TELFORD VICE
The international cricket machine could be on a collision course with its own engine - the people who play it and, by extension, fuel it by making the game marketable.
That was the implication of a statement issued yesterday by the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (FICA), which serves as a trade union for the players of seven of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) 10 full member countries.
Next week, the ICC will consider a proposal that would, if passed by seven of the full members, give formal control of the world game to just three countries - India, England and Australia - and will likely make the other seven financially dependent on the big three or even bankrupt them.
Yesterday, FICA, which represents players in England, Australia, SA, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Bangladesh and West Indies voiced strong opposition to the plan.
Did that mean a showdown between the ICC and FICA was on the cards?
“It depends on how the ICC deal with this matter,” Tony Irish, the chief executive of the SA Cricketers’ Association, said yesterday.
“We would hope they deal with it responsibly but, so far, there has been very little inclusivity.”
FICA’s executive chairman, Paul Marsh, said in the statement that the organisation’s members were “extremely concerned about the future of international cricket”.
“This proposal is designed to vest control of the game in the three boards of India, Australia and England,” Marsh said. “It is not in the best interests of the global game and we have real fears that it will only serve to strengthen the big three countries whilst the rest are left to wither on the vine.”
Among the “myriad” problems with the proposal, Marsh said, was that the big three, like all ICC board members, “owe fiduciary duties to the ICC that include putting the interests of the ICC ahead of those of their individual boards, a duty to remain loyal to the ICC and avoid conflicts of interests and to act in good faith to promote the success of the ICC. We seriously question whether all of these duties have been met”.
Marsh rubbished the theory that the restructure would ensure the seven smaller boards earned more in future.
“... they are almost certain to lose more money from a re-shaped future tours programme than they will gain from ICC distributions, when the big three inevitably pick and choose who, when and where they will play,” Marsh said.
“What chance do the majority of members have of survival if the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) decides not to tour their countries on at least a semi-regular basis?”
Marsh painted a picture of a future of chronic inequality between countries whose teams were supposed to compete on an equal footing.
“... the gap between the big three and the rest will get bigger and bigger, which will undermine the competitiveness of future ICC events and therefore the value of rights in future (financial) cycles”.
The logic of the boards that contributed the most to the ICC’s coffers benefitting more than others - currently, profits from events are shared equally among members of the same stature - was faulty, Marsh said.
“... countries that need ICC income most will receive the least, whilst the big three will get the lion’s share even though they are already financially healthy because of the value of the rights to their bilateral series”.
At stake, Marsh said, was nothing less than the concept of fairness itself.
“The essence of sport is competition and those in control of the ICC should be doing all they can to promote and provide a level playing field. This proposal will achieve the complete opposite.”
India’s players are not represented in FICA, but the fact that England’s and Australia’s are mean the body’s views cannot be ignored.
Cricket SA have called for the proposal to be withdrawn.
Comments
No comments yet. Start the conversation.