I agree with Tulsi about Lead India, but I cannot understand why people have to be anti-cricket just because it happens to be more popular. Football clubs offer much more money to the topmost stars, and what our cricketers earn is nothing compared to the money in Golf, Tennis, or Boxing. 20/20 cricket can make cricket popular all over the world, which means more money. How the money is utilized is a different matter altogether. The cricket board can try and emulate Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and try to improve the lot of other sports, their poor cousins (they already are doing something), like the Gates Foundation is doing good philanthropic work; but they have to generate that kind of money first. Look at how much employment this generates among junior cricketers in India, and more matches mean more employment for cricket administration as well.
In HR leadership seminars, in the context of leadership, we come across statements like "Some person may have the formal power or authority, but it is another person who can have the influence on the strength of personality, innate ability, or whatever." Princess Diana was one example. Here, I do not understand that when Cricket is the national passion, why hockey continues to be the national game just because we produced a Dhyan Chand or were good at it once upon a time. Don't we need some change management?
Clarification: I am a Tennis fanatic, and there also, they are trying to commercialize the sport in India because ultimately, anything has to be self-sustaining in the long run.