KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: Tonight on Four Corners: the battle for the future of cricket - the big three versus the rest.

MICHAEL HOLDING, WEST INDIES FAST BOWLER 1975-89: I don't see how three countries basically taking over the running of the game can make the game any better.

A lot of countries have struggled since those changes have taken place.

IAN CHAPPELL, AUSTRALIAN CAPTAIN 1971-75: England and Australia both joined, joined hands with India and, you know, "Let's get our snouts in the trough as well." I just can't see how it's good for the game. Ah, I think it's just more of self-interest.

LALIT MODI, FOUNDER, INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE: There are three snakes of cricket. You've got to take their neck off. You've got to chop their head off, otherwise cricket will not survive.

KERRY O'BRIEN: As Australia struggles to deal with its humiliation after the thrashing handed out by England in the current Ashes, there's a great deal more at stake in international cricket than mere wounded pride.

Test cricket, with all its hallowed traditions, may be in its dying days as the rise of India, the juggernaut of 20/20 cricket, the billions of dollars in broadcast rights and gambling revenue all threaten to engulf the game.

Tonight we go inside the back-room power plays of cricket's administrators and explore an audacious coup, engineered by India, supported by England and Australia, which has given the big three cricket nations control of the game and the massive revenue it commands.

Claims of self-interest and conflict of interest abound as more and more influence is exerted by the dominant cricketing powerhouse, India, led by wealthy businessman Naryanaswami Srinivasan, the head of the International Cricket Council.

Smaller nations have been caught in the squeeze.

We'll hear from the men who hold the future of cricket in their hands and from sporting legends who fear for their beloved game.

The reporter is Quentin McDermott.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT, REPORTER: There's a heatwave in London and the crowds are basking in the sun, watching the first Ashes Test in Wales being beamed onto a big screen near Tower Bridge.

Over the Thames at Lord's, preparations are underway for the second Test.

In the Long Room tables are laid and in the empty dressing rooms, yesterday's century-makers await the achievements of today's Test players.

Ever since England lost at home to Australia in 1882, the Ashes have held a special place in Test match history. But under the watchful gaze of the legends of the game, storm clouds are gathering.

GIDEON HAIGH, CRICKET JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: There's not even a sense anymore about test cricket being the ultimate form of the game. Test cricket is kind of like being treated like an ailing mother to whom you periodically pay, um, duty visits, ah, for form's sake. And we might end up with test cricket being confined to three, maybe four, maybe five nations over the next decade.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Some of cricket's biggest names are warning that the oldest form of the game is now under threat.

IAN CHAPPELL, AUSTRALIAN CAPTAIN 1971-75: It seems now that everything is the bottom line. You know, if it's good for the bottom line, then it's good. If it's not good for the bottom line, then it's no good for the game of cricket. Well, that's rubbish.

I mean, OK, I understand they need a lot of money to run the game, but you've got to have a balance between bringing in a lot of money and what is in the best interests of the game.

MICHAEL HOLDING, WEST INDIES FAST BOWLER 1975-89: There are too many people running cricket that are only interested in the bottom line. They are not interested in the product: they're interested in what the product can produce. And you cannot keep on doing that and expect the product to be good.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: On the opening day of the Ashes Test at Lord's, members of the MCC are queuing up to reserve the best seats before play begins.

But even among the staunch traditionalists here, there are mutterings in the ranks about the way world cricket is governed.

KEITH VAN ANDERSON: Too much money is going to too few of the test playing nations: i.e. India, England and Australia.

MCC MEMBER: You must offer more cricket to more people around the world.

ARCHIE BERENS: It's a shocker. Some of those lesser teams ought to be given the opportunity to aspire to it and sample what it's like.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Lord's is the home of cricket: home of the game's most famous club, the MCC, and for thousands of cricketers and hundreds of thousands of fans, the venue which more than any other enshrines the spirit of the game.

But it's the spirit of the game which is now under threat from corruption, match-fixing and plain bad governance. The task of setting that straight now lies with the body most under fire, the ICC, and with its three most powerful members: India, England and Australia.

