Jay Shah - Cricket's Overlord

In one of the least surprising moves ever seen in sports administration, Jay Shah is soon to move into his role as God King Emperor of cricket, known to some as ICC Chairperson. In his role as head of the BCCI, he was, in essence, already in charge of the ICC and its decision making, but does this change mark another shift towards the total domination of global cricket for India and the BCCI? The power balance in global cricket rested with England, and Australia to a degree, for much of the sport’s history as a result of both financial and cricketing might, assisted in no small part by entrenched imperialistic undertones within the sport. However, the ever growing strength of India, thanks to a vast television market combined with the financial might of the IPL, has left everyone else clinging to their coattails, even the two former dominant forces in world cricket.

Every other nation is therefore doing its level best to suck up to India, making the recent election of Jay Shah to his new position a mere formality - any deviation from the BCCI whip would’ve surely been punished one way or another, but in the end he was unopposed anyway. Hardly a model example of democracy within sports administration, but who would expect anything less from modern cricket. In yet another concerning turn of events, one of the first acts of the ICC following Shah’s appointment was for the term length of his position to be increased, from two years to three. In fairness, the maximum number of terms was also reduced from three to two, keeping the total possible time one could spend in the position limited to six years (for now), but it remains a further degradation of the democratic process within cricket administration. Longer terms means fewer opportunities to be deposed.

Shah’s (arguably) increasing power in global cricket is also concerning due to his young age and the clear nepotism involved in his assent to power. His father, Amit, is one of Narendra Modi’s key lieutenants, and naturally had a big hand in his son’s appointment as head of the BCCI, which has now led to his somewhat suspiciously unopposed election as the head of world cricket at the age of just 35. Hardly a wealth of life experience to be drawing from when running the oldest international sport in the world. To be honest, you might have reason to question it if he was your manager in an office, never mind the most powerful man in cricket (especially considering that is, realistically, a title he’s already held for five years as head of the BCCI).

As India has gained more power in world cricket as a result of the IPL and a vast TV market, it has done little to assist smaller nations and to grow the game, rather electing to hold onto as much wealth as possible despite the dire state of the majority of cricket boards' financial situations. They, somewhat fairly, argue that England and Australia made very little effort in this regard when they had the most sway in terms of the sport's global operations, but this is a very closed-minded, an-for-an-eye type of reasoning. The sport was also in a very different position at that point in time, and was nothing like the financial entity it is now for the vast majority of its pre-21st century history. It seems obvious that it is entirely absurd for the richest cricket board in the world to consider itself entitled to 40% of the ICC’s funds when dividing this amongst the members, but maybe that's just my socialist side showing.

The argument is that, as a result of having the largest TV market, it is India that contributes the most in terms of ICC revenue. This is perfectly fair when discussing income from the IPL, as this is owned and operated entirely in India, for an Indian market and features a majority of Indian cricketers with a smattering of global stars, but a minimal amount of IPL revenue is directed to the ICC (in fact, no-one really knows where any of it goes whatsoever, but that’s a discussion for another day). It is not through any great success of the BCCI that India has the largest TV market for international cricket, just the pure luck of being the representative for the cricketing nation with the largest population. In fact, if it was solely Indian cricket that the India TV market was interested in, they would surely never watch anything other than the IPL, and some Ranji Trophy for the red ball purists. So surely it goes without saying that it is the involvement of the other nations against whom India play their bilateral series and World Cup matches, as much as the Indian team itself, that draws the Indian TV audience, and by extension any revenue earned by the ICC through such events is as a result of all of these teams’ contributions, not India alone.

However, and to butcher a famous phrase, with great money comes great power (but apparently not much in the way of responsibility). The BCCI has had a stranglehold on the ICC’s operations even before Jay Shah’s appointment as ICC Chairperson due to the perceived financial contribution they make and the ICC’s fear of losing out on this in the event that India were to abandon the international game altogether, even though this is an unthinkable proposition that would surely anger the one thing that has contributed so much towards the BCCI’s financial standing - the viewing public. And yet, as a result of the perceived power the BCCI holds over world cricket, Jay Shah has now been able to elevate himself to the unequivocal position of most power in the sport.

It would be naïve to expect any change in his greedy and self-centred approach to the finances of the sport as a whole, as he’s already been in this position by proxy for five years. All we can really wish for is that there is no further attempt to funnel funds back to the already disgracefully wealthy BCCI whilst the majority of other boards are digging around in the backs of sofas for spare change just to get games on, and no further degradation of the democratic processes involved in the global administration of cricket.