Change gets NZ greater slice of the financial pie
Indians may still have to be placated after power of the Big Three is wrested away
No one outside India seriously believes the proposed changes to the governance, structure and financial arrangements of the International Cricket Council are wrong.
A week of meetings in Dubai has produced an outcome — awaiting a final seal at the annual meeting in London at the end of June — wherein control of the game has been wrested away from the so- called Big Three of India, England and Australia, who had put in place a carve- up substantially in their favour.
Now the majority have hit back, with a financial model more beneficial for all bar India, who had wanted to award themselves US$ 440 million and now look like having to settle for a mere US$ 293m.
New Zealand Cricket’s slice of the action i s on a par with six other nations — South Africa, Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — all receiving about US$ 132m over the eight- year period to 2023, while England will receive US$ 143m and lowly Zimbabwe US$ 93m.
The money is about a 20 per cent bump in what NZC receives from the ICC in funding support. In relative terms it may not be that much, but chairman Greg Barclay says it will help with areas such as grassroots funding, development in the women’s game and enhancing prospects for more A tours.
Barclay offered a sympathetic perspective on India. They bring in the lion’s share of revenue, therefore deserve a larger slice of the pie. The question is how large.
Often perceived as the guys wearing the black hats around the ICC table, Barclay pointed out some of the submissions India put into the reworked constitution were well considered; some stayed in the final draft.
That said, he pointed to the importance of placating India, who, rightly or wrongly, feel with their board in a shambles, and in the control of the Supreme Court, countries moved swiftly to take advantage while their hands were tied.
“What we’ve got to be careful of is India will be smarting at the moment and I don’t think that’s a good outcome. There’s a bit of work to be done to placate India. This i s a loss for them. You would rather have India in the tent than doing their own thing,” Barclay said.
“I don’t think that we should lose sight of the fact that regardless of whatever we may think of the way they conduct themselves at times, they are very influential in world cricket and drive the game, particularly commercially. They do deserve a greater share of some of the outcomes. No one would argue with that.
“A bit of dialogue is needed, a bit of diplomacy because we want a happy and engaged India.”
Among other details worked through in Dubai:
Introducing an independent female director to the ICC board. Adding a deputy chairman to the board. Giving equal weighting votes for all board members regardless of membership status. Opening a pathway to include additional full members subject to meeting membership criteria.
Barclay is convinced the meeting was good for cricket generally, not only sorting out the contentious financial model. He labelled the draft constitution a radical step forward for the ICC, often accused of moving at glacial speed.
“The power that was exerted by the Big Three has been dissipated. That’s a great outcome. It hasn’t compromised playing arrangements. Our future tours programme is still intact and we can plan accordingly.”