Last year in an audacious coup the big three, led by India, seized control of the International Cricket Council's key committees and the way its funds are distributed.

The smallest cricketing nations would be the biggest losers.

GIDEON HAIGH: Well, the carve-up occurred because India did not feel as though it was getting its due at ICC. India was turning aside from its role in the international governance of the game, was increasingly preoccupied with the strength of its own domestic markets - which are huge - and was expecting the rest of the world to pay it tribute.

ED HAWKINS, INVESTIGATIVE SPORTS JOURNALIST: It's self-interest because England and Australia make- want to make sure that they're getting the big series with India in terms of TV and sponsorship deals - and to hell- hell with the rest of the world. What does that do for a future game which is competitive and, um, fair? Well, it does nothing, because if all the money is going to three countries then the rest are going to wither and die.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Representing Australia in the talks that led to this takeover was former Test cricketer Wally Edwards.

WALLY EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, CRICKET AUSTRALIA: I have to say I had a fair part to play in it and it goes right back to the first day I became chairman of Cricket Australia. I think within four or five days of that, I got on a plane and travelled to India to meet, ah, Mr Srinivasan and other BCCI officials.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Mr Srinivasan was the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India - or BCCI. He is now chairman of the International Cricket Council.

GIDEON HAIGH: So not only is he the most powerful man in cricket: he is the most powerful man that there has ever been in cricket. There has never been a greater concentration of personal power in any individual in this game.

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL: It is the income that is coming out of the subcontinent that is supporting ICC events in a very large way. Almost 75 to 80 per cent of the income comes from - in fact, that is what one should be concerned about: that if, for example, tomorrow there is loss of interest here, then you can't sustain cricket. You can't pay for whatever we are doing now.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: For Wally Edwards, the message coming out of India was loud and clear.

WALLY EDWARDS: At that first meeting in, ah, No- early November 2011, it was very, very evident to me that India were very uncomfortable with where the ICC was and what they were doing and how they were running cricket, if you like.

And they had a belief that three quarters of the money that the ICC was spending was coming from their, their marketplace and that they thought the ICC were wasting money, weren't achieving a lot and would like change.

GIDEON HAIGH: That was problematic for the other countries involved, because if India decided to fold its tent and walk away, then the rest of cricket was worth a very great deal less. And England and Australia were faced with the choice: did they have India inside the tent pissing out or outside pissing in?

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: This implied threat - that India might walk away from ICC events altogether - was spelled out to England and Australia.

WALLY EDWARDS: The president of ICC said, "See what you can do. See what you can flesh out as to how India might become party to it." Because India was saying, "Well, you can have another ICC commercial rights but we won't be there."

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: So you're saying in effect that India held the rest of the ICC to ransom?

WALLY EDWARDS: No, I d- I don't agree with that. I think they certainly had views, but, um, I think the reality of life is: we, we're- it was a, a long, ah, negotiation over a- ah, over a lot of substantive issues and, you know, and I- and Australia: my role I took extremely seriously.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: In October 2011, one month before Wally Edwards met Mr Srinivasan, the ICC had commissioned a review of its governance.

The man who led the review, former lord chief justice Harry Woolf, was concerned by what he found.

HARRY WOOLF, BARON WOOLF, FMR LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND: They were giving money to smaller countries. And one of the trouble was: you got the money if you behaved. And what they- when I say, "If you behaved," it meant: if you fitted in with the idea of one of the big boys and in particular - and I'll have to say this - India.

India was able to dominate because of its hugely different financial position. So that was what- the structure which I felt had to be changed. And that is the structure which, alas, has not been changed.

GIDEON HAIGH: Lord Woolf proposed, ah, basically a more open and transparent structure, whereby the hierarchy of members was abolished and the ICC achieved genuine independence from its, from its members.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: While some of Lord Woolf's recommendations were adopted by the ICC, his key proposals were rejected.

