A few days ago the partial leaking of a draft document on the future structure of International cricket caused a furore throughout the cricket world. Cricket forums on sites such as Cricinfo and Cricket Europe were swamped with comments which for the most part condemned the proposals.

I have obtained a copy of the full document and have analysed it from the perspective of its impact on cricket generally and, perhaps more importantly the potential impact on the future of Cricket Ireland.

Effectively the draft proposals would see control of International cricket vested in a new committee of the International Cricket Council (ICC) to be called the Executive Committee. This Executive Committee shall consist of four members, one each from India, England and Australia while the fourth is to be nominated by the ICC Executive Board to come from the other seven Full Member countries. While this new Executive Committee nominally reports to the ICC Executive Board the reality is that the crucial decisions to be made on the structure and funding of cricket will be taken by India, England and Australia. There is also a proposal to introduce a two tier Test cricket structure consisting of the top eight ranked teams with a second tier of the ninth and tenth ranked teams, currently Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and the top six Associate teams with the prospect of one of these six getting Test status. However India, England and Australia would be exempt from relegation to the bottom tier. In addition these three countries would get a significantly greater share of generated revenue than currently obtains. It is these proposals that have created such a storm among commentators and supporters.

However, a great deal of the comment is based on emotion, while ignoring reality. At present there are ten Full Member countries that have Test match status and over ninety Associate and Affiliate countries. The top six Associate and Affiliate countries have ODI status led by Ireland who has been the number one Associate team for some years. All International cricket is controlled and organised by ICC, through the Future Tours Program (FTP) for Full Members, and by World Cricket League and Intercontinental Cup tournaments for Associate and Affiliate countries.

The reality is that ICC is a toothless body that is unable to enforce its own regulations if certain countries choose not to implement them. It is a disparate body that is contradictory with one part not knowing what another part is doing. India is the prime example of this disregard for decisions made by the Cricket Committee. They ignore the decision to use the Decision Review System (DRS) and have scant regard for the FTP, recently demonstrated by their curtailing a tour to South Africa, believed to be as a result of Cricket South Africa appointing a CEO that did not meet with India’s approval. So how does India escape sanction from the ICC? Quite simply it is through power.
This power is based, as most power is, on money. India claims that it contributes 80% of the money that sustains the ICC and consequently meaningful International cricket and therefore should have a greater say in how cricket is run and receive a larger slice of the revenue. The ECB (England) and Cricket Australia recognising where the power resides, have chosen expediency over democracy and are willing to be the second and third legs of a lop sided boardroom table. While this may be neither ethical nor moral it unfortunately reflects the reality of the power that money can engender.

The format of the proposals is a very clever political ploy. The fourth member of the new Executive Committee will be nominated from the ICC Executive Board and the chosen nominee will undoubtedly come from a country that has supported the proposal and the prospect of joining the inner circle of power will be hard to resist for most of the other seven countries. The further prospect of additional funds will also lure those who have been unable to develop sufficient resources of their own by their inadequate management of their home Boards.
The proposals will be discussed by the ICC Executive Board at the end of January and will, depending on whether or not they are regarded as a “special resolution”, require either seven or eight of the ten Full Member countries to support the proposition.

Ireland captain William Porterfield and England captain Eoin Morgan with the RSA Challenge trophy ©INPHO/Ryan Byrne

There is no denying that the seven Test countries other than India, England and Australia could not sustain cricket at the highest level without funding from the ICC and bi-lateral matches with at least one of the big three. It is interesting that both England and Australia have committed to playing at least three Tests and five limited over matches against the eight Full Members in each eight year cycle commencing in 2015. India however, had not given this guarantee in the draft document but has now said that they are prepared to sign bi-lateral agreements with all other Full Member countries provided the proposals are accepted. However I would suspect who they play will be dependent on who supports the proposal. Today India have upped the ante by hinting that they may not participate in ICC Tournaments such as the World Cups if the proposals are rejected with a consequent severely negative impact on the financial viability of these Tournaments.
The carrot in the financial part of the proposals is that while India, England and Australia would get a larger slice of the cake, the cake itself will be considerably bigger and therefor every country will get more money than they get now.

