The gist of it was about the evolution of the game of cricket from one that centers around a few countries and their respective boards controlling the game to suit them than the real globalization of it.
Cricket as it stands today, is at the cusp of becoming a global game, involving leagues across many nations. This in turn brings the risk of a significantly lesser opportunity for inter-country ties.
I personally don’t have a problem with that, after all, there is only that many times I can watch India play Australia in a span of 6 months, be it in India or down under.
The ICC seems to be taking a step in that direction by offering to put forward a more uniform policy for T20 leagues across the globe citing the proliferation of private leagues in member countries as a primary cause for concern.
This concern is particularly valid for countries who struggle to get their top players to represent the country especially from a monetary standpoint.
A working committee of the ICC consisting of BCCI CEO Rahul Johri, Kevin Roberts (Australia), Thabang Moroe (South Africa), Johnny Grave (West Indies), Tony Brian (Scotland) and Tony Irish (FICA) has been put together to work on concerns from member nations with regards to the matter.
The ICC seems to hold the view that these leagues might be poorly resourced and lack the structure that might make them sustainable from a long term perspective, which in turn may not support the investment into or the growth and development of the game.
Additionally the challenges it would present around corruption, failed leagues or the non-payments of stakeholders could further damage cricket’s global reputation.
The ICC claims to recognize the importance of these leagues and see’s the need to have them if staged in “partnership with members” and is those last three words that put the whole idea on a slippery slope.
The BCCI treasurer Anirudh Chaudhary, in a recent statement, took a firm position of not allowing any kind of intervention by the ICC in India’s domestic T20 competition. Using verbiage like “minimum criteria” and “defined framework” the ICC were being nothing but “good with words” he claimed.
“They see that for their purposes, BCCI as an organization in this period of transition is not the force that it was” he further added calling it an intrusion of the BCCI’s sovereignty.
Chaudhary may not be wrong in what he says. The ICC could do well by staying out of the affairs of countries such as India, England and Australia who probably contribute 80-90% of all cricketing revenue generated.
None of these countries need it’s “engagement” to run their domestic cricket or their leagues. Instead, the game would be well served if they focused their attention on boards that are challenged from an infrastructure or financial standpoint.
ICC Chief Executive Dave Richardson may try and allay concerns by saying the ICC are not looking to interfere in the IPL, as much as he wants. But I doubt the BCCI or any major board would see their participation in it any other way.
The timing of the ICC communications on the subject of “monitoring” T20 leagues worldwide could not have come at a more awkward time given their recent exchanges with the BCCI.
Post the gruesome terrorist attacks on an Indian military convoy in Pulwama, which cost the lives of more than 40 CRPF servicemen, the Chief of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the BCCI Vinodh Rai, is known to have asked its CEO Rahul Johri to write a letter to the ICC asking them and other cricketing nations to “severe ties” with countries from where “terrorism emanates”.
His colleague Diana Eduljee however disagreed with this approach, putting her, not for the first time at logger heads with Rai, making the CoA look disjointed and dysfunctional, yet again.
I do not believe India or any country for that matter has the right to ask for the dismissal of another country from a global tournament.
The only option for any nation is to take a stand and exercise their right to boycott playing that other nation OR in extreme cases, not participate in the tournament at all. The latter of course would have severe sporting and financial implications for BCCI and ICC respectively.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently suspended all Indian applications to host future events and urged international sports federations to not stage competitions in the country after two Pakistani shooters were denied visa’s to participate in the world championship to be hosted in Delhi.
That said, the cricketing world is different and India has enormous clout over the ICC.
It would be a brave man in the ICC who decides to consider banning India as a likely host for future events or even as a future participant if they do not chose to play all their opponents without reservation.
The ICC should know because they have already been down the of “warning” the BCCI once, last December, with the possibility of the Indian board losing the rights to host the 2023 world Cup and 2021 Champions Trophy.
At the center of that dispute was the matter amounting to $23 Mln that the ICC claimed from the BCCI after the government of India did not waive off taxes as promised for the 2016 World T20 in India.
They had given the BCCI a deadline of December 31, 2018 which has come and gone, but the matter remains unresolved and “under discussion”.
On the subject of whether or not India should play in the world cup or play and yet forfeit the game against Pakistan, not just in the league but in the semi’s or the final even? The BCCI have finally done the right thing by leaving that entire decision to the government of India to decide.
After all, as the headline of a recent article by Suresh Menon in the Hindu read “What makes cricketing sense may not be desirable politically”.
