0
0
The inclusion of a Railways player — who holds a Uttar Pradesh domicile and is participating in the UPCA T20 League — has sparked discontent among several BCCI-affiliated state units. Sources told CricBlogger that multiple associations have questioned how the UPCA is allowing participation of a player contracted with another Ranji Trophy side, when the very purpose of state-run T20 leagues is to promote local talent and disallow cross-representation from other affiliated units.
“It’s an unfair advantage. If UPCA can bring in Railways players under the guise of domicile, what stops other associations from involving players from Railways and Services as well — especially when those teams don’t have a T20 platform of their own?” said a source on condition of anonymity.
The incident has triggered the need for a uniform policy on domestic player eligibility across state leagues, particularly for players associated with institutional teams like Railways, Services and other state players who don’t have a T20 league.
With no clear clause in the BCCI rulebook barring players from other affiliated units — like Railways and Services — from representing their domicile state in local T20 leagues, the UPCA’s decision to include such players has sparked a divide in opinion.
Sources told CricBlogger that UPCA did not seek formal permission from the BCCI before conducting its T20 league auction, which included several players contracted with Railways. On the other hand, some officials argue that UPCA had done its due diligence and followed necessary steps before registering these players.
“There is no explicit rule against it, but the spirit of the league is to promote players from the state’s own Ranji setup. Bringing in players from other units — without clarity — creates a grey area,” a state official said.
Adding to the controversy is the fact that former UPCA chief Rajeev Shukla, who wasn’t available for comment, currently serves as the BCCI vice-president. This has raised further questions in some quarters: “When the top man is already in the BCCI, what’s the point of asking for permission?” said another official, albeit off the record. However, many still believe that protocol should not be overlooked — regardless of who’s in charge — and that the BCCI may need to lay down clearer eligibility guidelines to avoid such ambiguity in the future.
None of the UPCA officials were available for comment on the matter. However, one of the franchise owners participating in the UPCA T20 League welcomed the inclusion of Railways players, calling it a positive development. “We’re happy to have more first-class players in the mix. It raises the standard of the competition. And if they have a UP domicile, wouldn’t it be unfair to stop them from playing?” the franchise owner told CricBlogger.
While the BCCI is yet to issue a formal clarification, the situation has emphasised the growing need for consistent policy across state T20 leagues — especially when it comes to institutional players and cross-affiliation eligibility.
