Legacy of Big Three power grab still threatening to stifle game's growth
Tim Wigmore catalogues the continuing failures of international cricket to accept any meaningful reforms
“Everyone has a plan‘ till they get punched in the mouth.” – Mike Tyson
When it comes to reforming international cricket, the ICC have been punched more times than they would care to remember.
In 2004, proposals to rationalise the international game’s schedule collapsed after lobbying from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, who would have had a reduced away schedule.
In 2008, the Boston Consultancy Group was commissioned by Cricket Australia to devise a scheme to give Test cricket a structure; its proposal of a fouryear cycle and a pooling of broadcasting revenue was flatly rejected by England and India.
The World Test Championship, a distinctly modest plan for semi-finals and a final between the four top-ranked teams every four years, was postponed and then abandoned, because more cash could be earned playing the Champions Trophy.
Last summer, David Richardson’s proposal to introduce two divisions, of seven and five, with promotion and relegation, to Test cricket collapsed.
Now the envisaged radical restructure of 2017 – involving sharing the ICC’s cash around more equitably, and undoing the egregious Big Three reforms of 2014, and creating leagues in Test and ODI cricket to ensure proper context in international cricket – faced being added to this ignominious list of failed ventures. Last week Shashank Manohar, the ICC’s reformist chairman, resigned. It looks like hopes of enlightened reform could go with him.
In Dubai last month, the ICC passed ‘in principle’ agreement on the comprehensive reform package, with seven votes in support while India and Sri Lanka opposed and Zimbabwe abstained. Now, though, the ICC are again learning how little ‘in principle’ agreement can mean.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) arrived at the meetings in a state of turmoil. There is a certain sense that the BCCI were ambushed, and the reforms, including the new ICC constitution, pushed towards them before they had the chance to dissect them. Then again, it is easy to see why the reformers felt like they had no choice: meaningful reform depended upon the BCCI giving up some of the extra power and cash they awarded themselves, in cahoots with Australia and England, three years ago.
With grim predictability, the BCCI are declaring themselves unwilling to do so. In an email sent by Rahul Johri, the BCCI CEO, on Sunday evening to Iain Higgins, the ICC chief operating officer, the BCCI termed the new funding model “arbitrary” and not “agreeable”, as reported by ESPNCricinfo. Johri also declared his unhappiness with the constitution, and its implication of an ICC with power – including the ability to strip countries of Full Membership.
“This is a fundamental change in the nature of the ICC that adversely affects the autonomy of its members,” he wrote. And Johri is right, of course – but the ICC is attempting to reform because the current system, of a structure lacking in context, of ICC board members voting in accordance with their own narrow interests and not those of the wider game, and fixtures being determined by grubby politicking and short-term alliances has proved so fragrantly unsatisfactory.
The problem with world cricket lies not in the staff in Dubai, many of whom are exceptional and have the sport’s best interests at heart, but that they are not empowered to do their jobs properly.
This unsatisfactory status quo threatens to continue. Ultimately the root of India’s objections is simple enough – they faced losing in the region of $150m from the ICC over eight years, even though they would still receive twice as much as any other countries.
In the case of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe it seems a little harder to understand. All have been victims of shambolic international scheduling, and had a lack of fixtures to plan in advance and their finances left at the whims of richer Test nations. All that could have changed: the new cricket structures would have provided a guarantee of fixtures, enabling boards to plan years in advance. Although Zimbabwe would have been outside the main Test league in the new ‘9+3’ structure, they have still
The root of India’s objections is simple – they faced a loss $150m from ICC despite receiving twice as much as anyone else
have been guaranteed regular Tests against leading teams and more cash – something head coach Heath Streak acknowledged when he said the new structures would leave them better off. The three countries would all have stood to receive more cash from the ICC.
So why on earth would the trio vote against their apparent interests? Part of the answer lies with their fear of accountability. The Bangladesh Board’s president has said he opposes the notion of Full Member status being up for review, rather than an automatic right; a shameful act of pulling the ladder up given that Bangladesh had to wait 29 long years for Test status after gaining independence. The three boards all have a history of malgovernance, and would have faced more scrutiny than ever before. Cricket’s fetishisation of status also means that there is great pride associated with being a Full Member, even just as an end in itself.
The other great reason that the trio now oppose the reforms is the hope of getting extra lucrative bilateral fixtures against India as thanks. It has long been a joke that whenever India’s representative raises their hands to vote or oppose a motion in the ICC board, so do Zimbabwe’s; India have toured Zimbabwe four times in seven years. Although they have sent below strength squads for fly-in trips of a fortnight, these have still helped to bankroll Zimbabwean cricket. It may or may not have been coincidence that, just after Manohar’s resignation, it was announced that India will be playing Bangladesh or Sri Lanka in a tri-series next year.
Perhaps not all is not lost yet. Sources are still hopeful that some of the reforms can still be passed.
The 13-team ODI league, which would be transformative for the three Associate nations included, appears the least objectionable to the quartet of malcontents, and hence the best chance of getting passed. There is still support for awarding Afghanistan and Ireland Test status, though the fear is this could be tokenistic; last year Zimbabwe lost their Test ranking for a period due to a lack of fixtures.
Really the problem is all these other reforms need money to fund them – to pay for the fixtures, and give Associate nations a fair chance to be competitive.
At a time when Afghanistan and Ireland are playing out an enthralling ODI series, the abundant talent beyond the Test world has never been more apparent. Sadly, the lack of interest in cultivating this has never been more apparent either. Self-interest reigns, and not even enlightened long-term selfinterest, just depressing short-termism.
This time, England have tried to do the right thing and supported reform.Yet they are still culpable for world cricket’s mess, for their shameful role in Big Three power grab in 2014.
This threatens to remain the moment that cricket scuppered its hopes of expansionism, and, through refusing to embrace meritocracy, spreading wealth around and contracting the World Cup to ten teams, prioritised short-term selfenrichment over the hopes and dreams of millions of cricketers worldwide.
Try as it might, cricket cannot leave the legacy of the Big Three’s reforms – “The worst thing that has happened to cricket,” as the great Scyld Berry termed them – behind. The sport stumbles on, at risk of another huge wasted opportunity to reform itself for the better, and threatens to become even less wellequipped to ready itself for the huge challenges ahead.
Once again, a great game is being demeaned by those who run it.