Obviously India, England and Australia are in favour and it appears that New Zealand will also give support. It can hardly be a coincidence that India foreshortened its tour of South Africa to arrive early in New Zealand for their current series. Last November the West Indies got an unscheduled invitation to play India in Sachin Tendulkar’s 199th and 200th Test appearances. It would be astonishing if the prid pro quo was anything other than a vote in support of the proposals.

South Africa have already asked for the withdrawal of the proposal as they believe, with justification, that they will be the big losers should this be implemented. While they potentially could get more money than they currently get it would be proportionately less of an increase than any of the other countries despite the fact that they are the number one Test side in the world. They would also be excluded from being a beneficiary of the newly created Test Match Fund, projected to be worth 60 Million USD over eight years, to be equally distributed to the six countries other than themselves and India, England and Australia. There were very good relations between India and South Africa when the latter were reinstated into International cricket following the end of apartheid. However those relations soured during the tenure of Haroon Lorgat as CEO of the ICC. India believed that Lorgat, who is South African but ironically of Indian descent, favoured changes to the structure of the ICC, particularly in the financial distribution of revenue, that would be to the detriment of India. Lorgat subsequently became CEO of Cricket South Africa despite India trying to influence Cricket South Africa into not appointing him. This culminated in Lorgat having to adopt a period of non-involvement during the recent tour by India which had already been curtailed because of the Lorgat issue.

Sri Lanka has considerable funding issues but may well be persuaded to support the proposals because of the prospect of extra money and the fear that India would no longer play against them.

Pakistan’s position is as yet unknown. Despite having to play all of their home matches in UAE because of the security issues in Pakistan they seem to have fewer financial issues than many of the other countries. The proposals would see Pakistan gaining considerably financially and indeed put them in a stronger fiscal position than South Africa.

The outcome may well be dependent on the votes of the ninth and tenth ranked teams Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The major difficulty for these two countries is that if the proposals are accepted they will both drop down to the second tier and for the foreseeable future will be playing the majority of their matches against the top six Associate teams and will only be able to play regular Test cricket against the top teams if they win the Intercontinental Cup and a subsequent four Test series against the eighth ranked country. While their Full Member status is apparently not at risk, should they drop outside the top ten ranked countries they will suffer a reduction of 10% of their income.

Despite getting tens of millions in funding in recent years the scandal that is Zimbabwe cricket is in disarray with their players yet again on strike because they have not been paid and there have been many allegations of corruption. However Zimbabwe has managed to survive because they have been fervent supporters of India in the ICC council chamber. Remarkably India played a 5 match ODI series in Zimbabwe six months ago. As they also have the prospect of additional funds there can be little doubt that they will support the proposals.

The Bangladesh Cricket Board President has said "We can't do anything on our own. I can protest but if the other nine countries are on one side, there's not much I can do." Basically that means he doesn’t want to end up on the losing side. For a country of their limited Test ability they have done remarkably well in being chosen to host major competitions such as the 2011 50 Over World Cup and the sole hosts of the World T20 World Cup this coming March. They would not have been considered for these without the support of India, England and Australia. Rest assured that Bangladesh will not be the decisive vote against the proposals.

If my analysis is correct then the proposals will pass and India, England and Australia will effectively control world cricket. Many of the postings on the various forums suggest that the other seven countries should form a breakaway grouping and only play matches among themselves. Fine in theory but it would be a disastrous move in practice. It would be financially unsustainable as it is inconceivable that the big three would continue to provide any funding to the breakaway group. Furthermore broadcasting fees and decent sponsorship would be difficult to attain with the three biggest markets not involved. New Zealand and West Indies would I believe recognise the futility of such a move and make peace with India, England and Australia. Zimbabwe cricket would implode and Sri Lanka may not be far behind them. South Africa despite being the best Test side in the world would be left with no one of substance to play. Having once suffered justified exclusion because of apartheid they would not want to countenance another form of it.

