Is the BCCI setting a bad precedent by shortening the South Africa tour?

Is Sachin Tendulkar a mere cover for the BCCI?

In fact, just to make its point clear, the board went on to organise a tour of the West Indies to India, citing the reason that it is only fair for Sachin to play his 200th Test match, a mammoth achievement, in front of his home crowd.

Now, nobody knows for sure if Sachin really requested that his 200th Test match be in front of a home crowd.

If he did, it is fair to say that the BCCI took the right decision, as saluting one man’s achievements, especially one who has contributed as much as Sachin has, is important. It gives the chance for his fans to thank the man for his contributions, a testimonial of sorts.

But the question to be asked is – what kind of a precedent does this set for Future Tours Program? The Future Tours Program, or FTP, had been designed to enable countries to plan their tours to so that all countries played each other, as well as allow the respective boards enough time to sign up marketing agreements, thus helping them make money and survive. All the countries have committed themselves to the FTP.

But if the BCCI starts shortening tours just because it has an issue with one member of the opposite board, it sets a bad precedent. Granted, the BCCI is not breaking any rules; it is still going ahead with the South African tour, albeit sticking to the bare minimum necessity of two Tests and three ODIs to be considered legitimate in the eyes of the ICC. But by shortening the tour, they are hurting the coffers of Cricket South Africa, as a shortened tour would not give them the same money that a full length tour would have.

In fact, considering that they already knew that India was scheduled to come to their country, and with the excellent marketing potential that the Indian team brings to the table, Cricket South Africa would already have lined up a few agreements with various sponsors who, looking at the length of the tour and the exposure they would get, would have agreed to invest a significant amount of money. But with the tour shortened, they may reduce the money they give, if not pull the plug entirely.

Perhaps an even bigger question to ask is where the BCCI will put a stop such actions. Does it decide that shortening a tour is the highest retaliation they’ll make against another board? Or do they completely undermine ICC’s mandate and simply cancel the tour altogether, FTP or no FTP? If the BCCI starts cancelling tours on its own whims, it will leave boards gasping for survival, especially such countries as Sri Lanka and West Indies.

The BCCI, for long, has been a bully in international cricket. You either cow down to its wishes or you face its wrath. But if cricket needs to survive, the BCCI needs to stop trying to control all the other countries and, instead, try to help the game grow beyond the confines of the Test playing nations.