(To Ehsan Mani) Did that report point the way forward for how cricket should be governed?

EHSAN MANI, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, ICC, 2003-06: Very much so. Ah, it was the report which was commissioned by the ICC with the approval of the whole board. They commissioned the report. What they saw they didn't like, ah, so they dumped it.

GIDEON HAIGH: The minute that the BCCI saw something that they thought potentially usurped their power, their economic veto at ICC, they ran a mile in the opposite direction and they said, "We'll come up with a governance system that works for us."

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: While India, England and Australia discussed their plan to restructure the ICC and its finances, other countries were left in the dark.

EHSAN MANI: I started getting phone calls from members who had been hearing whispers that something was afoot. There was nothing officially being done by the ICC; it was these three countries who were running this process.

There were rumours that they were meeting in Singapore and Australia and other places, um, and were coming up with a plan. So something was certainly up.

CHAUDHRY ZAKA ASHRAF, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD 2011-14: All the meetings between the big three were secretive and they did not share it with anybody else.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: When the big three's blueprint for the future of the ICC was finally unveiled in January 2014, there was consternation among the less powerful test-playing nations.

EHSAN MANI: What I read was pretty horrifying for the game, for the governance of the game and for the future of the game. Instead of standing up to India, England and Australia again buckled under. They decided to appease India, instead of standing up to it on matters of principle that all full members are equal.

You need strong full members to, for the health of the game. You cannot just have three countries at the elite level and everyone else, er, sort of has-beens.

CHAUDHRY ZAKA ASHRAF: I was able to get five votes to oppose the big three changes in the ICC constitution.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Zaka Ashraf represented Pakistan in the internal ICC negotiations over money. Five of the test playing nations, including Pakistan, opposed the big three's proposals.

Then the bartering began.

CHAUDHRY ZAKA ASHRAF: They offered us, Pakistan also to become: "Instead of having big three, let's make it big four. You don't oppose us and you join us, join our bandwagon." (Laughs)

So first of all I was, ah, totally opposed to the idea and I didn't want it to become a party to, ah, any, er, gang, I would say, which could take away all the, um, media funds from the ICC and le- leave all other nations getting poorer in their revenues. So I didn't want to, to join them.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: In his report, delivered two years earlier, Lord Woolf had warned against richer ICC members using the offer of tours to influence voting on the board.

Now, it's claimed, they were doing just that.

EHSAN MANI: What they were promised was: "If you sign this, we - England or Australia or India - we'll tour you. And because we tour you, eh, you will generate money out of the television income and sponsorships and so on." It was - 'And if you don't fall in line, we will not, eh, tour you."

(To Michael Holding) How were they persuaded to fall in line?

MICHAEL HOLDING: By promised good things. (Laughs) That- that's how it works. "If you don't join us, we'll just ostracise you and you won't get what we can give you." It's as simple as that.

I know a lot of countries that are against the takeover. They voted against it initially and then everyone just went to them individually and said, "Listen, if you come with us, this is what you can get. This is what you will get." And eventually they all fell in line.

WALLY EDWARDS: I've worked very, very hard to make sure that the smaller nations are not disadvantaged in any way, eh, in this process. And, ah, I think, I think what we've come out with is a very productive, ah, arrangement.

HARRY WOOLF: I thought it was particularly unfortunate that the changes that took place subsequently were three of the mum- members coming together and using their muscle to make changes which were not in the interests of the... of those who play, play- those countries that play cricket. And, ah, that, that was... That I thought was regrettable.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Lord Woolf's call for the ICC to be headed by an independent chairman, with three independent directors on the board, was rejected. Instead, they arranged for the ICC to be chaired by India's nominee, Mr Srinivasan.

EHSAN MANI: The chairman of the ICC can represent his country at the ICC while chairing the ICC. So that's a huge conflict of interest.

TIM MAY, FMR CEO, INTERNATIONAL CRICKETERS' ASSOCIATION: There's a conflict there where the board will sit and each person who's sitting at that board table will act in the interests of their constituents back home. Whereas the ICC: its charter is to operate for the global interests, not the individual interests of the full members.

