Match Fixing

1. The present raging controversy over “spot-fixing” in the Indian Premier League (IPL) has occupied a major part of the news coverage over the past two weeks. Given the cult status of the game here, one is not surprised by the anger against the avaricious personalities who brought disrepute to the game
2. The arrest of players belonging to Rajasthan Royals by the Delhi police during the final days of the IPL season six blew the lid.
3. Then came a series of events: the infamous exit of Lalit Modi, the drama of the formation of the Kochi team and the exit of Shashi Tharoor from the Union Cabinet, Shashank Manohar’s promise to clean up the mess, the court cases between A.C. Muthiah and N. Srinivasan, the fight between the Sahara group and the BCCI over Pune, the telecast rights row, the controversy over the termination of the Deccan Chargers franchise, the induction of Dhoni as an employee of India Cements, and finally the appointment of L. Sivaramakrishnan to the International Cricket Council (ICC) panel. Each one of these developments gave journalists ample scope to do a comprehensive investigation into the murky world of IPL.
4. CSK denied the fact that Gurunath Meiyappan is owner or Team principal of CSK team as under the clause of Franchise agreement it has a termination fear : Clause 11.3 (c) of the Franchise Agreement, which says a franchise may be terminated with immediate effect if “the Franchisee, any Franchisee Group Company and /or any Owner acts in any way which has a material adverse effect upon the reputation or standing of the League, BCCI-IPL, BCCI, the Franchisee, the Team (or any other team in the League) and/or the game of cricket.
5. Schedule 3 of the Agreement sets out the franchisees’ obligations, and Clause 2(i) asks the franchisee “not to engage in any activity or practice which may be reasonably anticipated to result in public criticism of or to reflect badly on BCCI-IPL, the League, BCCI, the Team and/or the game of cricket.”
6. Further, the next sub-clause says the franchise should ensure that “all Players, Team officials and/or employees, or any other person acting for or on behalf of the Franchisee and/or the Team comply with the Regulations during each Season and that the Team complies with the Laws of Cricket during matches.” The term ‘regulations’ used here is explicitly defined as all rules and regulations of IPL, BCCI and ICC and includes any regulation relating to anti-corruption, match-fixing and gambling. This, in effect, incorporates the BCCI’s anti-corruption policy in the agreement itself.
7. It may be not be easy for CSK to wriggle out of the problem by saying Mr. Meiyappan is not an ‘owner’, as he may still fall under the definition of ‘Participants’ in the Code. Under Clause 1.3 of the Code, all participants are bound by it, and some instances of cricket corruption listed in Clause 2 are: fixing or influencing the result or progress or conduct or any other aspect of a match or event, betting and misusing inside information.
8. And a ‘participant’ is defined as “any Player, Player Support Personnel, Umpire, Match Referee or Umpire Support Personnel.” Further, “player support personnel” is defined as “any coach, trainer, manager, selector, team official, doctor, physiotherapist or any other person employed by, representing or otherwise affiliated to a playing/touring team or squad that is chosen to represent a National Cricket Federation in any Domestic Match or International Match or series of such Matches.” And IPL matches fall under the term ‘domestic match’, as it is part of the Indian domestic season, run by the BCCI.
9. Of course, there is a legal difference in the consequences of violating the Franchise Agreement and breaching the anti-corruption policy. In the case of the agreement, a franchise may attract termination if it adversely affects the league’s reputation, but a corrupt act under it will only attract disciplinary action under Clause 5 of the Code. The maximum sanction envisaged in that clause is “a period of ineligibility” or a ban for specified periods, including a life ban. In effect, violating the anti-corruption code may not attract termination of a team’s participation, but only a ban on the individuals concerned.