There was an air of inevitability to the International Cricket Council (ICC) Board approving a host of changes at its meeting on February 8, as recommended in the ‘Working Group Position Paper’ relating to the governance, financing and structure of world cricket.
The proposals met with expected resistance but it was akin to a government partially rolling back steep hike in petrol prices following a routine public and political backlash.
After some tweaking in the original draft prepared by the so-called Big Three - India, England and Australia – in the backdrop of some criticism from the member boards and former cricketers, the process of structural overhaul of the global cricket administration was set in motion in Singapore.
This was after the ICC Board gained the required number of votes to clear the resolution. The resenting Pakistan and Sri Lanka, who abstained from voting, knew they had no choice but to fall in line after the BCCI got Bangladesh and South Africa on board with some backroom negotiations where both the countries were offered some lucrative series against the Indian cricket team.
It’s a supreme irony that India, which took the support of Pakistan and Sri Lanka to end ‘imperialism’ in cricket, should join hands with Australia and England in what appeared to be a step towards taking major control of the game even as their neighbours were left fuming. It’s not that they didn’t have that influence over the governing body but by getting the proposals passed, they are only legitimising their ‘rule.’
That Sri Lanka Cricket is resigned to this reality is evident from its ‘satisfaction’ to the revised proposals. “Our objective was to try not to lose what we have gained as a Test-playing nation,” said SLC secretary Nishantha Ranatunga in what was a clear face-saving exercise.
“If you look at the revised documents that they have tabled, most of the things have been cleared. If you look at the first paper, they only wanted the ICC chairmanship to be rotated amongst the three countries. They have taken that off. Then they were talking about three committees and for them to be chairing those. That has been taken out. Only for the first term they will chair those committees due to the time constraints and the TV matter. But after that the process is the board (consisting of all 10 Full Members) will select who will chair those committees,” he remarked indicating softening of his stand.
Oligarchy
On the face of it, the move by the three powerful boards may appear to be ‘oligarchy’ but this is also the undisputed fact that India generates nearly 80 per cent of world cricket revenue. And who is to question them from seeking a bigger pie?
It has been said that the BCCI, to have its way, sent a veiled threat of withdrawing from the ICC events like the World Cup, financially crippling such events, but the truth is unlike baseball in America, India need other countries to thrive as a cricketing nation. It is, however, equally true that for cricket to survive, a strong India is crucial. Even the English and Wales Cricket Board and Cricket Australia, who otherwise see India as a big bully, have understood this reality.
Outside of these three prominent nations, New Zealand was the first one to accept the new world order, reflected in the comments by NZ Cricket director Martin Sneddon. “Do we have power at the ICC table? No. Do we have the ability to influence and persuade? A little bit. The critical thing is to identify the things most important to us. That means ensuring the stability of our playing programme and revenue generation,” the retired cricketer pointed out.
According to the new revenue-sharing structure, the BCCI could earn anywhere between US$ 63 million to US$ 733 million depending on the income through ICC media rights and sponsorships.
The figures were arrived at after the calculations by the Big Three that the BCCI’s contribution was over 80 per cent while other full members’ ranged from 0.1 to 5 per cent. The BCCI, under president N Srinivasan, had been pushing for greater share for a long a time and the concerted effort has finally come to fruition.
Governance model
“Earlier, we used to get only 4 per cent, though we were responsible for generating 60-70 per cent of the total revenue,” said BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel, justifying their demand for more moolah. “So in that aspect, it is absolutely fair (to demand more). By taking the governance model, we are expecting that the overall gross revenue will more than double within this cycle (2015-2023). The cricket part can be taken care of by utilising the well-generated revenue with good governance,” he reasoned.
The distribution formula has been arrived at taking into account the history of the game, participation of teams in various tournaments and achievements of those countries. For example, England and Australia have been playing the game for the longest of times while India has emerged as the financial arm of the game. This preference policy is followed by football governing body FIFA as well, at least when it comes to number of qualification slots for the World Cup. While Europe has 13 fixed slots, the combined number of berths for America is nine. Asia, the largest continent, can send a minimum of four and a maximum of five teams for the biggest sporting show on earth.
While BCCI, ECB and CA have not compromised on financial issues, they have ceded ground when it comes to organisational structure. They have given up on rotation of chairmanship of ICC, Financial Committee and Commercial Affairs Committee and the new Executive Board among the three and have made bilateral series a legally binding document. There won’t be a situation where the BCCI will want to pull out without facing any consequences. A Test Fund has been created for countries who have no economic benefits by playing the longer-version and that should help sustain the traditional format of the game.
Despite these changes, most of the power still rests with BCCI, ECB and CA but given the spread and nature of the game, this seemed inevitable.