FILE PHOTO: The International Cricket Council (ICC) logo at the ICC headquarters in Dubai, October 31, 2010./File Photo
| Photo Credit: NIKHIL MONTEIRO
In the days when there was no money in cricket, England, part of a colonial power, and Australia, a largely white colony, ruled the game. As the two original members of the ICC (International Cricket Council now), they had the power of veto. It was a skewed system.
Still, England saw it as a moral responsibility to take the game to the colonies. Perhaps they needed teams they thought they could beat; perhaps it was a way of inculcating certain values in the locals. Perhaps was to emphasise Englishness through sport.
Whatever it was, and despite the obvious condescension involved, the game spread. India, the West Indies, New Zealand were all playing Test cricket by the 1930s; South Africa played their first Test in 1889, and played a ‘World Cup’ with the other two ICC members of the time, England and Australia in 1912. That triangular series flopped badly. Perhaps the realisation dawned then that the cozy club was too cozy. There needed to be greater variety, a better range of styles, more diversity.
History replaced by money
Now, over a century later, history (and geography) has been replaced by money as the basis of the cozy club. England have some, Australia have a bit, and India have lots. In 2014, these three countries decided to hijack the sport by proposing a share of the ICC’s financial pie that gave them the biggest portions and left the crumbs for the rest.
India were already the richest and most influential cricketing nation. I wrote in these columns then that the problem with a unipolar world is that the greatest good for the greatest number is replaced by the greatest good for number one. The administration of cricket has always been guided by self-interest. As Osman Samiuddin wrote in Wisden India Almanack, “decision-making (was) about bigger self-interests leaning down heavily on smaller self-interests until an overlap was found — or the right bargain struck.”
Surplus-sharing
Self-interest is not such a bad thing if it coincides with universal interest, but it seldom does. Nearly a decade after the Big Three’s hijack bid, the ICC has proposed a similar surplus revenue-sharing model. In the cycle, 2024-27, the ICC proposes that of its $600 million annual surplus India take home $231 million or 38.5%. England get the next highest share of $41.33 million (6.89%), followed by Australia ($ 37.53 or 6.25 percent) down to Afghanistan ($16.82 million or 2.8 percent). The proposal will be discussed at the ICC meeting next month.
How did the ICC arrive at these figures? Each full member (there are 12 Test-playing countries) starts level. Then such things as cricket history, performance at ICC events, progress of women’s cricket and commercial contribution to the kitty are considered. There is a vagueness about some of these factors (how do you put a number to cricket history?), and the marking will necessarily be arbitrary. India’s commercial value, however, cannot be doubted.
For so long after their debut in 1932 were India in the second tier of international cricket, with few victories, less money and fewer chances of getting to the high table that the table-turning provoked feelings of unbridled nationalism. Through all those decades, India had one strength above all others — its population. We were people then, we are a market now. Television and digital media are willing to pay mind-boggling sums of money to capture this market.
India have reached a situation where they don’t need the ICC money. The Big Three apart, most countries are dependent on ICC handouts and cannot afford to displease India whose tours fill their coffers.
Justified demand?
India demanding their pound of flesh as the country that contributes the greatest amount of money to the cricket economy is understandable. Self-interest rules. But shouldn’t the ICC look beyond that and towards the growth of the game? Sure, in the short term the ICC cannot do without India. But India cannot do without the ICC either, or they will be reduced to playing a couple of countries over and over again till television loses interest.
India’s argument that a lot of the money goes to corrupt national boards that do nothing for cricket is a valid one. The ICC must put in place systems to check this. It cannot be the ICC’s sole policy to keep India happy and let the rest take care of itself. Governing bodies have greater responsibilities than national ones.
There is money in cricket, as ICC’s $600 million surplus shows. But not all of it is going towards development of the game. The countries that need it most are getting the least amount, and that cannot be good for the game.