While England and Australia relent, the BCCI digs its heels in
Tim Wigmore’s says it’s time the cricket community stood up to India’s bullying
The MCC World Cricket Committee met in Mumbai this week. For those interested in cricket expanding, there were two significant developments. The MCC supported the notion of a conference structure in Tests: the ICC’s new plans to introduce context to Test cricket, involving two parallel leagues of six nations played over a two-year cycle, with the top team in each playing off in a final. And, rightly, the MCC reaffirmed its commitment to cricket featuring in the 2024 Olympic Games, declaring that “the single most effective way cricket can grow around the world is being introduced to the Olympics”.
Yet the most revealing part of the press conference was when John Stephenson, the MCC’s head of cricket, suggested that Anurag Thakur, the BCCI President who attended the meeting, has an “open mind” about the Olympics. The Indian journalists just laughed. The BCCI’s staunch opposition to cricket joining the Games – essentially because it does not want to give up any power to the Indian Olympic Committee, is loathe to give up the image rights of its players for two weeks – shows how the organisation is narrow-minded enough to put its parochial concerns above the best interests of the sport.
We have seen the BCCI’s selfishness again and again. Most egregiously, the BCCI colluded with Cricket Australia and the ECB in 2014 to railroad through appalling changes to the ICC’s governance and distribution of cash, concentrating money and power in a way that was so flagrantly unjust that even Transparency International was moved to condemn the triumvirate’s actions. The so-called small seven – the seven poorer Full Member boards – knew that the changes were iniquitous, yet voted them through anyway.
The reason was simple: the BCCI threatened to walk away from world cricket, and, shorn of guaranteed incoming tours from India, nations feared grave financial repercussions. Indeed, in 2013/14 – just as the BCCI were engaged in their clandestine talks with Australia and England – India showed its clout, defying its contractual agreement with South Africa to truncate their tour. This cost South Africa an estimated US$ 20m, and the ramifications have been felt everywhere, including on cricket in the townships. What had South Africa done to earn the BCCI’s wrath? They had simply appointed a chief executive, Haroon Lorgat, who the BCCI did not like. Lorgat’s crime was that, as ICC chief executive, he had the temerity to enlist Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, to conduct a comprehensive review of cricket’s governance.“Cricket is a great game. It deserves to have governance, including management and ethics, worthy of the sport. This is not the position at the present time,” the report declared. So naturally the Big Three then colluded to do the exact opposite.
Of course, the power grab - “The worst thing that has happened to cricket,” as the esteemed journalist Scyld Berry pointed out, though it received far too little attention – reflected shamefully on Australia and England, and continues to do so. But under new leadership, the two nations have tacitly acknowledged that what they did was unforgivable. The permanent representation of the Big Three on crucial ICC boards has been ended. Both Australia and England are happy to return a considerable portion of the extra share of ICC cash that they won through their bullying, and both have also showed some willingness to do more to grow the game: England are hosting Ireland for two ODIs next summer, and the Lions arranged three 50-over games with the UAE and a first-class match with Afghanistan this winter; Australia have advocated that the Super 10 stage of the World Twenty20 be enlarged to 12 teams, thereby guaranteeing the presence of at least two Associates in the main stage of the tournament. Baby steps, perhaps, but it’s a start.
India’s commitment to newly enlightened thinking is altogether less clear.
While Shashank Manohar was able to do some good as president of the BCCI before taking up his post as independent chairman of the ICC, and the BCCI’s overdue embrace of the Decision Review System was welcome, there has been no evidence that the BCCI support the enlightened reforms that world cricket so badly needs. Indeed, Thakur has even lambasted Manohar for not doing more to safeguard India’s interests.
It all feels a little like 2013, with India picking fights against other nations seemingly because they can – only while then the BCCI wanted more power and cash, now their aim is to hold on to what they’ve already got.
Full Members should not pick a fight with India for the sake of it. But nor should they kowtow to the BCCI as meekly as in the past.
The ‘nuclear option’ – of India leaving international cricket altogether, as they threatened three years ago – would be hugely unpopular in India, and is therefore very unlikely. And even if they did leave, international cricket could certainly survive: even without India, it would still be a richer game than a decade ago, and the sport’s chances of progressive governance and urgent globalisation would drastically increase.
“Trying to get India to look at the game globally rather than for itself has been the most significant problem for this sport,” says one senior source. Looking back on the ICC reforms, he says: “Was the price worth paying? I don’t think it was,” believing that the game would be better off now
It all feels like 2013, with India picking fights against other nations seemingly because they can with the aim of holding onto what they have got
had it called India’s bluff then.
None of this is to say that India leaving the ICC would be welcome: India engaged in world cricket and eager to see the sport grow is potentially the game’s single biggest asset. The point is merely to stress that India needs world cricket at least as much as world cricket needs them. And so if other countries stick together – unlike in 2013/14, when the Big Three effectively ganged up on the 102 ICC members – they have a far stronger hand than they realise. They can, therefore, do what is right even if India do not approve.
Early next year comes two crux moments that will go a long way to determining the future vitality of cricket. First, officials from the ICC will meet with the International Olympic Committee; the IOC wants cricket in, but for the tournament to include full-strength teams, including India. Then comes discussions on the ICC’s ongoing governance review – above all, the huge BCCI revenue share – an estimated $568 million over the 2015-23 cycle, double what the 95 associates and affiliates receive combined.
History tells us that the BCCI will oppose the Olympics and any attempts to award their extra ICC cash among those who really need it. But the BCCI only have one of the ten votes on the ICC board.
A decision needs seven votes to be ratified, so, with enough imagination and will, and the courage not to be placated by the promise of a few tours from India, seven Test nations could vote for the reforms world cricket desperately needs.
And if cricket is to do what is right for the whole sport, then Australia and England have to lead the way, showing that they really have changed, and now prioritise doing the right thing over cosying up to the BCCI.