There's just a massive conflict. I don't see how it can work. And that's why the Woolf report called for independence on the board. It's, it's quite frankly a no-brainer, but not in the world of cricket.

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: If the question is: do directors act in the interests of their own boards or nations? Maybe. But the fact is: you represent your board at the ICC. Are you expected then to go to that board and then say, "I forget my - th- the board that sent me, you know? So I think there's a fine balance there.

IAN CHAPPELL: What did Paul Keating say many, many years ago? "Always back self-interest 'cause you know it's a goer." And that, that would sum up, ah, world cricket.

(Footage of cricket officials coming out of ICC meeting, February 2014)

REPORTER (Feb. 2014): Can you give us any update on what happened in the meeting, please?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN (Feb. 2014): No. I think there's a person who is moving this.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (voiceover): The tactics employed by the big three worked and in February 2014 the ICC Board approved their plans.

GILES CLARKE, ENGLAND CRICKET BOARD (Feb. 2014): Ah, I think it was a very good meeting and, ah...

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (voiceover): A comprehensive briefing was promised to the media.

REPORTER (Feb. 2014): It's agreed, is it? The, the...

GILES CLARKE (Feb. 2014): Of course.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (voiceover): But the formula for the new financial deal remains opaque.

WALLY EDWARDS (Feb. 2014): We're all happy. Everybody.

(Footage ends)

GIDEON HAIGH: Well, it is behind closed doors. I mean, nothing about the ICC is remotely transparent. Decisions take place that not even the full member countries know about - and this is no exception.

EHSAN MANI: As far as the financial, ah, arrangements were concerned, members were told very bluntly that this is a take-it-or-leave-it. "We are not going to explain to you how we arrived at these numbers."

GIDEON HAIGH: Unbeknownst to the other seven full member countries and the other 90 countries who are either associate or affiliate members, this became an attempt to restructure root-and-branch the game's finances, whereby the three biggest nations could extract additional rewards in return for what were called their "contribution costs". The fact that they are so materially significant to, ah, the finances of cricket entitled them to an enormously enhanced dividend.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: In the next eight years ICC events, including the World Cup, are expected to harvest record revenues of at least $2.5 billion dollars.

The big three will take the lion's share, with India alone netting upwards of $500 million. England and Australia will share around $300 million.

In contrast, many ICC members will receive just a few hundred thousand dollars a year each to develop cricket in their countries.

CHAUDHRY ZAKA ASHRAF: I think this is going to ruin the international cricket, so I don't know what kind of, er, justice is this to the money and to the international cricket.

And there's another thing I feel very strongly: that, ah, cricket should not follow the money; money should follow the cricket. Please don't destroy the international cricket, because money is not the answer to the game.

MICHAEL HOLDING: I don't see how three countries basically taking over the running of the game can make the game any better. I don't see how three countries getting most of the funds out of the game - and countries that don't really need that much funding - can make it any better.

A lot of countries have struggled since those changes have taken place and I don't see how it can be of any great help.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to N. Srinivasan): Is it fair that India, the richest cricketing country in the world, receives the lion's share of the revenue?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: If I am to be very frank: see, one must look at it from the point of view that, eh, India is contributing at- at the moment, this cycle, ah, almost 75 to 80 per cent of the, of the income's coming out of India. Now, to criticise that I don't think is good.

That money's, somebody's, is, is putting on the table, isn't it? If he was not there, you don't have, you know, you- you have hardly 10, 20 per cent of it. So I think one should look at it positively and encourage India to bring more money to the table.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: India now stands at the centre of the cricketing world - and India holds the future of cricket in its hands.

Few outside India appreciate the place that cricket holds in the hearts and minds of the nation.

GIDEON HAIGH: We're not talking simply about a game here. We're talking about a cause. We're talking about a culture. We're talking about politics. We're talking about economics. We're talking about enormously broad and deep social connections.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: India's BCCI owes its financial supremacy to a sporting revolution which took place in 2008: the formation of the Indian Premier League.

