ICC plans for ODI fund for Associate Members and compulsory participation for Full Members in T20 qualifiers
There is good news for Associate Members. David Richardson, ICC Chief Executive, said that the option of setting up an ODI fund is being explored. The top associate countries, Ireland and Afghanistan, have been having trouble despite being included in the ICC ODI rankings, because of waning broadcaster interest due to profitability concerns.
“It’s a fact that even matches between the lower-ranked Full Members, like Zimbabwe versus Sri Lanka for example, don't make revenues so that the series are not making a profit or if it does it's making a very small profit," Richardson said at the ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier in Malahide. "You can imagine series between Afghanistan and the West Indies also cost a lot and the revenues might not necessarily be enough to cover those costs.
"One of the talking points or suggestions that is being considered, and in October we're having a joint meeting between our chief executives committee and the board on which there will be six representatives from the Associate members taking part in that discussion, will be trying to make sure that Full Members take some responsibility in scheduling fixtures against Associate members and if finances are a problem that we think of introducing an ODI fund similar to the Test fund that was introduced to help subsidise the costs of those series."
Working towards a proper tier system: Richardson
There are also talks going on about making it compulsory for even the Full member countries to play in the World T20 qualifiers. The same rule would be applied to ICC’s flagship event, the T20 tournament.
"When we put the package together for this next eight-year cycle, it was envisaged that we raise the profile of these qualifying tournaments, number one by making it crucial for qualification but also involving the Full Members, not excluding them from having to participate in these qualifying tournaments going forward. The objective to that is not only to make them self-sufficient and generate some more revenues for everybody for the development of the game but also just to raise the profile of these countries.
"Before, for Holland, if they got to the World Cup they got a bit of profile. If they just missed out, they lost out on that. If we can raise the profile of these tournaments, and you've seen evenly matched teams provides for good entertainment, it will raise that profile. It is good for cricket in those countries as well, even if they don't end up going to the tournament itself."
"At this stage the board, all they've agreed to do is say that it's the lowest ranked Associate member who would play-off," Richardson said. "At this stage we have got this distinction between Full Members and Associate members.
I think long term, that distinction will eventually vanish but its really long term and not in the foreseeable future. A proper promotion and relegation would mean that the bottom ranked team would have to play off but that's not the situation we've got. I think it's a process and we're working towards something.”
Over-reliance on Indian funds a problem: Richardson
About why the frequency of the World Twenty20 has been halved, Richardson said that it is necessary to do so so as not to kill what he called the ‘golden goose’. The number of Twenty20 matches are anyway on the rise, what with the IPL, the Big Bash and the Carribean Premier League. It is important to not reach the point of saturation.
"I think the World T20 is valuable and if you play it too often it will become less valuable," Richardson said. "We also have to recognise that around the world we have these domestic Twenty20 leagues which are high profile, are very attractive to broadcasters and it's a case of there's premium content out there and probably less is more."
Of course, this also means that the chances for associate members to compete become significantly less. But this loss in matches will be made up for by the funding plans that are being talked about and may soon be put in place.
"When it comes to funding for Associate members, it needs to be looked at not only in respect of participation fees," Richardson said. "The bottom line is that a country like Ireland, with the projected revenues that the ICC is hoping to achieve over the next eight-year cycle, a doubling of the participation fee will be dwarfed by the increased funding Ireland will receive as one of the top Associate members.”
Richardson also did not forget to remark on the fine job that Ireland and Scotland have done for the past two weeks, hosting the World Twenty20 Qualifiers. But will cricket ever be able to award its hosting rights to an emerging market, a la rugby, whose 2019 World Cup will be hosted by Japan?
"I don't think it's impossible to imagine. What we have to consider when awarding events is number one, will it at least optimise the revenues. So is it in the correct time zone, will sponsors want to get involved knowing that there's an event in these particular places in the next four or five years? So that's a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. At the moment we are too reliant on revenues generated out of India. It's a problem for the game. Everybody says it.
"If we can open up new markets, be it the USA, Europe or whatever, then there's no reason we can't take major global events to those regions. The other aspect of course is facilities. Cricket is difficult. We've got to have great facilities. We've tried Malaysia before for Under-19 events and yes everyone did their best and it wasn't too bad but it wasn't really good enough. So when we're deciding whether to go to Kenya or Ireland, Ireland could probably manage it. But a major global event needs 40,000 to 50,000 seat stadiums. Those factors have to be taken into account."