The powerlessness of the ICC’s 34 Associate and 61 Affiliate members in the face of the utter determination of the ten Full members to have their own way in restructuring international cricket is obvious to every observer, and that might lead one to conclude that nothing can be done to prevent the interests of the majority from being ruthlessly trampled when the Executive Board meets next week.
No doubt there has been some pretty intensive lobbying since the recommendations of the Chief Executives’ Committee – especially the proposal to reduce the World Cup to ten participants from 2015 – were made known, but there is little indication that those who are driving the scheme are ready to temper their demands, however strong the moral and political arguments of their opponents.
That does not mean, however, that the three Associates’ representatives on the Executive Board, Neil Speight of Bermuda, Imran Khwaja of Singapore and Keith Oliver of Scotland, can do nothing to resist the near-absolute power of the big guns.
I believe that they should, with the full backing of the 95 Associates and Affiliates, set out a series of measures which might be regarded as a reasonable quid pro quo for the Full members’ getting their proposals through. In my view, these should be:
A cast-iron guarantee that the High Performance and Global Development programmes will not only be continued, but that they will – preferably immediately, but in any case from 2015 – receive significantly increased funding.
Too much has been invested in these programmes over the past decade for them now to be abandoned or neglected. But if they are ever to achieve their goals, they require more money than the ICC has so far been prepared to allocate to them, and the best way for the suspicion that the Full members’ commitment to them is inadequate is for them to receive a larger share of the ICC’s revenue (which would still remain a tiny proportion of the whole).A meaningful qualification process for the World Cup, with only the top six on the ICC rankings table qualifying automatically. The remaining four places should be decided through a twelve-team qualifying tournament, including the remaining sides on the rankings table and the leading sides outside it. If the weaker Full members can’t qualify there, then surely they shouldn’t be in the World Cup?
A commitment to the continuation of the World Cricket League and the Intercontinental Cup.
It is a cynical manoeuvre to claim that a sixteen-team World Twenty20 competition is compensation for the Associates and Affiliates for their loss of access to the World Cup. Their further development demands that they are able to compete internationally in the 50-over format, and at the top level, that they gain experience of the first-class game. Coaching and domestic structures would be distorted by an exclusive diet of T20 cricket.
Should the Full members not be prepared to accede to these proposals, or at least move significantly towards accepting them, then it would be a dramatic confirmation of their disregard for the needs of global development.
No doubt the three Associates’ representatives would be offered ‘incentives’ to roll over, play dead, and get their tummies tickled; that is, unfortunately, all too characteristic of the ICC’s political style. Perhaps, if that failed, they would be threatened with dire financial consequences for their countries, or the Associates and Affiliates more generally, if they refused to come quietly. But the only answer to that is solidarity.
And what should they do if their proposals are met with intransigence and contempt? If the reasonable concerns of the 95 Associates and Affiliates are ignored, I believe the three would have no alternative but to resign, issuing a clear, resounding statement to the effect that the ICC is no longer acting in the interests of the vast majority of its members.
That would surely trigger a major crisis within the organisation, which the world’s press would find it impossible to ignore. The subsequent election would provide an opportunity for a fundamental debate about the threat posed to world cricket by the greed and unscrupulousness of the current leadership and their media allies.
Will something along these lines actually take place? I’d like to hope so, but I’m not holding my breath.