The IPL was a broadcaster's dream: a breathtaking mix of 20/20 cricket, huge stars, energetic cheerleaders and a big dash of Bollywood to boot.

GIDEON HAIGH: It launched in April 2008 with probably the greatest razzamatazz of any cricket attraction in history. And it was from the first enormously successful. The television rights were sold for enormous sums. Entrepreneurial investors were attracted to it. Sponsors supported it in enormous numbers and the public was absolutely captivated.

One of the reasons why the IPL is so popular is because, unlike international cricket which is inherently unpredictable, domestic T20 cricket always involves India. India always wins. It's a guaranteed income. And naturally broadcasters and sponsors absolutely love that idea.

ANNOUNCER (Indian Premier League broadcast): I now welcome onstage Mr Lalit Modi.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: The man behind the IPL was the marketing genius Lalit Modi.

LALIT MODI, FOUNDER, INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE (IPL broadcast): Good evening, Mumbai! I hope you are having fun!

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: The IPL belongs to India's cricket board, the BCCI, and Lalit Modi had a dual role: as IPL commissioner and the BCCI's vice-president .

LALIT MODI (IPL broadcast): And thank you for being part of it and making it a reality for all of us.

(Crowd cheers)

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to Lalit Modi): They must have been exciting times?

LALIT MODI: Very exciting times. We were rolling. You know, it was a new product. Nothing had- like this had ever been done before - any sport. In a culture which didn't support club culture, I went against all the marketing rules. But in my heart I knew that the- what the fans wanted. I knew the pulse of the nation. I knew what the advertisers were looking for, what were hungry for. And I nee- and I think everybody in our country wanted something to latch onto and identify with.

(Footage of IPL auction)

AUCTIONEER: Two hundred and forty thousand. Welcome, the Chennai Super Kings. Two hundred and ninety thousand.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: In Modi's IPL, players like MS Dhoni were sold at auctions to the highest bidder, for enormous sums.

AUCTIONEER: I have $300,000.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: The IPL didn't just create a bonanza for the teams, players and broadcasters; it also created a fortune for the BCCI.

AUCTIONEER: Six hundred thousand dollars...

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to Lalit Modi): How much money has the BCCI made out of the IPL?

LALIT MODI: We had $8 million in the bank when I joined. The day I left, it was at $7.8 billion.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: But it wasn't just India's cricket board that profited from the IPL. So too did the current ICC Chairman, Mr Srinivasan, who in 2008 was Treasurer of the BCCI.

At the time, the rules were clear: no office holder of the BCCI could bid for an IPL franchise.

But that didn't stop Mr Srinivasan and his company, India Cements, from successfully acquiring the Chennai Super Kings.

GIDEON HAIGH: They changed the rules for him. They said, "With the exception of the Indian Premier League and the Champion's League," specifically clearing Srinivasan of a conflict of interest.

It is bizarre that anyone can be kind of retrospectively immunised from a conflict of interest by their own organisation.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Relations between Mr Modi and Mr Srinivasan soured. And in 2010, in a sensational move, Lalit Modi was fired as IPL commissioner by the very body he had massively helped to enrich, the BCCI.

LALIT MODI (2010): I will present all the facts of all these allegations...

GIDEON HAIGH: The IPL almost outgrew the BCCI in the course of those of those early seasons and courted enormous resentment. Modi s- had this air of glamour, ah, this air of wealth, this ah self-perception as a man of the people. And I think a lot of people in Indian cricket felt rather threatened by that and felt as though he had to be put back into his box.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to Lalit Modi): When the axe fell on you, was that a terrible shock?

LALIT MODI: I was seeing already a lot of the people ganging up on me. Um, they were upset that I was getting the limelight. They were upset that I was a brand. It was a big change and the old boys' club didn't like it.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Mr Srinivasan accused Mr Modi of rigging bids at an IPL franchise auction and misappropriating funds in a television deal. Mr Modi strongly denies the allegations but in 2013 the BCCI banned him for life from cricket administration in India.

