Editorial: Full Member Greed, CEO Conflict of Interest

Decent hearted cricket fans around the world are deeply disappointed that the ICC 2011 Cricket World Cup will be contested by only 14 nations instead of 16 as previously promised.

Sickeningly but not surprisingly, the ICC Chief Executives Committee have voted to cut two associate nations from the 2011 World Cup that will be co-hosted by India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Cricket is the only sport in the world that is openly discouraging countries from competing at it’s premier international event.

Soccer, baseball, rugby union, rugby league, basketball, field hockey and even ice hockey are expanding rapidly. It is the policy of these sporting organizations to showcase it’s newest members and to embrace the cultural diversity that different countries can bring to a major sporting event.

Meanwhile, cricket shoos away new countries like flies at a barbecue.

Fans shouldn’t be surprised by the decision of the ICC Chief Executives Committee.

As the title suggests, this committee is made of the 10 CEO’s from the full members. These individuals are employed by their own cricket boards, namely Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and The West Indies.

Understandably, the Chief Executive Officers have only one mandate; Look after the interests of the company that pays them and turn a tidy profit for that employer.

So why are they empowered to make decisions on behalf of the game as a whole? Why are these men allowed to have any say in matters that directly involve countries other than their own? These CEO’s can compromise the financial stability of the remaining 91 ICC members with a mere show of hands.

It is at the very least, an extremely unorthodox business practice. At worst it is a blatant conflict of interest and one that can no longer be tolerated if the ICC is to be seen as a fair, ethical and relevant sporting body.

The ICC can talk all they like about globalization, cultural diversity and the spirit of cricket but these well intentioned terms are as meaningless as a politician’s pre-election promises if the mandate is forgotten when the moment of truth arrives.

The associate and affiliate members of the ICC deserve far better.

Still, the associates and the fans weren’t the only ones fooled. The International Olympic Committee recently voted to approve the sport of cricket as an IOC member.

IOC Director of Sport Christophe Dubi recently spoke on the ICC’s website about this decision. He stated that cricket had made an effort to become more universally accepted and that this initiative was influential in the IOC’s acceptance of cricket.

What would he make of this latest development? Cricket has taken a step back by 10 years. The 2011 World Cup could actually end up being contested only by Commonwealth countries, just as it was at the first championship in 1975.

Perhaps Mr Dubi wasn’t given the entire story. Maybe the ICC should have told the IOC about this when it was first proposed several months ago.

So where to now?

The recommendation to remove two associate teams from the next World Cup goes to the ICC Executive Board, who will make a final decision on this matter in March.

The ICC Executive Board is (Surprise, surprise) made up of 10 representatives from the full members plus President Ray Mali, CEO Ex-officio Malcolm Speed and President elect David Morgan. A severely outnumbered associate voice will be represented by HRH Tunku Imran, Stanley Perlman and Samir Inamdar.

Can full members representatives Giles Clarke (England), Major General Sina lbn Jamali (Bangladesh), Creagh O’Connor (Australia), Peter Chingoka (Zimbabwe), Julian Hunte (West Indies), Sharad Pawar (India), John Anderson (New Zealand), Nasim Ashraf (Pakistan), Arjuna Rantunga (Sri Lanka) and Norman Arendse (South Africa) be trusted to make the best decision for cricket or will their own self interests prevail?

Associate and Affiliate players both senior and junior dream of the day they will represent their country at a World Cup. Coaches, volunteers and administrators in 91 non-test nations work with few accolades in the hope that they might contribute towards a World Cup mission for their players. Some nations will pin their future financial hopes on qualifying for a World Cup. The increased marketing and sponsorship opportunities, desperately needed media coverage and higher participation rates that result from a World Cup appearance are key elements if new cricketing nations are to prosper or in some cases, survive.

Removing two associate countries from the 2011 World Cup removes hope for too many. There is too much at stake for greed and self interest to win out.

The ICC Executive Board can make a brave decision that will benefit the majority of it’s members or it can bow to the old boys club that have dictated terms for far too long.