyone’s demand for expanding the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to broaden its canvas and accommodate more associate members. The latest such call comes from the Telangana Cricket Association (TCA), which may well have genuine grievances with the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA). But here is where I look the other way.
Let us remember that cricket, much like the English language, is a colonial import—thrust upon us by the British. Yet, what began as a foreign pastime has now become India’s most powerful sporting identity: a national obsession, a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, and, for countless youngsters, the ultimate passport to recognition.
But beneath the shine of IPL auctions and India’s global dominance lies a rusty foundation. The state associations—the bedrock of Indian cricket—still operate with outdated structures, monopolies, and a feudal mindset. In that context, the TCA’s demand for recognition is not a whimsical cry. It reflects a deeper fault line in the BCCI’s governance model.
History offers ample justification. Hyderabad was a founder member of the BCCI when it was formed in 1928, representing a princely state that had embraced cricket. Over time, new states were created, and most received their own representation. Jharkhand emerged out of Bihar and got its own association. But Telangana, formed in 2014, continues to remain shackled to the HCA. Why should it be denied what others got as a matter of right?
The analogy with Hyderabad’s airport is telling. Why does Telangana not have a second international airport like many other states? Because of an exclusive agreement with GMR, throttling competition. The HCA’s stranglehold over cricket in Telangana works in exactly the same way—it leaves no room for another association, however genuine the demand.
Even Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has argued that one association cannot possibly serve a state of 25 crore people. If UP deserves four or five associations, surely Telangana deserves at least one of its own. Expanding representation would mean expanding opportunity for lakhs of cricketers languishing outside the system.
But then comes the flip side. If every group unhappy with its parent body demands separate recognition, where does the BCCI draw the line? Do we risk fragmentation of cricket into a thousand pieces? Will politics—not performance—drive the creation of new associations?
There is also the argument that the BCCI is already shifting away from the old association model. The IPL has ushered in a new era of private enterprise, where franchises—not state bodies—are increasingly shaping cricket’s future. There is talk of junior and red-ball teams being made mandatory for IPL franchises. If that becomes reality, will state associations even matter as much tomorrow as they do today?
Perhaps the solution lies in balance. The BCCI could amend its constitution to allow multiple associate members within a state, without immediately granting them full voting rights. Performance, governance standards, and player development could then determine whether such bodies graduate to full membership. This would avoid the chaos of unbridled expansion while also breaking the monopolies of entrenched associations.
The TCA’s demand, then, is more than just about Telangana. It represents the wider frustration of cricketers trapped in outdated structures. Whether the BCCI clings to the comfort of the old or embraces a plural future will decide not just Telangana’s fate but also the future health of Indian cricket.
The ball, as always, is in the BCCI’s court.