ED HAWKINS: Srinivasan is a ruthless individual: extremely effective, extremely bright. A, a mind like a steel trap. And he is able to cast into the wilderness anyone who threatens him or opposes him: someone like Lalit Modi who is, you know, created the IPL.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to to N. Srinivasan): What's your view of Mr Modi?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: I never discuss. I always maintain that I don't respond to him and I don't talk about him.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Do you give Mr Modi credit for launching the IPL so successfully?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: I give credit to the... Indian cricket supporter and the players who made it a success.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Would you like to see him return to cricket administration?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: No.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: The BCCI's unproven allegations of wrongdoing continue to haunt Lalit Modi, but he now casts himself as a crusader for clean sport.

He says the proof of this is that, when he worked in cricket administration in India, the underworld tried to have him assassinated.

LALIT MODI: There was not a single game that I know that was fixed in those days. And testament to that is the very fact that the mafia went after me, ah, that controls betting. They tried to take, take me out four times.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Last week the stakes were raised when a warrant for Mr Modi's arrest was issued in India over money-laundering allegations, which he denies.

The warrant, which Mr Modi says he hasn't received, was issued at the request of India's economic intelligence agency, the Enforcement Directorate.

LALIT MODI: I can guarantee right now: we did nothing wrong. If they want me to appear, I will appear. I will appear in the UK in front of th-the Enforcement, as required. They can come here, take my statements and I will give whatever is available to them.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: After sacking Modi, Mr Srinivasan was elected president of the BCCI, becoming the most powerful man in Indian cricket.

But two years later an IPL scandal erupted, threatening to bring him down. Three players from the Rajasthan Royals team were arrested and accused of spot-fixing.

(To Ed Hawkins) How much fixing goes on in the IPL?

ED HAWKINS (laughs): That's a good one. Ah, well, it depends on who you speak to. Um, if you speak to me, I'm a cynic and I'll tell you a hell of a lot goes on. Um, you'll talk to people perhaps in the BCCI and they'll say, "Oh, we've got it taped." Um, the reality is that there's so much money which can be made on the IPL - and we're talking billions of dollars - that i-i-it's, it's almost impossible to give a tournament a clean bill of health.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Mr Srinivasan would soon become personally embroiled in the investigation. A week after the spot-fixing scandal broke, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan was arrested and accused of laying bets while in charge of the Chennai Super Kings.

Betting in India is illegal and while the IPL brings in huge commercial revenues, vast sums are wagered in the black economy.

RAVI SAWANI, CHIEF ANTI-CORRUPTION INVESTIGATOR, BCCI: Close to $45 million is bet on every single IPL match. Now, if you multiply by that by about 60, so you get close to $250 million being bet on IPL tournament alone.

ED HAWKINS: There's estimates at about 100,000 illegal bookmakers in India. When you consider there are 1 billion people in India and you've got that number of bookmakers and the average bet is about $2,000, you have... you have just a vast, untamed beast.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: When the scandal erupted, Mr Srinivasan faced protests demanding he resign. He refused, denying that his son-in-law had an official role with the Chennai Super Kings.

But a Supreme Court judicial inquiry found otherwise.

(To Justice Mudgal): Did he confirm that his son-in-law, Mr Meiyappan, was the team principal of the Chennai Super Kings?

MUKUL MUDGAL, FMR CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB: No he did not.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Did you believe Mr Srinivasan? Did he tell you the truth?

MUKUL MUDGAL: Well, what we believed we have summed up in our report. He described Mr Meiyappan as a mere "team enthusiast." We found that he was much more than that. I think as far as his participating as the owner, there was an implied consent. He knew that he was participating, certainly.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: In March last year, India's Supreme Court asked Mr Srinivasan to step aside as BCCI president, describing his attempts to stay on as "nauseating".

(To Rajeev Shukla) He was required to stand down as president of the BCCI. Why was that?

