Two weeks ago, I said that “every so often cricket’s fabric is subject to transformational tremor. We may be on the brink of another one.”
This was based on the World Cricketers’ Association’s comprehensive review of the game’s global structure and its subsequent report. This called for an overhaul of four central pillars of cricket.
It was always going to be the case that the WCA’s call for the first pillar – the game’s governing body, the International Cricket Council – to be “modernised” to “ensure that it is fit for purpose to lead the global game” would raise hackles at the ICC. This was a direct attack on the way that cricket is led. Add to that the WCA’s assault on the principles by which the game’s revenues are unevenly distributed by the ICC at present and not on those based on equity and fairness in growth, then retaliation was inevitable.
The third pillar relating to current scheduling patterns by the ICC was criticized by the WCA for lack of clarity and consistency, with suggestions for improvement provided. Regulation is the fourth pillar on which the WCA called for greater levels of financial accountability within the ICC.
These criticisms of the ICC are not new. In 2012, an independent governance review of the ICC, headed by Lord Woolf, called for sweeping changes in the administration of cricket and the functioning of its governing body. Woolf recommended a restructuring of the ICC’s executive board to make it more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries. He also called for measures to increase transparency in dealings by the ICC and its members.
The recommendations were not binding on the ICC and were not acceptable to the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Consequently, the ICC board did not accept them and a major opportunity for reform and equity was missed.
Now that the BCCI is considerably wealthier than it was in 2012 and that its former secretary is the current chair of the ICC, India has an even greater stranglehold on power in world cricket. This it will not relinquish willingly, as has been evident in the brutally dismissive riposte to the WCA.
According to reports in the Times of India, the ICC’s Cricket Executives’ Council discussed the WCA report and recommendations in a recent board meeting in Harare. An anonymous source is widely quoted, revealing that the CEC poured highly critical rejections on both the legitimacy of the WCA and the views it expressed on the game’s structure, governance, financial models and operations.
The CEC consists of a chair, a representative of each of the 12 ICC full members, three representatives of the 96 associate members and three ex-officio members, each one a chair of other ICC committees, including the ICC chair, Jay Shah. If the comments by the source accurately reflect the CEC, then they are both damning and alarming, not to mention confirmation of what many people believe to be a true reflection of the attitudes and strategies of those who govern the game.
It is understood that the BCCI took the lead in rejecting the WCA recommendations and was backed by other CEC members. This is surprising, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The source is quoted as saying that the WCA is “nothing but a trade union making needless noise” and “clearly does not have the player’s best interests at heart.”
The accusation that the WCA does not have its members’ interests at heart is risible. Player remuneration has long been a bone of contention in cricket. The Packer revolution in Australia in the late 1970s was the start of a long battle to raise player salaries.
The ICC reacted in affronted fashion to the WCA, saying that “the players can either choose to play in the IPL or side with the WCA. A player represents their cricket board and members of those cricket boards form the ICC.” This summary dismissal of the WCA reeks of feudalism with the players relegated to the role of vassals. This may be the case in India, where the top players are paid so handsomely that they have little need to complain.
Extension of a feudal system to the rest of cricket disrespects the players. I am reminded of John Morrison who, walking out to bat for New Zealand against Australia at Melbourne in December 1973, eyed the full stadium of close to 100,000 people and allegedly remarked to his opening partner that they were not receiving much of the money paid by the spectators. Current professional cricketers are well remunerated, but their labor is worked hard. The WCA and national cricketers’ associations – where they exist – are concerned about workloads and their physical effect on performance and bodies.
The antipathy displayed by the ICC and BCCI towards the WCA closes the door on any hopes that the WCA may have entertained about the start of a dialogue between the parties. Instead, the antipathy seems designed to quash the burgeoning voice of the WCA and some senior players. Tension is growing between those wielding power and those advocating for global equity and player representation. Another thorn has been scratched into the ICC’s side by the publication of a book on the ICC’s history by Rod Lyall, who simply refers to it as “The Club.”
It is a fascinating read and details how it has been possible for the BCCI to take control of cricket and the body which is supposed to govern it. In an increasingly autocratic world, is it now too late to effect change to this regime? Reform from within is unlikely. In theory, member boards can outvote the BCCI, but Indian control of key positions and committees, along with the sport’s finances, makes this a risky strategy.
The current ICC revenue distribution model runs until 2027. Potentially, this offers an opportunity for reshaping, but the BCCI is unlikely to agree to any dilution of its power. In fact, that power could be increased if it chooses to expand the IPL. Checks on BCCI dominance and increased accountability for the ICC can only occur if the rest of the game unites. The ICC’s response to the WCA has shown that any attempt to engage in a battle over cricket’s global governance will be bluntly rebuffed. The WCA-induced tremor was felt but quickly papered over by those in power.
