No princIPLe!

I had not mentioned much about IPL except maybe for passing remarks. I have not been following much because as mentioned in that post, I thought exactly what Hindu's cartoon referred and was not interested in such an 'entertainment'.

I am not sure if it is slowly dawning on ICC or rest of the nations that it is just becoming an exercise to show its financial power. The financial power obviously comes from millions, if not billions, of fools who pay and watch such crap matches. So when I recently came across a recent note on the state of IPL, I was amused but not surprised. I knew just what BCCI and Lalit Modi are capable of. I dont know still why Ian Chappell considers Modi as a 'messiah' of sorts. I view Modi as the most likely contender for the first defendent in the murder of cricket. Maybe, cricket-ki-maut-ka-saudagar ;)

Two articles came in cricinfo presented some perspective - 1. What the IPL says about India

Brash, loud and vulgar, the IPL can be seen as a symbol of the country where it took birth: an India full of a recently acquired affluence and confidence; but there's more to it than that

Several social historians over the past three years have argued that the IPL manifests the emerging India and its lifestyle eloquently: that this event fulfils the aspirations of achievement and self-assertion in the globalised world, of which India now finds itself a part; apart, of course, from providing full-scale entertainment.

Rather it is the "obscene" display of money, the apparent intrusion of the sponsor and advertiser onto cricket's hallowed ground and into the live coverage, and the massive amounts for which teams and players are bought and sold that appear to have exercised the world's finer minds.

2. The IPL and the limits of the free market

The Ravindra Jadeja verdict suggests the IPL is attempting to put in place checks on player power in an effort to protect the league's interests

Just as season three of the Indian Premier League began, Ravindra Jadeja of the Rajasthan Royals was banned for attempting to renege on his contractual obligations and sign with another franchise. Midway through the tournament, his team appealed that it had lost a player for no fault of its own. Unable to recruit an alternative at a late stage, it wanted the prohibition removed.

At the end of March, the IPL Governing Council appointed a one-man committee comprising Arun Jaitley to hear the Jadeja appeal. President of the Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) and a member of the IPL governing council, Jaitley is also a former Indian law minister and one of the country's best-regarded lawyers.

As Jaitley says in his ruling, "Leagues such as the IPL will survive only if utmost purity and honesty is maintained. There must be a strict compliance with the rules. Money has value, but in a league like the IPL, loyalty has a greater value."

Having taken the step towards money, talking of loyalty (is morality too far?) is ridiculous. Why should a player be loyal? If he is professional, he should be allowed to play for whoever pays him more. Dont we hop companies for money or other reasons? If they want to call or think cricket is a professional sport, then they should be ready to handle attrition as well. Going towards courts and lawyer infact reminds me of first ever round table in Cricinfo where Ian Chappell did talk of (to roughly quote)

...political judgement, trying to keep everybody happy
...game run by the legal eagles
...events, races are sorted out in front of the judiciary

Judgement reserved (for sure, atleast for me) ;)