The BCCI, as a body, is also controlled by one man who calls the shots; all the shots. Those who don’t agree... sit on the stairs.

“You are Indian... aren't you?” asked a senior BCCI official.

Yes, I am.

“So you remember, there was a time when England and Australia would call the shots in the ICC? When all decisions in the ICC were about England and Australia, when Australia didn’t visit India for a decade between 1985 and 1995, when Salve saab (the former Union minister who was also BCCI president in 1983) was denied passes for the final at Lord’s, when the umpires would blatantly give decisions against India? Do you rememeber how we were treated like second-class citizens?” the official further added.

Yes, I do.

“So what is your problem? Why is it that you have a problem with India taking over in the ICC? Why do you have a problem with India calling the shots for a change?”

Well, those are some pretty compelling reasons to support the BCCI – if you are Indian and perhaps, if you are blind to logic and common sense. In fact, some might even see this as a sign of India’s rise in the game.

But why does this rise have to be exclusive and not inclusive?

The BCCI’s argument is that they generate 80 percent of the money in the sport – so they deserve to get a larger share of the booty. It is only fair, right? No, they are wrong.

To give you perspective, you have to think of international cricket as a league – they have only 10 Test nations and an FTP (they are required to play each other a minimum number of times in a four-year period). Teams have three main revenue streams – match day income, media income (TV, web and more) and commercial income (team sponsorship and so on).

Now compare this to the Premier League for instance (we have chosen the PL because the big clubs, Manchester United and Co also wanted a larger share of the revenue since everyone tunes in to watch them and them alone.) But the PL governing body has ruled that it isn’t going to be the case and it doing so has advocated true meritocracy.

With the latest £5.5bn TV deal, the top club in the Premier League can expect closer to £100m for winning the title, while the bottom club will get closer to £60m. The difference between the payouts is based solely on matches that appear on TV and where they finish in the league. It is a system that tells you that you are going to be judged on your performances alone and that there is no constant. The BCCI, the CA, the ECB on the other hand, want to be absolute. That can never be right.

What is somewhere down the line India starts playing very poor international cricket? Do we still have the authority to call the shots then? Incidentally, the Ranji final is being played in front on an empty stadium today and the BCCI hasn’t been able to fix that for years but they think they can fix international cricket. Right.

Secondly, the BCCI has not quite come across as a morally incorruptible body – the BCCI president also owns an IPL team, IPL team owners are let-off in controversies while players are not, inquiry commissions come up with clean chits, they haven’t allowed a player’s body to form, those who raise a voice against the BCCI are punished – we even have the case of a reporter from a leading newspaper being barred from entry from the press box at the Chepauk stadium... he now covers matches while sitting on the stairs.

If all this doesn’t matter – then surely, India’s inability to win matches abroad should. The BCCI has over Rs 1000 crore in fixed deposits but they can’t figure out a way to make India win overseas. But yes, they deserve to rule. It is their right because the others did that – so too must they.

Thirdly, the BCCI isn’t an organisation made up of financial wizards. Until Lalit Modi came along – they didn’t quite know how to sell a league or media rights. They still made enough money and they were fairly happy. But now the BCCI’s entire existence seems to be to make money – whatever happened to true sportsmanship and sport is anyone’s guess. But why do the BCCI want to make more money?

Fourthly, the BCCI’s plan seems to free them up to plan a longer Indian Premier League season. It also shows that their focus isn’t Test cricket – it isn’t ODIs or T20s either. The dream seems to be American –like the NFL on the NBA, crown the champs and call them world champions and make whole tons of money doing it. In the process they hope to get India hooked. But while we are okay watching a two-month IPL – would we follow a six-month tournament with the same intensity? Would international players be part of the tournament in the same manner? And would international cricket still have the same sense of importance?

And lastly, a true democracy would mean that everyone has a voice – a voice that carries weight. But what the BCCI wants is a dictatorship; a single voice bolstered by the power of money to decide everything. But history proves dictatorships are dangerous and eventually lead to a collapse of the system.

Is this the direction we want cricket to go in?