RAJEEV SHUKLA, CHAIRMAN, INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE: Because the BCCI manages the IPL. BCCI is directly associated with IPL. It's the domestic tournament of BCCI and IPL is a sub-committee of BCCI. So that's why if you remain the BCCI president, then there'll be conflict of interest. That's why we had asked him to step aside.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to N. Srinivasan): There was a clear conflict of interest, wasn't there?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: See, the conflict of interest is: see, the issue is that it has now been decided by the Supreme Court that there is a conflict. Fine, we accept it. We are not challenging them. We, we- we accept it: fine. You, you say this is so: we'll abide by it in all humility.

But that was, that was not so clear earlier. It was not clear by the court earlier. So when the court said it: fine, we accepted it.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Mr Srinivasan stepped down but, in July last year, assumed an even more powerful role: as chairman of the International Cricket Council.

But still the scandal wouldn't go away. Last month, India's Supreme Court banned his son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, from cricket for life.

RAJENDRA MAL LODHA, CHAIRMAN, LODHA COMMITTEE (July): Gurunath Meiyappan is found to not only have indulged in betting but his act is also found by the Supreme Court to have an adverse effect on the image of the BCCI, IPL and game of cricket and brought each one of them into disrepute. He is suspended for life from being involved in any type of cricket matches.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Ravi Sawani is a former head of the anti-corruption units at both the ICC and BCCI. He led the investigation into the IPL scandal.

RAVI SAWANI: As far as Mr Meiyappan is concerned, certainly it is the right decision. There's no doubt about it that he should have been given the harshest punishment. And him receiving a life ban from cricket, ah, definitely is something which was... he deserved - ah, maybe more.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: The Supreme Court also suspended Mr Srinivasan's company, India Cements - the franchisee of the Chennai Super Kings - from the IPL for two years, finding it had brought the game into disrepute.

RAVI SAWANI: There is no doubt that there is a vicarious responsibility on the franchise owners to ensure that, um, nobody who has any questionable character comes anywhere close to the, er, team.

RAJENDRA MAL LODHA (July): Millions of people who are true lovers of the game feel cheated. Moreover, disrepute has been brought to the game of the cricket, the BCCI and IPL to such an extent now that now doubts abound in the public consciousness about whether games are clean or not.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Mr Srinivasan now says he has nothing to do with the team.

(To N. Srinivasan): The order was to suspend your team, Chennai Super Kings, for two years from the IPL?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: Excuse me, not my team.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: But you had a majority shareholding in the company, didn't you?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: I had a stake in the India Cements Ltd and, um, as far as the Chennai Super Kings now is concerned, whatever stake would come as a result of that would... go into a trust for the benefit of ex-players of India Cement. So I will have nothing to do. I have nothing to do with it. I have, I am severed from the Chennai Super Kings.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Mr Srinivasan's power base remains firmly fixed in Tamil Nadu and its capital city, Chennai, where we went to interview him. But the most powerful man in cricket remains reluctant to be drawn on matters close to home.

(To N. Srinivasan): Can I ask you about Mr Gurunath Meiyappan, because...

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: No. You may not ask because he did not have... I think in this interview I must make one thing very clear: that I am not interested to answer anything about Mr Gurunath Meiyappan.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: There are now calls for Mr Srinivasan to step down as ICC chairman.

LALIT MODI: He should be fired, not step down.

EHSAN MANI: The sad thing is that the Supreme Court in India has made it absolutely clear that Mr Srinivasan is not acceptable as chairman of the BCCI. He's already not there. I think the word they used was "abhorrent". But yet, ICC in its wisdom finds that he's a totally suitable person to run the ICC. Ah, that begs the question on the judgement of the people who support him.

(To Wally Edwards) Should he step down?

WALLY EDWARDS: Well, I don't believe so. You know, I don't believe h- eh, a- as I understand it, I, I think he's d- already divested all his interest in the Chennai Super Kings so he- he has no shareholding there at all anymore.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: So he retains the full support of the board?

