The ICC U-turn: What gives?

The news that emerged on Tuesday was that the ICC had changed its mind on the number of associate teams that will take part in the 2015 Cricket World Cup. Considering the speed at which the ICC made the original decision to cull its minor members just days after the conclusion of the 2011 tournament, this turnaround is somewhat surprising. Surely? Especially since it was the organisation’s president, Sharad Pawar, who appeared to have the associate members’ interests at heart when he ensured the issue would be on the agenda at the ICC’s annual conference this month. Right?

Not quite. Yes, cricket in this instance has been served by the associates being allowed another tournament for four of its members to qualify. But, as the saying goes, everything has its price.

The real reason behind the sudden U-turn, from an organisation that has often shown the structural agility of an overweight 10-year-old in the past, is the question of the ICC presidency and whether it shall rotate as it has done between its full members in the future. The current president is from India, with the next president to be nominated by Pakistan and Bangladesh. But if India, along with its supporters, has its way, the presidency, the last item to be discussed at the current conference, will no longer move from one Test-playing nation to the next.

For the ICC to ratify such a significant change within its corporate-governance dogma, eight of the 10 full members (ie the Test-playing nations including, ridiculously, Zimbabwe) and 38 of its 50 associates must agree to it. Surely it’s no coincidence that when the associates are given a reprieve there is an immediate way for them to pay the Test nations back? It all looks rather cosy and with Bangladesh and Pakistan predictably being the only ones who oppose the move, it appears that a coup of sorts is under way within the ICC. Once the presidency loses the rotation, the person who occupies the seat will then be the individual that can corral the necessary support from the organisation’s members. The position will descend (and I chose that word specifically) into the realm of politics, with behind-the-scenes chit-chat and horse trading taking place so the strongest faction gets the president they want.

The move to allow four associates into the World Cup may be in the best interests of the game, at least in the short term, but it only took place because the Test nations need something from the associates, otherwise I wonder if anything might have changed at all. Significantly, the 2019 World Cup will be cut to 10 teams, with two of those places being decided by a qualifying tournament, which makes the decision for 2015 timeframe specific.

With India also not having to tour Bangladesh till at least 2020 (something they have yet to do because it probably isn’t profitable enough for the Indian cricket board) what we are slowly seeing is the ICC being melded by its masters into an organisation that they will be able to control even more through a president elected instead of nominated by all members. With India economically being cricket’s chief breadwinner, it’s influence, like China’s in the world economy, is set to grow even more as the seasons pass. First, there was the IPL and now the ICC presidency will effectively be decided by its most powerful members, effectively handing more power to a nation that has the world game by its balls per se.

No good deed goes unpunished.