DateLine: 13th May 2009

One may wonder why is it that I am writing about politics with reference to an organization that represents and controls a game that has at its heart and soul sportsman spirit and nobility which deeply decry political machinations or indeed any form of politics.

Well, this article is a result of a growing feeling in cricket circles that this august body is now more than somewhat inflicted by this disease. It is accepted that in any organization consisting of people representing different countries, personal likes and dislikes will come to the fore and each individual will safeguard the interests of his country. And, that is how it should be.

Even having accepted this one regrets to find that the soul and essence of the ICC has altered greatly from the times when England and Australia governed the game jointly from Lord's. Undobtedly a great cricket ground which is still considered by many as the home of cricket. The right to manage the world of cricket had to some extent the arrogance of imperialism. It was considered almost a birthright by the mighty British Empire that having introduced this great game to its colonies it was their unquestioned authority or that of their chosen individuals to control the game.

This situation changed directly in proportion to the increase in the popularity of the game and the waning of the Empire. Interestingly, the first Conference on Cricket was proposed by South Africa in 1906 which led to the Imperial Cricket Conference being held in June 1909 with Australia, England and South Africa attending. They were the big three of the game. The reason for this Conference was to set up a body that would organize and oversee the game of cricket.

In 1926, with the West Indies nearly beating a visiting MCC side, their desire grew to become a part of the Conference. As a result of this Lord Harris invited the West Indies, and also India (presumably because it had many great cricketers and was also the diamond in the Imperial Crown) to attend the Conference. In retrospect one could suggest that New Zealand also invited to attend that Conference was a balancing act.

Pakistan joined this Conference on being awarded Test Status in 1953.

In 1961 South Africa was removed from the Conference for reasons of apartheid and in 1965 the word 'Imperial' was removed and the body became the International Cricket Conference.

Sri Lanka was elected to this body in 1981 and in 1988 the Conference was converted into the International Cricket Council.

Zimbabwe was elected to this Council well before the world judged them able to compete with the other Teams.

The creation of the Asian Cricket Council in 1983 was the first attempt by the Asian countries to get a stronger voice in the ICC which did not go unnoticed and was to a great extent responsible for Zimbabwe being inducted into the organization. In 1991 South Africa was re elected to the ICC and this was followed by the election of Bangladesh in 2000 bringing the total number of Full Members to the present figure of ten.

With the growth in stature and quality of teams other than the big three it was inevitable that there be a demand for the President to originate from other than the traditional countries or be selected by the power holders in the game. In 1996 to overcome acrimony and disagreement brought about by the absence of a two thirds majority vote needed for the election it was agreed that the appointment be on the basis of rotation from amongst the full member countries.

An Indian was then elected as the President. As this indicates politics had taken centre stage in the ICC. It was at this time based on the recommendations of a Committee led by Sir John Anderson of New Zealand that the ICC was incorporated. The election of Bangladesh in 2000 earlier than their ability commanded was engineered by the then President of the ICC.

It is clearly obvious that politics caused the premature election of both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Giving credit where due it must be accepted that the tenure during which the first "sub-continental" chaired the ICC saw much growth in the earnings of this body. This was undoubtedly a result of his business acumen and his desire to leave an Indian inheritance. It regrettably also brought about greater politicization as he sought extra control on that body. Associate Members were made with the view to popularizing the game but a watchful eye was ever kept on who would support whom in the ICC.

The object of painfully recounting this history is to show how the basic character of the ICC changed over the years caused by the growth of Cricket outside Australia and England and the waning of the 'Empire'. An important lesson to be learnt from the above chain of events which we should be heeding today is that should England and Australia have acknowledged and accepted the shift of power in the game and thus relaxed their control at the right time, just possibly the forces that entered the fray could have been held at bay.

The Packer revolution of 1997 was greatly responsible for turning cricket on its head and the money that it introduced into the game also forced the big boys of the game to loosen their control. The location of the headquarters of the ICC at Lord's however, still continued to give this body a sense of history, ethos and some of its old world pure cricketing values. With Cricket becoming a big money game and having been incorporated, ICC was subject to taxation and its location in the UK required it to be subject to local laws. To avoid these heavy taxes and as the UK Government refused to make an exception, it caused the ICC to move its financial offices to Monaco.

This action was a financial necessity but the subsequent relocation of all its offices to Dubai was not. The move to Dubai was occasioned by reasons other than the pure corporate justification presented to the public. The new location has radically altered the spirit of the ICC.

