For a decade the holy grail of associate nations has been elevation to full member status and the test match recognition that comes with it. Ireland, the only leading associate with a hope of meeting the ICC’s on-field and off-field eligibility criteria, has boldly set out its case. The rest wait in the wings hoping this may set an era defining precedent. But the introduction of the TAPP funding and the formalisation of ODI Associate fixtures in the FATS (Future Associate Tour Schedule) signals a glass ceiling has been placed above a new ‘Associate Plus’ membership category that will be given more funding, more games, more recognition but be deprived an invitation to join cricket’s top table.
If this is indeed the case then it requires a realignment of ambitions among aspiring cricket nations. Associate and Affiliate cricket nations face one of two primary challenges:
- To retain High Performance Programme status and avoid stagnation and decline
- To gain HPP status and use the additional funding and exposure as
- a platform for growth
Beneath this each member will have a series of on field and off-field targets that are set out in the five year plans they develop in partnership with their regional Development officer.
One of the most commonly cited terms in evaluation of ASAF cricket is ‘development pathways’ where countries meet objectives, progress towards milestones, access additional support and progress again. Implied within this is constant momentum and growth. Leading teams are always looking towards the next goal, whether it be qualification for world cups, luring sponsorship deals, professionalising the game or gaining full member scalps. Like a climber scaling Everest they never look down for fear of becoming giddy. But Bermuda are a cautionary tale is how development isn’t always sustained, that it can quite easily fall over the precipice into decline.
The latest CricketEurope rankings show that both Canada and Kenya are outside the top six. This means that if this is reflected in the table at the World Cup Qualifying Event in 2014 they will lose their ODI status and place in the HPP. The resultant cut in funding is roughly the equivalent of an England player losing his central contract and returning to a county journeyman’s salary. Aspiring young players hoping for a professional career would have the rug pulled unceremoniously from under them.
In short, it would set back cricket in those countries by a decade and could lead to a lost generation of players, groomed in a professional environment but left to wither on the branch just as they reach their prime. It would be interesting to know what support, if any, the ICC have earmarked for such circumstances. For instance the financial blow that often follows demotion from the Premier League in football is softened by a parachute payment to ensure a club doesn’t spiral down the leagues. Is a cricketing equivalent required to ensure that benefits of the HPP are not lost?
Several recent Kenyan internationals are concerned that the loss of HPP status could see cricket spiral into decline. A generation of talent may be forced to commit to careers outside the game and development programmes, starved of funding, would fail to find players to replace them. Sponsors and media partners may look to other sports that offer higher profile and more marketable fixtures. This bleak vision isn’t inevitable of course, but is certainly a distinct possibility unless the ICC and national boards have contingency plans to mitigate against these risks.
An obvious solution would be the extension of the HPP to eight or even ten teams but the ICC have remained coy on such reforms. And this means that no team can rest on its laurels and with the pot of Gold at the end of the full member rainbow shrouded in a mist of Woolf Review uncertainty the current incumbents of this excellent scheme would do well to look over their shoulders. For they’ve always assumed they are on a final stepping stone whereas in reality they look down from the summit.