In recent developments that have caught the attention of the cricket fraternity, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) finds itself under scrutiny over its annual central contracts. The board’s seemingly inequitable handling of player contracts has raised several eyebrows, particularly concerning all-rounder Hardik Pandya’s retention despite not participating in the domestic cricket season.
Last year, the BCCI omitted players like Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer from the central contracts, drawing criticism from various quarters, chiefly because their exclusions seemed to be on account of skipping red-ball domestic cricket while they were away from the national side. This ushered in a wave of discontent among former cricketers who then turned their gaze toward Hardik Pandya. The all-rounder missed an entire domestic season due to injuries and does not feature in red-ball cricket at all.
Former Indian cricketer Irfan Pathan was one of the first to challenge the board’s decision. He brought to light an inconsistency in the criteria used to determine the eligibility of cricketers for the central contracts. Then, joining the chorus of disappointment, former India pacer Praveen Kumar openly criticized Pandya for receiving what seems to be preferential treatment.
In a candid conversation with Shubhankar Mishra on his YouTube channel, Kumar expressed his bewilderment at the special consideration given to Pandya, posing the question, “Has Hardik Pandya descended from the moon? He has to play too. Why are there different rules for him?” Kumar demanded that the BCCI should lay down an ultimatum for Pandya to partake in all formats of the game, highlighting the country’s need for his all-round capabilities across the board, not just in T20s.
The fervent former pacer did not shy away from seeking clarity from both Pandya and the BCCI. He suggested that if Pandya has decided to not play red-ball cricket, he should communicate the same officially. Underscoring the need for transparency, Kumar criticized the board for its differential policies toward players. At the same time, he also reasoned that there must have been internal discussions that led to the decision—if the board indeed sees Pandya as a T20 asset and aims to protect his fitness for the shorter format.
Moreover, Kumar posited that a cricketer should be apprised if they are only in contention for limited-overs cricket. This would at least afford players the satisfaction of knowing where they stand in terms of national selection and allow them to plan their careers accordingly.
Pandya’s absence from the pitch has been widely discussed following his injury during the World Cup 2023 match against Bangladesh. However, anticipation is building for his return, especially with the T20 World Cup on the horizon, following the Indian Premier League (IPL).
The ongoing debate over player contracts and selection criteria unveils a significant aspect of sports administration—the imperative for governing bodies to maintain fair and consistent policies. It is a matter that extends beyond individual stakeholders and touches upon the credibility of the sport’s governing institutions.
As cricket fans, analysts, and former players continue to weigh in on this issue, there is a growing expectation that the BCCI will address these concerns constructively. The goal is not simply to resolve one case but to reinforce the integrity and transparency of the selection process for the future, ensuring all players are appraised on an equal platform, and cricket, as a sport, continues to flourish in a fair manner.