By 2001, the remarkable growth of the Indian Market had made its television advertising revenues larger than even the UK which was certainly not predicted. Some 200 million Indians could afford to buy cars, refrigerators; television sets and so on. The advertising budgets of the private sector were huge and manufacturers sought the optimum means to reach the buyers. It was Cricket, the life blood of the sub continent, which offered the obvious medium.

This huge bonanza opened up great opportunities for the BCCI as whenever India toured any country the Television Rights provided these countries windfall profits. This allowed the BCCI to flex its muscles as they were able to decide who and importantly when a particular country should benefit by a tour from its team. Inevitably the ICC's Tournaments Television Rights also reached huge values of which more than half were from Indian sources. The BCCI's representatives at ICC meetings were not shy in pointing this out and the recent growth of Indian Officials in powerful positions within the ICC is ample proof of this.

The ICC today has at times been referred by some who resent this hegemony as the 'Indian Cricket Council'.

The growth of Indian financial muscle was the underlying cause for the shift of the ICC to Dubai. It was ably abetted by cricket entrepreneurs from the UAE who had used the promotion of cricket as a useful tool to project their business interests. Undoubtedly this also promoted cricket. This lobby also recognized that the move away from the 'home' of cricket to an Emirate that had little or no cricket history or tradition but was close to the huge influence of India would be in the interest of the BCCI. Sadly, poor cricket management in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh played unwitting roles in this migration.

Recent history and indeed time will also support me in proving what is stated above. Decisions taken by many Teams have in recent times been governed purely by money. The Mumbai blast saw the England Team returning to complete its Tour of India. I cannot accept that the same would have happened if for instance the country had been Sri Lanka, West Indies or even South Africa. I just cannot imagine the ECB or the ACB convincing their players to return to any Tour which had a lesser financial interest.

With two whole years to go for the next World Cup, the ICC has taken the decision to take away the Cup from Pakistan. This radical action could easily have been delayed by six months. Alternatively, the Tournament could have been moved to Australia, the next in line, and its turn been allocated to the Sub-Continent. If Australia was not prepared for this the next in line would have jumped at the opportunity. This however did not suit the Indian lobby as it desired to take political advantage of the situation. It unfortunately appears that the ICC has been coerced into becoming an accomplice in this aim. May one hasten to add that the PCB has done little or nothing to prevent this.

The IPL has been given a huge edge against the ICL to provide the BCCI a commercial monopoly. The IPL having been moved to South Africa due to security reasons has consciously excluded Pakistani players for political reasons. In these circumstances the Tournament must not have the acceptance of the ICC. The omission of players from a Full Member Country which is nation specific must surely be against the spirit of the ICC.

The ICC is not treating Security Risks at par. The risks in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are arguably almost as great as in Pakistan. We have the Australian Tennis players refusing to play their Davis Cup league matches in India due to security reasons. One could wonder whether more money for the players could alleviate this risk. Lord Condon's people have not even been allowed by the IPL to act on its behalf to check the risks of match fixing in the Tournament in South Africa. This is amazing when you consider that the biggest 'bookie rings' are Indian. One wonders who else would have been allowed to get away with such arrogance.

Cricket promotion in the USA is being made IPL specific. This can be judged by the remarks attributed to the ICC Advisor where he is supposed to be officially discouraging the authorities in USA from tying up with another private Indian venture to create a Twenty20 tournament.

The cricket world must now come to terms with the reality that the weight of Indian money is playing a very questionable part in ICC decisions. Sooner rather than later the traditional cricket lovers will recognize that this is damaging cricket. Rules are being changed in ICC recognized tournaments without ICC approval. We now have an advertising ten minute break in the middle of an innings governed by advertising demands. One may wonder what next? Perish the thought that we could soon have scantily dressed ladies with sign boards come on each time a player got out to announce the next one like they do in freestyle wrestling!

I have a very healthy respect for money, but strongly suggest that all Cricket Boards must arrest and reverse the slide of the ICC into uncontrolled power by any one country. Even if it is money, it smacks of Imperialism and is bad for Cricket. We need to think about what, some may consider money has done to the reputation of cricket Vis a Vis the 'Stanford Case' and also as how it appeared to embroil the current President of the ICC in his previous cricket appointment. Please let us remember the words which sadly are used less and less in the present day; 'It's not Cricket'.

(Article: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only.
Copyright © 2009 Cdr. Malik Arshed Gilani)