Meghalaya's Team Called 'Illegal' by Court, Yet 11 New Faces Took the Field — While the Old Players Sat Outside

When I sit in my Ahmedabad room and scroll through domestic cricket scorecards, the first thing I look at is what the scorecard doesn't say. In this Meghalaya story, the scorecard says one team went unbeaten in three matches — a draw against Sikkim, a draw against Mizoram, a win over Manipur. Then suddenly, in the fourth match, the same team, same state, same tournament — but the entire team changed. Eleven out of eleven. The scorecard doesn't say that on that day, against Nagaland, eleven players stood outside the ground who had been wearing this team's jersey until yesterday.

This is the moment when sports news leaves the sport and walks into the courtroom corridor. And that's where the real question begins.

Context: When Association Politics Reaches the Field

The internal power struggle within the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA) is no longer confined to meeting rooms and newspapers. The dispute between the Apex Council — the association's top executive body — and the president reached the Meghalaya High Court. According to reports, the court declared the team selected by the Apex Council "illegal" or "unlawfully constituted." Following this, a new team was formed from the president's side and fielded against Nagaland on November 2.

One thing needs to be clarified here, because this is the biggest terminological muddle in the entire story. A court typically does not say "the players are illegal." A court says that a committee's selection or a body's authority was not valid. Meaning, the fault was in the door through which the players were sent in, not in the players themselves. This distinction is not small. This distinction determines whose fault it is.

On the day of the match against Nagaland, the players from the old team stood outside the ground. No one saw them on the field, no one called their names. This was not just an administrative decision — it was the day that marked the career of those eleven players that will never be recorded in any scorecard.

Core: The Court Order, the Changed Team, and an Unheard Interval

In Meghalaya's domestic season, this team had been unbeaten in the first three matches. A draw against Sikkim, a draw against Mizoram, a win against Manipur. This was not a spectacular performance, but it was stable. When a team doesn't lose in three matches, something inside it is working. Then in the fourth match, the same team changes completely.

The question is not which team was stronger. The question is why no one felt the need to tell any player why he was sitting out.

In my 32-year career, I have seen many times that when association politics begins in domestic cricket, the player is the first to get hurt. In the BCCI's domestic structure, the state association has the right to select the team, but when that same right is challenged in court, the player has to answer — a player who neither formed any committee nor contested any election.

Coach Nitesh Sharma said that "we were called illegal, but this is an administrative failure, not the children's fault." That one line contains the whole story. What the court called illegal was the team — not its players. But from the outside, that distinction disappears.

And one more thing needs to be added here: this matter is not limited to the senior men's team. According to reports, the same dispute has reached the Under-23 men's team and the women's team. Meaning, this is not the story of one team, but of an entire state's domestic structure. When eleven players change in a senior team, it becomes news. When Under-23 and women's teams also go through the same process, it becomes a crisis.

I have seen in my experience that when team selection gets entangled in disputes in domestic tournaments, its impact falls on that state's pipeline for the next two to three years. Players begin to think that belonging to a faction matters more than hard work. This is the loss that never gets recorded in any court verdict.

Contrarian: The "Illegal Team" Headline, and the Real Question Nobody Asked

Now the thing that was most overlooked in this entire story. President James P.K. Sangma was quoted as saying that "the selection committee decides the players, I will not interfere." And in the same report, it was also written that the new team was formed "from Sangma's side."

These two statements cannot both be true at the same time. If the selection committee is independent, how can the team be "from someone's side"? And if the team is from Sangma's side, then the independence of the selection committee comes into question. This is the question that could have been asked in an interview, but wasn't.

Similarly, the use of the word "illegal." In the headline, this word sits at the very top, but it was not clarified what the court cancelled — the selection process, the Apex Council's authority, or the team's permission to represent. All three mean different things. In the first two, the players are victims, and in the third too. Under no circumstances are the players at fault. But someone reading the headline will conclude that the eleven players were wrong.

This is where journalism should not just report, but clarify terminology. When a court order is linked to an internal dispute within a sports organization, it is essential to state against whom the order is directed. Otherwise, a player's name gets permanently attached to a word he never earned.

And that historical example added to this story — the 1884-85 Ashes. At that time, Australian players had themselves decided to withdraw, in protest. Here, the players did nothing. They were removed. The only similarity is that the entire team changed. The reason is the opposite. So this example only shows that such things happen — it does not explain why it happened.

Takeaway: What Won't Show in the Scorecard

Whether that match against Nagaland was played or not is not yet clear. But what is clear is that Meghalaya's domestic team is currently fighting not just opponents, but its own association.

Whenever I see such cases in domestic cricket, I remember those eleven players who stood outside the ground that day. No scorecard for them, no statistics. Just one day, one ground, and one decision they did not make.

The real question is: the next time Meghalaya's team takes the field, how many of those eleven will be there — and how many will be looking towards another state?

Because in domestic cricket, the news of a team changing runs for three days. But trust within that team takes three years to change.