‘Superstar culture’ and BCCI’s unofficial commandments
The directives read absurd because each is meant to correct a series of absurdities that have been allowed to happen, writes Sharda Ugra
You know that BCCI policy document? The version floating around which reads as if it was written by Chat GPT wasn’t meant to be released to the public. Helpfully, BCCI’s leaky parts sent it out and we have seen it in its unedited glory. What’s even more unnerving than its sentence construction is that its strict tone is backed by several uncomfortable, unsavoury truths.

Let’s start with the baffling item No.5 – ‘Sending Bags Separately to the Centre of Excellence.’ “Players must coordinate with team management regarding equipment and personal items being sent to the Centre of Excellence, Bengaluru. Any additional costs incurred due to separate arrangements will be the player’s responsibility.” What does that even mean? Read on. A human hand carries these items of player luggage into the NCA for temp storage, because they are to form part of general travelling wardrobe of superstar cricketers. Before setting out on a few months of cricket travel, who can be bothered to pack, unpack and repack? Might as well carry the whole lot of your casual wardrobe along and dip in and out of what suits the off-field mood when required. Because, puh-lease, who repeats repeat outfits? Leave a bag or two of favourite looks at the NCA and before the next series have that brought along by some support staff minion.
There’s more about cricketers’ luggage. Point No.3 ‘Excess Baggage Limit’ stipulates the limits of travelling kit bags (two per player) and suitcases (three on long tour, two on shorter trip) between 120 and 150kg depending on length of tour. Pedantic, wot? Those living with 15kg in domestic and 25kg in international ask when did 120kg/150kg become a “limit”? Some individual stars on the BGT series had personal bags between 12 and 15, with 22 being the highest number. What’s in those bags other than clothes and kit? Gold yoga mats? Protein shakes? How many? The urge to write another column on this is overwhelming.
There were many mutterings around the ‘Superstar Culture’ that led to these as yet unofficial Ten Commandments, but let’s talk plainly. The Superstar Count in Indian cricket – across formats – is restricted to a small bunch. In alphabetical order, they are Jasprit Bumrah, Virat Kohli, Hardik Pandya, Rishabh Pant, Rohit Sharma. That’s it. Alpha Plus. You could count (alphabetical order again) Ravichandran Ashwin, Shubman Gill, Ravindra Jadeja, KL Rahul, Suryakumar Yadav into an alpha minus category. Nut if we’re talking personal bodyguards, entourages, separate flights, hotels and prospective God Complexes, then the first set of five names is it. The Policy Document conditions are meant mostly for that group and a message to the rest to abort plans of switching onto those lanes.
The Conditions read absurd because each is meant to correct a series of absurdities that have been allowed to happen. Unchecked by BCCI’s highest officials ie. president/ secretary/whoever else calls the shots, the tour managers and the coaches over the last few years. In 2017, Anil Kumble’s resignation as coach following whispers and rumours of a broken-down relationship with Kohli was supported by the then COA boss Vinod Rai. It was the first sign of where BCCI admin, even BCCI’s elected officials, would go when faced with man-management issues. After appointing and then unappointing the team’s first official tour manager in Sunil Subramaniam within a year, BCCI managerships have resorted to type. They fall into the yes men/owed a favour to/spies (with good English a requirement for SENA country tours) and end up being those who fail to exert the authority which they hold. (Which is why the Indian team didn’t celebrate the Perth Test win together.)
In this climate, the sharpest of the stars very quickly sussed out that to get anything done or undone, all they need to do was speed dial the most powerful BCCI official of the moment. You could argue that Indian cricket superstars have always done this. True, but none of those superstars physically detached themselves from their team. Sure, maybe they couldn’t afford to fly charter in those days, but fundamentally they stayed in the same hotel and stuck around with teammates. They did not skip practice repeatedly on tour once their warm up, nets and slip catching was done as happened in Australia over two months. Yes, times have changed and much will be different but like a tour insider said, “your respect for your teammates should not change”.
The Indian team entourage on tour has reached large numbers – approx. 35 – but added to them are now support staffers for stars, who can hang around the squad, stay on the same floor, travel with them stuck to the star’s side – they are superstar managers/ assistants, chefs, private security guards. At the T20 World Cup, a star had a camera team of two recording his movements for possible documentary material. Because BCCI had approved of coach Gautam Gambhir’s personal advisor/assistant in Australia meant he could hardly call the players out. But individual practice departures? Team dinners?
The detachment of superstars from the larger bunch of teammates had become routine. It simmered in the background, under wraps mostly due to on-field success. Two consecutive Test series wins in Australia, a stirring ICC World Cup 2023 campaign and finally the ICC T20 World Cup win. Going downhill in this environment was always going to be faster. There were no skid brakes of common purpose or older counsel to establish a grip.
But let’s not forget that India lost six of its last eight Tests for multiple cricketing reasons – selectorial, on-field decision-making, and in the case of the batters, shot selection. This scattered team environment with the ‘superstar culture’ is an accessory to the event. If properly recognised and handled, it could have been stemmed before it transferred from one star to many, spreading through the upper reaches of the team. In an ecosystem of slippery boundaries and flexible rules when things go bad on the field, the centre will not hold.
The BCCI’s policy document is now being dissed as the “unofficial” version. The Superstars at whom it is directed are annoyed. If and when the official version arrives, what will be most prominently reflected in it is how much the Superstars have succeeded at striking back – or not.
