Anil Padmanabhan’s “IPL: it is just not cricket any more” (Mint, 30 March) is timely and well analysed. When the Indian Premier League (IPL) had renegotiated a Rs8,200 crore broadcast agreement with the mainstream media, it is understandable that IPL commissioner Lalit Modi would not have been interested in rescheduling the tournament after the elections. Hence Padmanabhan gets it right when he says that the decision to shift IPL shows it’s the business of cricket that will dictate events, not the sport. Yet few media houses, now in overdrive in their offensive against the government, would have blamed Narendra Modi and Arun Jaitley. My question is: If the Bharatiya Janata Party were in power, would it have permitted IPL alongside national elections in light of security issues?
— Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee
Regarding your editorial “Cricket and new loyalties” (Mint, 26 March), while the shift is a significant one, I do not believe that it will change the order of things to come. This is for two reasons. First, the Indian Premier League (IPL) is definitely returning to India next year. However much a financial success IPL 2.0 proves to be in South Africa, the phenomenal amount of money that can be garnered in India is undeniable. Second, IPL’s move to South Africa was more reactive rather than strategic. IPL was almost forced out of the country due to the impending elections.
— Jonathan Rego
With regard to your editorial “Free and fair competition” (Mint, 25 March), some of the reservations expressed by industry lobbies are genuine, some are a result of lack of information or clarity. Yes, the 2002 Competition Act does state that the Competition Commission can take up to 210 days to render its approval.
However, this time period is more or less consistent with global best practices that recommend 180 working days.
The onus is on the commission to ensure that true and correct information percolates down into the public domain to dispel the misconceptions floating around.
In the backdrop of the global economic meltdown, the question as to whether mergers and acquisitions should be regulated is timely and merits a debate.
However, it may be critical to note that India is only standing at the threshold of ushering in a new competition regime and the commission has its task cut out to ensure that it gains credibility as a regulator in touch with the realities of the market.
— Ravisekhar Nair