Home
The Indian Premier League (IPL) is not only known for its spectacular cricketing action and breaking records but also for its share of controversies. Among the various disputes recorded both on and off the field, one particular off-field controversy had shaken the foundation of Indian cricket. This controversy erupted over the auction table concerning the acquisition of English cricketer Andrew Flintoff, which put N. Srinivasan, the then Secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), in the spotlight for alleged malpractice in securing Flintoff for the Chennai Super Kings (CSK) team. This incident occurred during the auction for the second season of the IPL in 2009.
N. Srinivasan was accused of manipulating the auction process to ensure Flintoff's inclusion in the CSK team, a claim that was further fueled by reports of a leaked email suggesting that Lalit Modi, the then-suspended IPL Commissioner, had assisted Srinivasan in this endeavor. According to these reports, Modi had allegedly convinced the Rajasthan Royals not to bid for Flintoff, allowing CSK an unchallenged path to secure the player. The leaked email indicated that Srinivasan had asked Modi to persuade franchises planning to bid for Flintoff to step back, thereby facilitating his acquisition by CSK.
However, Srinivasan vehemently denied these allegations, stating that there was no special deal made to purchase Flintoff. He defended the acquisition by arguing that CSK was the only team with a purse of 2 million dollars at the time, which was essential for securing Flintoff. The Rajasthan Royals had bid 1.5 million dollars for the English cricketer, but CSK outbid them with an offer of 1.55 million dollars, thereby winning Flintoff. This defense was part of Srinivasan's broader argument that CSK's financial capability was the sole reason for their successful bid, dismissing any suggestions of foul play.
"Chennai Super Kings is the only team which had the full $2 million purse. Everybody else had less. So, we didn't need anybody's favour to buy Flintoff. He (Flintoff) could have sent an unsolicited mail to everybody. I don't known how many people he sent it to...I don't have any email on Pollard. No one has referred any mail that I want him." Further he said, "I have not sent any mail that I want him. Rajasthan Royals bid for Flintoff at $1.5 million, I beat them at $1.55 million. So where is the deal? How can I have any deal? How can Modi have any contract with Shane Warne unless he is owner of Rajasthan Royals. We did nothing wrong. We were fair and square," the Economic Times had quoted Srinivasan as saying at the time.
Ownership and management of the Chennai Super Kings were under India Cements, where Srinivasan served as the Vice Chairman and Managing Director. The allegations of auction rigging against him sparked widespread controversy in Indian cricket, coming shortly after a challenge by former BCCI President A.C. Muthiah against a BCCI rule. This rule allowed BCCI and IPL administrators to participate in the league or have ownership stakes in teams, which Muthiah contested in the Supreme Court.
MORE ON SPORTS TAK:
IPL vs PSL: The huge difference in prize money of two prominent T20 leagues
Three franchises who have never won an IPL trophy despite playing all 16 seasons
All 7 records in CSK captain MS Dhoni's name: Thala's IPL career in numbers ahead of 17th season