Another part of this same argument is that the big three would get tired of just playing each other as players and supporters would get bored. Even in the unlikely scenario that the other seven broke away (and as I argue above I just don’t see that happening) series between the three countries would be sustainable long after the other seven had run out of money.

India is a country of 1.2 billion people with a large portion of them being fanatical about cricket. Every year some 27 million children are born which is more than four times the entire population on the island of Ireland. They have a middle class larger than the entire population of the USA and are a major economic force. They are a proud people who believe their cricketers have created the finance that sustains world cricket and their Association should get a proportionate share of the revenue to continue to develop cricket in their vast country. Their primary allegiance is to India and developing cricket across the globe is of secondary importance. They have the cash cow that is the IPL, which despite the controversy which has surrounded it, generates enormous revenues and packed stadia. Players from all over the world compete for places in the auctions as a contract can be financially life changing. So with the IPL and other domestic competitions, playing International cricket home and away solely against England and Australia, would satisfy Indian fans for certainly longer than the other seven countries could satisfy their supporters.

The 1.5 millions of Indian descent in the UK and 700,000 in Australia would be more than happy to see their hero’s in the flesh every year. Bolstered by the support of India, together with Ashes series and the Big Bash and the English T20 tournament England and Australia could keep going for as long as is necessary.

Does India have a defence against the allegations that they are behaving exactly the way England and Australia did when they controlled cricket through the Imperial Cricket Council which was the forerunner of the ICC? Of course they don’t and nor do they seem to care and it would appear that neither England nor Australia care either.

The other major cause for complaint is that in the proposed two tier Test structure the big three would be exempt from relegation to the second level. The reality is that if the current structure is maintained they would never be relegated anyway and no other country outside the ten Full Members could ever hope to attain Test status. So it could be argued that all the proposal is doing is to formalise the current situation particularly for the three countries that primarily fund world cricket.

So where does Ireland stand in this. It is clear that India, England and Australia have no desire to allow any more Full Members into their version of the ICC. The last two entrants into the Full Members club were Zimbabwe (1992) and Bangladesh (2000). Between them they have played 174 Test matches and won just 15 and eight of those victories were one defeating the other. The proposed two tier structure effectively relegates the two countries as they are so far behind the current eighth ranked team, New Zealand, that it is impossible for either of them to get to that eighth place by 2015 when the new structure is scheduled to commence.

Ireland has set a target to be playing Tests by 2020. They had hoped that performances on the field and a sound corporate structure off it would persuade the ICC to grant them Test status. If the ICC structure remains the same that will not happen unless the seven countries outside of the big three form a separate grouping and invite Ireland to join them. For all the reasons chronicled above that is unlikely to happen and even if it did it would be a pyrrhic victory for Ireland as the lack of funding would leave it with a very short Test history.

The proposals give Ireland the opportunity to play Test cricket by 2019 in a way that they had not envisaged. The proposal is that the next edition of the Intercontinental Cup, which Ireland currently hold and have won it on four of the six occasions that it has been played, will be contested by Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the top six ranked Associates. It is scheduled to run from 2015 to 2018, which would hopefully suggest that it will be in a format of home and away fixtures between all of the participating teams. Currently the Intercontinental Cup has a format that only has the teams playing each other once, some at home and the remainder away. If it is to be a fair contest, and with the ICC involved who knows, then it is imperative that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe come to Ireland. The winner of the Cup will then play two Tests at home and two away against the eighth ranked team (currently New Zealand) and overall victory in those would entitle the winner to play Tests against the other seven first tier teams. So it is conceivable that Ireland could have a minimum of four Tests beginning in 2019.

