A controversial ‘position paper’ is the subject of fevered debate in the cricket world due to proposals for wide-reaching and profound changes to the international game. It will be put to vote during the International Cricket Council’s executive board meeting in Dubai today and tomorrow. We sift through the key issues:
Who is behind the position paper?
The FCA Commercial Rights Working Group, a sub-committee of the ICC chaired by England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke. The repeated references to agreements between the ECB, Cricket Australia and the Board of Control for Cricket in India speaks about the origins of the plan.
What role do those boards covet?
Crucial to the entire enterprise is the creation of a new executive committee with responsibility for “all constitutional, personnel, integrity, ethics, development and nominations matters”. Representatives of England, Australia and India would take three seats on the ExCo and nominate the fourth appointee from the remaining full member nations. An identical structure would apply to the revamped financial arm of the ICC.
What about money matters?
India’s pre-eminence as the honey pot of the international game has long been established, but the paper’s assertion that the BCCI’s contribution to the last raft of media rights totalled 80 per cent is staggering. The contribution of the remaining nine full members ranges from 0.1 per cent to five per cent. A case is made for “distribution based on relative contribution”.
Do the proposers admit this?
Quite the opposite. Their argument hinges on self-sufficiency among all national cricket boards rather than reliance on centralised funding. The aspiration is for all countries to find a way to stand on their own feet. As a result the paper calls for an end to an obligatory Future Tours Programme – ending “a large number of non-viable matches”.
What would replace the FTP?
A semi-structured collection of bilateral series arranged, presumably, with an emphasis on commercial value ahead of sporting integrity. This would absolve nations of hosting unwanted matches, but may see some playing considerably less Test cricket. England and Australia appear ready to commit to a minimum number of fixtures against all major nations. India, pointedly, do not.
How does that affect the planned Test Championship?
The position paper talks of “insurmountable difficulties in finalising a workable format” – a roundabout way of killing the idea stone dead. Instead, it indicates a willingness to resurrect the previously abandoned Champions Trophy in 2017 and 2021. Despite this the paper insists that Test cricket must be supported and advocates the creation of a new ‘Test cricket fund’.
What is the Test cricket fund?
A new pot of money ring-fenced to prevent the format withering in less productive regions. An equal share of funds from this are to be handed to Sri Lanka, West Indies, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. With England, India and Australia already set to benefit from the revised distribution model, that leaves only South Africa uncatered for in the draft.
And why do South Africa matter?
They are the top-ranked Test team in the world and sit third in the ODI and T20 tables. In other words too good for handouts, but not powerful enough to join the top table of decision-makers.
What about associate members?
There is, arguably, a shaft of light for the second-tier of cricketing nations in the shape of promotion/ relegation to the Test sphere. The plan caters for a Test division of eight, leaving two full members to join the Intercontinental Cup. The top team from that competition over a four-year cycle would then be given the chance to play off over four matches against the bottom-ranked Test side. England, Australia and India would be exempt from relegation.
