Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) has yet again found itself in the centre of public displeasure and controversy. However, this time, it is not due to match losses or players’ misconduct, but for allegedly misusing the SLC’s name and funds to provide several figures who play no official role in Sri Lanka’s cricket the access to attend cricket matches as very important persons (VIPs) both in Sri Lanka and abroad.
As per uncorroborated reports and information that is still unfolding, among these persons are several actresses, actors, models and even media personnel. While some of these actresses are said to have flown to Australia last year (2022) to attend the 2022 T20 World Cup tournament with the SLC’s recommendation for visa related purposes, some of them have allegedly received VIP access to watch matches in Sri Lanka as well. Meanwhile, a photo of a SLC official’s Identity Card, allegedly issued by the SLC to a famous actor, whose name and photo appears on the card, in order to attend the Pakistan-Sri Lanka tournament held this year (2023), circulates on social media. While allegations were piling up and photos of the same group of public figures with top SLC officials were circulating on social media, the SLC decided to respond to the allegations yesterday (25). SLC Chairman Shammi Silva claimed that although recommendation letters necessary for the visa were issued for certain persons, including SLC Executive Board members’ family members and acquaintances, a list of who’s who, which is circulating on social media, no expense was borne by the SLC.
This matter made national headlines following the contents of an Auditor General report that allegedly exposed how the SLC lavishly spent money during last year’s T20 World Cup in Australia. Legal actions have also been sought regarding these allegations. Regardless, the main argument that has been presented in the SLC’s defense, which has also been implied by certain SLC officials, is that these expenses are borne by the SLC, and not by the Treasury, and that therefore, its expenses should not be a national issue. While that is a matter that requires an in-depth analysis, the SLC being an institution that officially represents the country and its national cricket team under the purview of the Government, financial discipline and accountability are not qualities that can be evaded by the SLC, especially at a time when so many up and coming cricketers are languishing without sufficient resources and access to opportunities to grow as professional sports personnel.
In fact, this controversy surrounding the SLC comes in a context where the country’s sports sector is suffering due to the impacts of the economic crisis. Just several weeks ago, a top Sri Lankan athlete who has set national level records in pole vault left the country to work as a housemaid to provide for her family. As per media reports, what had exacerbated her financial crisis was not only a lack of a proper income, but also a lack of support which should have been provided by the sports authorities. She is not the first athlete that the country lost. Before her, several athletes had left the country, while some fled the country during foreign sports events.
A return ticket to Australia alone costs over one million Sri Lankan Rupees, and according to the said Auditor General’s report, the SLC Executive Committee had borne over Rs. 67 million for 14 officials during the said trip. What this sorry state of the country’s sports sector shows is that the so-called lack of resources, especially financial resources, is not only an absence of resources, although it is portrayed as such. It is equally or more a matter of the unscientific and biased allocation of resources. That is why the members of one sport, which has been on the decline for years, are in a position to spend tens of millions of Sri Lankan Rupees for one foreign trip, while the members of another sport have had to virtually give up their sports career to feed their families.
What this shows is a huge issue in setting priorities right, and Sri Lanka should get its sports priorities straight. If the SLC is in a position to spend such colossal amounts of money for one trip, including allegedly for family members and friends with no relation to cricket, the Government should direct its sports related fund allocations for other sports that are not as privileged but have performed exceptionally such as athletics. At the same time, it should seriously consider establishing a fund or a pension scheme for professional sports figures. In a context where sports is not a profession one can continue until they turn 55 as in other jobs due to the physical wear and tear, this is extremely crucial. Not only would such measures provide them some level of confidence about the support systems that are available for them to fall back on in cases of financial crisis, but such measures will also give them a reason to serve longer and dedicatedly for their country’s sports sector.
While the SLC controversy is still not clear enough to reach a conclusion about the accountability of the SLC, it is a wake-up call for all authorities. What has already been revealed is sufficient for them to rethink their priorities in the sports field and scrutinise sports related institutions.