The Intercontinental Cup has run in parallel with the World Cricket League and this has determined which teams qualify for the 50 over World Cup. Ireland won the League last year and qualified for the next World Cup to be held in Australasia next year. Afghanistan also qualified as runners up. The final two places are currently being contested in a qualifying tournament in New Zealand.

However there is much more than a place at the World Cup at stake in New Zealand. The top four teams will join Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan in the proposed second tier with the opportunity to play Test cricket. They will also have ODI status and last night Canada and Netherland failed to qualify for the Super Six and have lost their ODI status for the foreseeable future. The loss of considerable funding will have a very adverse effect on their capacity to return to the top six and they are paying the price for mismanagement and an over reliance on players with only a tenuous link to their countries. The remaining two teams from the current top six are Scotland and Kenya and they face a very anxious week. The same eight teams will, one presumes, be the participants in the next edition of the World Cricket League to determine which two teams will qualify for the 2019 World Cup in England. It has already been decided that the next two World Cups will only have ten teams, with the eight tier one teams being joined by the two qualifiers.

This of course means that it will be more difficult for Ireland to win the Intercontinental Cup and qualify for England as they will have to overcome not just other Associates but also two Full Member countries. And of course it also means that Ireland and the other Associates will be at a disadvantage in terms of financial resources. The proposals allow for the funding to Associates and Affiliates to be recast in terms of the percentage split. The top six Associate teams would now receive 50% of the total funding to the Associates and Affiliates which would effectively mean that Ireland’s funding would be two and a half times that which they currently receive. However Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will retain their Full Member funding until at least 2023 and even then the most they would lose is 10%.

There is no additional funding available to any successful Associate unless they are ranked in the top eight after the 2023 Intercontinental Cup and then they will only get the 10% deducted from the Full Member. So Ireland and the others will have to compete against two teams with vastly greater resources.

There have also been suggestions that the Associates and Affiliates should mount a campaign to oppose the proposals as the reduction to all but the top six would impact negatively on the capacity of the others to develop cricket in their countries. The successful campaign by Associates, led by Cricket Ireland CEO Warren Deutrom, to overturn the decision to restrict the 2015 World Cup to the 10 Full Members is being quoted as an example of the power of the Associates. This is a very different kettle of fish. India was not particularly exercised about the number of participants in the next World Cup and England were persuaded that to exclude Ireland, having been beaten by them in Bangalore, would be petty and smack of sour grapes. Now it is about control with alms dangled in front of the various supplicants to persuade them to fall at the feet of a different kind of dictator.

There is also an argument that the top six have performed to a level that entitles them to greater resources than other Associates. Ireland, in particular, has not only demonstrated that they are by some distance the best Associate side on the park but also that their corporate governance and structures compare favourably with any other country including the Full Members. The reality is that although there are over ninety Associates and Affiliates, very few have the capacity or indeed the desire to reach Test level. That doesn’t mean that all of the other countries should not get development funding as it is important to maintain and develop the sport across the globe but meritocracy should also be rewarded.

So selfish and all as it is I welcome the opportunity to see Ireland play Test cricket. But there will be many challenges both on and off the field. Up to now while ODI’s gained automatic release from County Cricket this did not apply to the Intercontinental Cup. It has to be a condition that all players are released. It will be difficult enough to compete on an uneven financial field against Test teams without having also to do it on the actual playing field. This could create difficulties with regard to county contracts and it may well require the use of some of the additional funding to retain our key players.

The period of transition will also have to be adroitly managed. While virtually all of the current squad are likely to play a part in the qualification period, by 2019 only five of the fifteen man squad heading to the West Indies next week, will be under thirty while six will be thirty five or more.

But that is for another day. Cricket will change dramatically very soon, some of it is not for the better. The reality is that Ireland has virtually no influence over the changes. However after all the effort, professionalism and sacrifices made in the last few years Ireland deserves a shot at Test cricket. No true Ireland supporter could deny them that.

 

Main image: The Ireland team celebrate with the ICC Intercontinental Cup ©INPHO/Barry Chambers