BCCI may drag Mumbai Indians into Sachin Tendulkar conflict issue

There is also talk that the CoA could put the ball in Mumbai Indians’ court as the accreditation to Tendulkar for dugout access was issued on the franchise’s request.

With Sachin Tendulkar blaming the Committee of Administrators-led cricket Board for the conflict of interest question over his dual role as Mumbai Indians mentor and Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) member, it is now for the CoA to furnish a reply to the ombudsman and ethics officer, Justice DK Jain.

File image of Sachin Tendulkar (PTI)

A CoA member said the three-member body is likely to get a legal representative to depose before the ombudsman. There is also talk that the CoA could put the ball in Mumbai Indians’ court as the accreditation to Tendulkar for dugout access was issued on the franchise’s request.

“The Board will forward the request (from franchise) to the Ethics Officer where it is stated that Tendulkar be provided accreditation to stay in the team dugout,” said an official privy to the matter.

Responding to a notice from Justice Jain following a conflict of interest complaint, Tendulkar denied that was the case and wrote to the ombudsman on Sunday blaming the CoA-led BCCI for the mess. The Board had said he is in a position of ‘tractable conflict’ (As per BCCI rules, “resolvable or permissible or excusable through recusal of the individual concerned and/or with full disclosure of the interest involved.”

Tendulkar had contended that the Board saw tractable conflict because it felt he was a ‘team official’ while he is only an ‘icon’ or ‘mentor’. He further said his ‘role is limited to providing guidance, inputs and inspiration to younger team members’.

Tendulkar had added that he ‘doesn’t receive any compensation whatsoever for the guidance and support provided to the Mumbai Indians team’.

Tendulkar also laid the blame on the BCCI for exposing him to the conflict issue by including him in the advisory body when he was already with Mumbai Indians.

However, some Board officials argue that conflict would arise even if the person held an honorary position, without any material gain.

“Just as an office-bearer who is not getting paid and is doing an honorary job cannot hold dual posts, as per the constitution, players holding official posts with a team as well as the Board can be subjected to the conflict clause despite not getting paid,” said one official. “No one, especially the players and franchises, were meticulous. It has been eight months since the new constitution was adopted by BCCI. It is strange that no player or franchise or anyone thought about it allowing people to file complaints over conflict.”