Dhaka clubs hold monopoly over BCB, reformation in limbo

In the midst of the Bangladesh Premier League (BPL)'s fanfare, it seems many have forgotten about the Dhaka First Division Cricket League. Scheduled to begin on 20 January, the league remains in limbo, with no matches yet played or any confirmation of when it might begin. But what exactly is holding it back?

The reason lies in the decision of Dhaka-based clubs to boycott the league. Behind this decision is a brewing controversy, centred around a proposed overhaul of the Bangladesh Cricket Board's (BCB) election structure. Although the BCB has not formally announced anything, sources from the Dhaka cricket circles suggest that Nazmul Abedeen Fahim's reform committee is set to recommend a significant change in the BCB's governance model.

Currently, under the BCB's existing structure, 171 councilors elect the governing board. Among these, 76—more than 40%—are representatives of various Dhaka clubs. In addition, of the 25-member Board of Directors, 12 are also from Dhaka-based clubs. In stark contrast, regional or divisional cricket councils contribute only 10 directors, with the remaining three members nominated by the National Sports Council or selected from other organisations and former players.

This disproportionate representation raises the question: is it the Bangladesh Cricket Board, or more aptly, the Dhaka Cricket Board?

The proposed reforms aim to address this imbalance by reducing Dhaka's dominance. The draft proposal suggests slashing the number of councilors from Dhaka-based clubs to 30 and the number of directors to just four. In their place, representation from districts and divisions would increase, bringing in 13 directors. This would reduce the overall size of the governing body from 25 members to 21, streamlining its operations while making it more inclusive.

Despite this being merely a draft, Dhaka-based clubs have already launched a campaign opposing the reforms. Fearing the end of their long-standing dominance, many club representatives have demanded the resignation of Nazmul Abedeen and resorted to their well-trodden tactic: refusing to participate. Their boycott has thrown the cricketing calendar into disarray, proving once ag the immense power these clubs wield.

Former BCB director Sirajuddin Mohammad Alamgir, speaking to The Business Standard, deemed the boycott unreasonable. He explained that any amendment would require multiple steps, including approval from the BCB Board of Directors and a vote at the Special General Meeting or Annual General Meeting. He argued, "This knee-jerk reaction of boycotting matches before any formal meeting or voting is outright irrational."

For decades, Dhaka's clubs have enjoyed an outsized influence in Bangladesh's cricket ecosystem. This dates back to the pre-Test era when the popularity of the Dhaka cricket league helped cement Bangladesh's case for ICC membership. However, since Bangladesh achieved Test status, there has been little justification for continuing this structural imbalance.

In an ideal cricketing landscape, every major city in a Test-playing nation would have competitive club leagues. While the Dhaka Premier League remains Bangladesh's most significant 50-over tournament with List A status, similar leagues in Chattogram, Khulna, Sylhet, and Rajshahi are conspicuously absent. Aspiring cricketers from Bangladesh's 64 districts must move to Dhaka for better opportunities, as regional and divisional cricket competitions lack quality and infrastructure.

This over-reliance on Dhaka reflects a lack of long-term planning. For years, the BCB has overlooked regional development, and even now, critics say the Board remains reluctant to decentralise power or invest in grassroots programmes beyond the capital.

According to Sirajuddin, BCB's centralisation is partly to blame. He stressed the need for structural reform: "Cricket should not be Dhaka-centric. BCB should set up committees in every district and division, empowering them to manage and nurture cricket at the grassroots level. But we haven't seen any such initiatives from BCB."

Such imbalance has financial consequences as well. Without competitive leagues or lucrative sponsorships, most regional clubs find it difficult to survive, forcing players to focus on relocating to Dhaka. This dependence hinders the growth of cricket nationwide, perpetuating a cycle where Dhaka clubs control the pipeline to the national team.

Reducing Dhaka's monopoly could significantly improve Bangladesh's cricketing framework. Strong regional leagues would not only broaden the talent pool but also reduce reliance on the Dhaka league as the primary feeder system for the national team. By fostering healthy competition among regions, Bangladesh can establish a more comprehensive cricket structure where players rise through merit rather than proximity to Dhaka's clubs.

Additionally, empowering divisions and districts can boost community involvement. Cricket leagues in areas like Khulna and Sylhet, for example, would attract local spectators, create new revenue streams, and strengthen the sport's cultural presence beyond the capital. Countries like India and Australia have already demonstrated the value of decentralisation through their thriving domestic circuits.

Nevertheless, such changes require bold decision-making from the current BCB leadership. By standing firm against the undue pressure from Dhaka clubs, the Board has an opportunity to modernise its governance model and expand its reach beyond the capital.

For the BCB, this conflict represents more than a battle over councilor seats—it is a test of their leadership and independence. Will they bow to the demands of Dhaka's powerful clubs, or will they stand firm and implement the necessary changes?

"This is the BCB's opportunity to demonstrate that they are not beholden to any single group," Sirajuddin argued. "By pushing through these reforms, they can show that cricket belongs to the entire nation, not just Dhaka."

The proposed reforms present a pivotal moment for Bangladesh cricket. Succumbing to Dhaka's demands would mean preserving the status quo and losing a golden opportunity for decentralisation. On the other hand, successfully implementing these reforms could finally transform the country's cricketing landscape into one befitting a Test-playing nation.

The stakes could not be higher. The coming weeks will reveal whether the BCB has the resolve to stand up to Dhaka's vested interests and usher in a new era for cricket in Bangladesh. The potential rewards—a fairer, more competitive system with broader representation—far outweigh the risks. But without swift action, the dream of nationwide cricketing excellence may remain just that: a dream.

The ball is in the BCB's court. Will they seize this moment for reform or let Bangladeshi cricket remain confined to Dhaka's shadow? Only time will tell.