Editorial: ICC Must Reject Proposed World Cup Format Changes

The International Cricket Council must insist that there is no reduction in teams for the 2011 Cricket World Cup.

The tournament’s hosts India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have proposed that the number of teams that should compete at the 2011 event be reduced to just 14, with four associate countries “allowed” entry instead of six.

In other sports, such a proposal would be laughed at and shown the door without hesitation. Cricket, however, is a game that pays little attention to the spirit of competing and the cultural diversity that should automatically constitute a “World” Cup event.

Subsequently, this narrow minded and ill conceived proposal is actually being considered by the game’s governing body. Cricket World Cups are owned by the ICC and allocated to grateful and supposedly gracious hosts but such is the financial clout wielded by India (BCCI) these days, it is feared that the game’s keepers will cave in to BCCI pressure.

The ICC has an obligation to serve all 101 of it’s members, not just the powerful, outspoken ones. In fact, the globalisation of the sport is a key ICC mandate. The ICC’s website clearly states- ” We care for cricket. Everything we do and every decision we make is motivated by a desire to serve the game better. We are an international organisation with a global focus and act at all times without prejudice, fear or favour. As a leading global sport cricket will captivate and inspire people of every age, gender, background and ability while building bridges between continents, countries and communities.”

Some might say that if the BCCI proposal is rubber stamped, the ICC would have acted with fear and favour instead of the reverse.

Cricket was recently accepted into the International Olympic Committee. The sport’s newly found global outlook and acceptance played a large part in that decision. Those at the IOC who welcomed cricket might now be wondering if they made the right decision upon hearing of this latest proposal from the BCCI and it’s co-hosts.

Little did they know that cricket’s prejudiced side would re-emerge so quickly.

For all it’s glory, cricket has an unfortunate reputation for insularity and a lack of cultural acceptance. In the early part of the last century India and the West Indies had to fight for the right to play test cricket. Many preferred that the game be played only by Englishmen, Australians and South Africans. Unbelievably, non-Commonwealth countries were barred from becoming members of the ICC until 1965. Even Sri Lanka had to wait an inordinate length of time before they were allowed to play test cricket. How quickly India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have forgotten their own history. Money tends to dull the memory somewhat.

Some of those archaic attitudes still exist although the spin doctors of the 21st century are far more adept at camouflaging their insularity, bigotry and appalling short sightedness.

The old guard are masters at presenting insularity as quality control. Bigotry is sold to the world as protecting the game’s heritage and short sightedness is cunningly portrayed as concentrating on the present.

What can’t be disguised is their greed. The 2011 World Cup hosts have openly admitted wanting less associate nations competing at the event to maximize profits and prevent anyone else apart from the full members progressing into the later rounds. Some might regard this as a mere step away from orchestrating results for purposes other than those considered within the spirit of fair play.

Shame on Ireland for beating Pakistan and Bangladesh at the 2007 World Cup. How dare they play so well to knock out a cricketing powerhouse. This was supposed to be a party for the old guard and the plucky and determined Irish were not given an invitation. While the Irish were criticized for playing too well, Canada were attacked by the elitists for not playing well enough, despite mustering a respectable 249 against New Zealand, 228-7 against England and 199 versus Kenya.

The length of the 2007 tournament has rightly been criticised. The group stage involving the ten full members and the six associates lasted 12 days. The super 8’s and finals, which were designed to showcase only full members, meandered along for 34 days. So why are the associates being blamed for making the tournament too long?

Some critics of the younger cricketing nations will bend the truth as far as their agenda allows them.

Cricket has made major inroads into the global market since 1997. There are now 101 members of the ICC. The sport has a healthy following in countries as diverse as Uganda, Kenya, Namibia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Malaysia, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Bermuda and in pockets of Canada and the US.

Cricket is also taking root in Iran, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Chile and Cuba, to mention but a handful. The development initiatives in these countries are very exciting. Key indicators and ever increasing participation figures support those who believe that cricket has a big future outside the current small base of ten full members.

More than 300,000 people now play cricket outside of the 10 full member nations and that number is growing quickly. Unpaid volunteers, coaches, administrators, umpires, school teachers, ground keepers and players toil away in the hope that one day their country will win their way through the extensive qualifying tournaments and into a World Cup.

No wonder youngsters are now queuing up to play cricket in the emerging countries like never before. The pathway is clear and the goal more tangible than ever.

To remove two associate nations from the World Cup, removes hope for too many. It would be a step back to cricket’s Imperial era when old toffs ruled over the game and unfashionable nations were treated with disdain.

Has cricket learned any lessons from the past?