WALLY EDWARDS: Absolutely. Yeah, I've... absolutely.

(To N. Srinivasan): Some critics say that your position as chairman of the ICC is now completely untenable. Do you agree with that?

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: I do not agree with that and I do not know who has speaking to you but whatever it is, it is not, eh, untenable and I think it's unfair to put it to me like that.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: When I persisted with these questions, Mr Srinivasan ended the interview.

(To N. Srinivasan): Can I ask you this, because this was raised by Mr Rajeev Shukla when I spoke to him...

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: I am not here to - excuse me. Can we stop for a second please, because I think... No. I am not...

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Well, let me ask you one more question, Mr Srinivasan.

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: I am not (inaudible). (Walks off)

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: OK. Thank you, Mr Srinivasan.

NARYANASWAMI SRINIVASAN: OK.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: From his base in London, Lalit Modi sends his messages to the world in a flood of combative, provocative tweets - almost all of which are designed to discredit his long-time enemy, Mr Srinivasan.

(To Gideon Haigh) So what is his ultimate ambition? What does he want to achieve by all this disruptive activity?

GIDEON HAIGH: Well, the simplest answer to that would be revenge.

(Lalit Modi shows an artwork to Quentin McDermott)

LALIT MODI: And it depicts the two greatest nations in test cricket, England and Australia. And If you go into each and every little element of this painting, you will find the story of the battle of cricket and the gentleman's sport. And you will find the legends.

Especially not because it's cricket or...

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: One of Lalit Modi's most prized possessions is this painting, signed by members of the England and Australia teams.

LALIT MODI: Number two: it depicts the love of my life, which is cricket. And it depicts the greatest thing in cricket: is the Ashes.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Lalit Modi has told Four Corners that he now has a blueprint to establish a rival breakaway body to the ICC, with rival test and T20 competitions.

LALIT MODI: In 2009, when everything was above board. And Sasha Jaffrey...

We could take on the existing establishment, no problem. It requires a few billion dollars. I don't think it would be a problem to get that either i-into, into action. But it could be done.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Have you got players onboard?

LALIT MODI: That's the easy part, because it is for the players. The ICC is not for the players. And for me to get players onboard would be a switch of a button.

There was a report that ran, um, in, in the front of The Australian newspaper that said "$100 million pay cheque for two of your players." I think that's an easy cheque to write; I just put it this way. I say: that would be an easy cheque to write and if that cheque is easy to write, then... it's the p... Would I get the players or not is a question you should ask the players, not me.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Around the world, growing anger is being felt at the ICC being run by a club of three nations.

LALIT MODI: They are three snakes of cricket. You've got to take their neck off. You've got to chop their head off, otherwise cricket will not survive.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: And already the consequences for cricket are becoming clear.

As the number of Tests being played gradually declines, so too will the number of nations competing in the showpiece finals of the ICC's biggest event, the World Cup. In 2019, the number has been cut from 14 to 10.

Ireland's team, which did so well at this year's World Cup, could miss out next time as a result.

ED JOYCE, IRELAND BATSMAN: We're angry that the next World Cup is 10 teams. It doesn't seem to make any sense to us. It's also against, maybe, what the ICC have done in the last 15 or 20 years, because they've put a lot of money into developing countries outside the sort of elite 10.

TIM MAY: It'll be shattering for those guys who've grown up playing cricket - where cricket's probably not the biggest sport in that particular country - and their dream is to play in a World Cup. And now that's been taken away from them. And that cannot do anything for the development of cricket within that country. How that is in the global interests of the game is beyond me. Just don't understand.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: The boys playing cricket on the beach in India don't care how their game is governed. Neither do the kids playing cricket on grass in Australia.

But the battles now being fought behind closed doors will determine the future of their game.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Given the staggering weight of money now being generated in world cricket, it's difficult to see how anything but cold, hard cash is going to dictate the future of the game.

Next week: how the ghosts of the CIA's controversial torture program continue to haunt the United States.

Until then, good night.