Statistics and records of IPL

Controversies

The BCCI had found itself in the middle of many conflicts with various cricket boards around the world as a result of the IPL. The main point of contention was that signed players should always be available to their country for international tours, even if it overlaps with the IPL season. To address this, the BCCI officially requested that the ICC institute a time period in the International Future Tours Program solely for the IPL season. This request was not granted at a subsequent meeting held by the ICC.

Conflicts with the England and Wales Cricket Board

Because the inaugural IPL season coincided with the County Championship season as well as New Zealand's tour of England, the ECB and county cricket clubs raised their concerns to the BCCI over players. The ECB made it abundantly clear that they would not sign No Objection Certificates for players—a prerequisite for playing in the IPL. Chairmen of the county clubs also made it clear that players contracted to them were required to fulfill their commitment to their county. As a result of this, Dimitri Mascarenhas was the only English player to have signed with the IPL for the 2008 season.

A result of the ECB's concerns about players joining the IPL, was a proposed radical response of creating their own Twenty20 tournament that would be similar in structure to the IPL. The league — titled the English Premier League — would feature 21 teams in three groups of seven and would occur towards the end of the summer season. The ECB enlisted the aid of Texas billionaire Allen Stanford to launch the proposed league. Stanford was the brains behind the successful Stanford 20/20, a tournament that has run twice in the West Indies. On 17 February 2009, when news of the fraud investigation against Stanford became public, the ECB and WICB withdrew from talks with Stanford on sponsorship. On February 20 the ECB announced it has severed its ties with Stanford and cancelled all contracts with him.

Conflicts with Cricket Australia

The BCCI also experienced run-ins with Cricket Australia (CA) over player availability for Australia's 2008 tour of the West Indies and CA's desire for global protection of their sponsors. CA had feared that sponsors of the IPL (and its teams) that directly competed with their sponsors would jeopardize already existing arrangements. This issue was eventually resolved and it was also agreed upon that Australian players would be fully available for the West Indies tour.

Conflicts with the Pakistan Cricket Board

Many players from the Pakistan Cricket Team who were not offered renewed central contracts (or decided to reject new contracts) decided to join the rival Indian Cricket League (ICL). Two such players—Naved-ul-Hasan and Mushtaq Ahmed also held contracts with English Counties. The PCB decided to issue No Objection Certificates for these players to play with their county teams on the basis that since they were no longer contracted to the PCB, there was no point in not granting them their NOCs. The latter did not sit well with the BCCI, as it went against the hard line stance they had taken on players who joined the ICL

After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Pakistan government deemed it unsafe for its players to travel to India for the IPL. However, when the IPL was shifted to South Africa, the Pakistani players requested the IPL organizers and Lalit Modi to allow them to play but they refused by reasoning that the squads had already been decided and there was no room for Pakistani players.

Recently in the 2010 IPL auction nobody bid on any of the Pakistani cricketers, despite having expressed an interest in them therefore having them put on the auction list. Initially they said that the decision was purely based on cricket , Pakistani team had won the 2009 T20 World Cup. There was speculation that the Pakistanis might have been denied visas, so a team would waste money by recruiting them. After questioning, the IPL board members said that the reasoning behind none of the Pakistani players being selected was simply natural and unaffected by any outside influences.

Conflicts with other Boards

Smaller boards like the WICB and NZCB have raised concerns over the impact the IPL will have on their player development and already fragile financial situation. Since players from smaller cricketing nations are not compensated as much, they have more motivation to join the IPL.

Media restrictions

Initially the IPL enforced strict guidelines to media covering Premier League matches, consistent with their desire to use the same model sports leagues in North America use in regards to media coverage. Notable guidelines imposed included the restriction to use images taken during the event unless purchased from cricket.com, owned by Live Current Media Inc (who won the rights to such images) and the prohibition of live coverage from the cricket grounds. Media agencies also had to agree to upload all images taken at IPL matches to the official website. This was deemed unacceptable by print media around the world. Upon the threat of boycott, the IPL eased up on several of the restrictions. On 15 April 2008 a revised set of guidelines offering major concessions to the print media and agencies was issued by the IPL and accepted by the Indian Newspaper Society.

Conflict with Cricket Club of India

As per IPL rules, the winner of the previous competition decides the venue for the finals. In 2009, the reigning Champions, Deccan Chargers chose the Brabourne Stadium in Mumbai. However, a dispute regarding use of the pavilion meant that no IPL matches could be held there. The members of the Cricket Club of India that owns the stadium have the sole right to the pavilion on match days, whereas the IPL required the pavilion for its sponsors. The members were offered free seats in the stands, however the club rejected the offer, stating that members could not be moved out of the pavilion.

Betting

There have been wide ranging allegations that there has been betting throughout the tournament. Up to $11 billion was bet on games throughout the tournament, mainly during IPL2

Suspension of Lalit Modi

The BCCI suspended Lalit Modi, the IPL chairman, for "alleged acts of individual misdemeanours", The suspension notice was served on him by Rajeev Shukla, a BCCI vice-president, with N Srinivasan, the board secretary, sending an email to the same effect. It followed a day of negotiations with interlocutors attempting to persuade Modi to resign but pre-empted a potentially flashpoint at Monday's scheduled IPL governing council meeting, which Modi had said he would attend. He is now officially barred from participating in the affairs of the Board, the IPL and any other committee of the BCCI and has 15 days to respond to the charges levelled at him.

Chirayu Amin named IPL interim chairman

Chirayu Amin, an industrialist and head of the Baroda Cricket Association, has been named interim chairman of the IPL by the BCCI, following Lalit Modi's suspension after the IPL3 final. Due to controversy in the IPL/ Indian premier league the governing council of the IPL in a crucial meeting suspended the former commissioner of IPL Mr. Lalit Modi. The IPL governing council, minus its suspended chairman, met at the BCCI headquarters in Mumbai to discuss the issue of Lalit Modi, who was sent a charge sheet after the tournament's final, and the possibility of an IPL without him.

Absent from the meeting were Modi and Farooq Abdullah, the president of the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association. Those present included the BCCI president Shashank Manohar, vice-President Arun Jaitley, secretary N Srinivasan, media and finance committee chairman Rajiv Shukla and IPL vice-chairman Niranjan Shah.They have

Manohar said many important documents were missing from the IPL and BCCI offices."Many of the records are missing. The IT is asking for documents. We don't have them. We have asked BCCI CAO Prof Ratnakar Shetty to look into the missing records and papers," he said.