Deciding Cricketing Future: The triumvirate of powerful associations

ICC’s proposed changes to international cricket make a mockery of the term ‘Gentlemen’s Game.’

In politics, triumvirate is the power of three, so to speak. In international cricket too, there is expected to be a new triumvirate to take over the sport, and reign over it with incomparable power.

Power, that is currently in the process of being vested in three cricketing boards to do as they like, no thought to consequences and backlashes. Power, that is following the footsteps of monetary superiority that these bodies hold over the other national governing bodies of the sport. And power, that has taken hypocrisy to a new low and is jeopardising everything that was once good about cricket.

The massive reconstruction work that the ICC is planning to carry out to the face of international cricket, awards an almost kingpin like status to the BCCI, the ECB and Cricket Australia. Of course, there is the small matter of the ICC seeking approval from the other cricketing boards to ensure that its decision gets approved. But that’s just a moot point because invariably the decision to make the decisions will rest with the triad no matter whether a cricketing board accepts or rejects the proposal.

Not that these developments don’t sound promising. But of course, they do. That’s the whole point of coming up with them in the first place. In the ongoing tussle between who’s the mightiest of them all, this is the first proactive step taken by the ICC to prove beyond doubt from which direction money speaks the loudest. And the measures that it has decided to come up with to ensure that the money continues to pour forth, without any interruptions.

These developments are much promising to these three boards because they ensure their teams’ place in the pecking order. It’s the other countries who will have to scramble from pillar to post doing everything possible within their means to keep these bosses placated lest they find themselves struggling to fend for themselves.

It would be like the BCCI-CSA row all over again though this time one can be assured that the former will veto and squash any opposition just to enforce its superiority over the latter. Therein emerges the lip-servicing that these guys have been doing for quite a while now.

The ICC has been talking about ways to rejuvenate Test cricket for a while now, but what it has failed to mention and take into account in these developmental plans is the sacrifices that such rejuvenation would demand from those cricketing countries that don’t generate the money that these three cricket boards raise for the sport amongst themselves.

Thus, on one hand there is the proclamation of the need to come up with restitution of Test cricket. And on the other, there is the blatant undermining of the foundations of Test cricket through these developmental ideas.

The concept of relegation and promotion of countries is being floated in order to bring about meritocracy into the Test playing hierarchy. But India, England and Australia are ostentatiously exempted to the rules of relegation and promotion. Why, because if any one amongst them is relegated from the upper pantheons of cricket, the loss in moolah will hurt more than the loss of qualitative cricketing appeal.

The idea of such meritocracy is more appalling considering that the power vested in the hands of the three cricketing boards will effectively entail almost every country touring India or England or Australia rather than the other way round. Because that’s how these three cricketing boards will, will it. And because playing at home often translates to an upper-hand for the hosts, the whole aspect of relegation and promotion thus also becomes moot as far as these three cricketing names are concerned.

But other teams that lie on the bottom rung of the rankings table will be relegated or promoted based on their performances, without any exceptions or considerations. Ironically though for these teams to play, it would mean waiting for the triad to come up with a scheduling plan that fits their requirements rather than suit the all-round needs of the sport. And for those countries looking at eligibility for promotion into the Test playing hierarchy, their inclusion will once again be at the discretion of these three dominant forces.

What complicates matters further is that the ICC is seeking to separate itself from its Future Tours Program (FTP), as a part of its developmental plans, which will undoubtedly enhance the domination of these three countries. Events like the IPL that have been a contentious factor between cricketing boards and cricketers will invariably have more clout as players will want to play in them in order to boost their personal earning. And alongside the IPL, there will come up several such glitzy events bearing the stamp of approval of the three ruling parties.

The biggest discrepancy however is that of the way the revenue distribution program has been sought to be changed. Where previously, revenue distribution was on the basis of of full-fledged ICC membership and affiliate status of cricket playing nations, the proposed new system will take into account the value of participatory contribution by each country.

Of the three parties proposed to control the sport, it is the BCCI which finds itself under brighter lime-light.

Since India leads the fray in terms of its participation in events throughout the season, the sought-after change will bring in an inequitable distribution of revenue within the triad itself. Thus, though for all intents and purposes, the three cricketing boards will hold equal clout over everyone else, if the proposed changes in the revenue distribution system come into effect, the major stakeholder – or decision-maker – would happen to be BCCI netting 21.9% of the returns with ECB and CA getting only a fraction of the revenue with 4.8% and 2.9% respectively.

It is this tell-tale nature of disharmony in the presently engaging harmonious of the triumvirate that makes for a surer possibility of downturn of cricketing events in the future. If at all, the proposed changes do come into effect and decisions start to get skewed favouring one party over the other two, it won’t be long before the lines of commonality will start to get blurred amongst these three contemporary oligarchs, sucking cricket deeper into an even treacherous quicksand.