Lalit Modi and N Srinivasan in a Frame
One of the biggest scandals came in 2010 when IPL founder Lalit Modi was banned over allegations of fixing and financial irregularities. But what made this controversy even bigger was Modi’s own accusations against N Srinivasan, claiming that IPL auctions were rigged and umpires were bought. This shocking revelation reignited debates about corruption in cricket, leaving fans questioning the integrity of the league.
After India’s thrilling win in the 2007 T20 World Cup, cricket was ready for something new. That’s when Lalit Modi came up with the IPL in 2008, which was a fresh, exciting way to play cricket that changed the game forever. He even moved the 2009 tournament to South Africa when elections in India made it hard to organize. The IPL became a huge hit, growing into a $4 billion business that made Modi as famous as other big sports bosses and included big Bollywood celebrities along with the big businessmen around the world.
But there was another side to this success story. Many of Modi’s family and friends got involved in IPL teams and deals. His brother-in-law owned Rajasthan Royals, his stepdaughter’s husband got the IPL’s digital rights, and his childhood friend was part of Kolkata Knight Riders. While the IPL became India’s most loved cricket tournament, these early controversies showed how business and personal connections sometimes got mixed up. The league changed cricket forever, but its start wasn’t without problems.
When the IPL planned to add two new teams in 2010, Lalit Modi introduced strict bidding rules requiring a 1 billion net worth and 100 million guarantees to the bank. Many saw this as favoring specific business groups, especially when the rules were suddenly relaxed after only two bids emerged. The Kochi team bid sparked major controversy. Shashi Tharoor helped assemble the winning consortium, but questions arose about free shares given to Sunanda Pushkar, his close associate.
Modi’s public revelation of these details via Twitter ignited a political firestorm. Tharoor maintained he only supported Kerala’s team, but the scandal ultimately cost him his minister position at the top. Meanwhile, tensions grew between Modi and BCCI’s N. Srinivasan during this expansion phase as Sahara Group and other rejected bidders complained about unfair exclusion from the process. The Kochi franchise deal became a big deal in allegations of hidden financial interests and broken confidentiality agreements, which made it a big matter in the eyes of the public.
After the Kochi Tuskers Kerala deal became a new challenge, Lalit Modi’s troubles quickly multiplied. Within days of the 2010 IPL final, the BCCI suspended him on 22 serious charges which went from rigging bids to handing contracts to friends and family. Accused of financial misconduct, Modi fled to London, where he launched legal battles against the BCCI while expanding his family business in Europe.
The investigations revealed multiple violations. Authorities charged Modi and BCCI officials with breaking foreign exchange laws involving ₹890 million, including questionable payments to Cricket South Africa and a suspicious $80 million TV rights deal. Modi allegedly told certain bidders what amounts to an offer during team auctions and used illegal funds to buy a private jet through offshore companies. His wife’s ₹100 million investment in an Indian hotel via Mauritius also raised red flags. While Modi claimed all decisions were made collectively by BCCI committees, the evidence kept mounting.
Modi’s conflicts extended beyond finances. He publicly accused New Zealand’s Chris Cairns of match-fixing in 2008, a claim that backfired when Cairns won a $950,000 defamation case against him. Meanwhile, Modi alleged that BCCI president N. Srinivasan had orchestrated his removal and even fixed player auctions. Security concerns kept Modi abroad, with Mumbai police confirming threats from underworld figures like Dawood Ibrahim.
By 2013, a bipartisan BCCI committee including Arun Jaitley and Jyotiraditya Scindia found Modi guilty on eight counts like manipulating bid terms for favored parties, pressuring the Kochi franchise, shady TV rights deals with WSG, and secretly benefiting family members through internet rights. Other violations included unauthorized commercial deals and planning a rival English cricket league. The lifetime ban marked a dramatic fall for the man who built the IPL into a global phenomenon but became entangled in webs of financial irregularities and power struggles.
With the years passing by, Lalit Modi was invited to a podcast where he made startling allegations about IPL’s early days. He accused former BCCI president N. Srinivasan of manipulating CSK matches by ensuring Chennai-based umpires officiated their games. “That’s fixing”, Modi declared, explaining how he discovered and challenged this practice.
Modi also confessed to interfering in the 2009 player auction, directing other franchises not to bid for England’s Andrew Flintoff so CSK could acquire him. He defended this as necessary to overcome Srinivasan’s opposition to the IPL. These claims revived memories of CSK’s 2013 scandal involving Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who was banned for life after being caught in a betting racket. He said:
He (N Srinivasan) didn’t like IPL; he didn’t think IPL will work but when it started to work everybody got the bandwagon. He was member and secretary of the board also so he was the biggest adversary of mine. I went up against him, so he did many things, umpire fixing, he said, “I did it”. I accused him for it. He would change the umpire and I didn’t think two things about it. But then I realized he is putting the Chennai umpire in Chennai games, it’s an issue for me. That’s called fixing, so when I tried to expose those, he went totally against me.
The revelations claimed that team owners influenced umpire selections and player signings in IPL’s early years. Lalit Modi suggested that while the league became successful, there were hidden compromises, including favoritism towards certain teams and secret deals that raised ethical concerns.