‘Kumble lays himself open to possibility of influencing decision making for personal gain’

He must wonder too what the fuss is all about because conflict of interest is everywhere in our cricket. But as someone recently told me: if you want to be seen to be different then you must be willing to live with a different set of rules. Kumble has to assess himself not by the reality of what he actually does but by the possibility,in the eyes of the public,of what he might.

And so,he has two options: he either shuts down his company and works for Indian cricket for nothing. Or,he quits the KSCA and Indian cricket loses a valuable asset. And so the conflict of interest situation has to be addressed from its roots and as long as you have power without remuneration and this fascination with honorary office-bearers,it will continue to exist.

Having said that,I suspect I can understand Kumble a bit better because I have been in a reality versus perception situation myself. In 2008,I worked with the Mumbai Indians,travelled with them,was in meetings and sat in the dug-out watching things unfold. My understanding of cricketers and their response to situations was greatly strengthened as a result but by the time IPL 2009 began,I no longer had a financial or decision-making commitment with them. When I sat in the commentary box that year,I knew that I was completely unbiased,as I have been every single time in a commentary box. Yet,respected voices suggested I might have an interest in MI doing well and it hurt hugely because it was so contrary to what I believe a commentator should be. It hurt too that people didnt seem concerned that a former coach or cricket captain could be biased when broadcasting on a match involving a team he had been such an intrinsic part of.

Production by-products

But when I took a step back I realised I was dealing with perceptions and not reality; that those whose opinions I respected did in fact have a point. It is a similar situation with commentators contracted by a cricket board to broadcast on matches they organise. The reasons the BCCI seeks to own the telecast are different; they have more to do with overall revenues and profits. But as a sub-plot,it means that as the producer,production contracts have to be with them. Now if you want to do cricket in your own country,as anyone would,you necessarily have to have a contract with the BCCI. Cricket Australia and Channel 9 or the England Cricket Board and Sky Sports do things differently and I strongly believe that revenue considerations apart,cricket boards should not be in production; that broadcasters must have complete freedom since that is what audiences are entitled to. Now,as with the Kumble case,a commentator may or may not toe the official line,may or may not even be asked to,but by virtue of a contract that perception is established. And as I said,we live with perceptions not reality.

So too the case with Mr Srinivasan,India Cements and the Chennai Super Kings. First,an admission. I hardly know Mr Srinivasan. I have spoken to him twice,each time for no more than a couple of minutes,so it is different from Kumble who I have had the pleasure of knowing for about twenty years. Mr Srinivasan can seek to create a difference between himself and India Cements; between corporate ownership and individual ownership but perceptions will be different. As managing director he would have had to sanction funds for the purchase of CSK; the expansion of India Cements into northern markets using stars from CSK will necessarily,in public perception,be put alongside the desire to retain players after three seasons of the IPL.

All over the world definitions of conflict of interest are fuzzy. Did the war on Iraq and the imaginary weapons of mass destruction there benefit Dick Cheney and Halliburton for example? We live in an atmosphere where conflict of interest abounds and till such time as employer-employee contracts arent clearly defined,we will continue to have a Kumble-like situation where the answer is not easy to find.