State of cricket

Shashank Manohar’s ICC has missed an opportunity to level the playing field with new revenue model

The new boss is (almost) the same as the old boss.

After a seemingly hectic few days of meetings and negotiations, the International Cricket Council has taken significant steps towards rolling back the governance and revenue distribution models enacted in 2014 by what can be accurately described as a hostile takeover of cricket by the Big Three boards of India, England and Australia. Shashank Manohar, who swiftly transitioned from BCCI president to ICC chairman in 2016 – thanks to one of those changes to the world body’s governance in 2014 – is now leading the charge for the renewed “desire... to work together for the betterment of cricket, utilising [ICC’s] expertise appropriately and pursuing the growth of the sport around the world.”

On the surface, the proposed changes do sound great: a two-year Test league, a 13-team One-Day International league, a regional qualification process for the World Twenty20, a new(er) model for revenue distribution, consistent use of the Decision Review System in all international cricket, voting rights for three Associate members with equal weight of votes for all Board Members regardless of membership status, and a few other things. These changes were agreed upon in principle through a 7-2 vote (India and Sri Lanka opposed; Zimbabwe abstained) and the final decision will be taken, after extreme negotiations of which we are sure, in the next ICC board meeting in April 2017.

Sri Lanka voted no because they said they did not have sufficient time to consider the proposals, but there could be other reasons too. Zimbabwe, probably miffed at the possibility of being clubbed with two Associate nations in the Test league, abstained. India’s representative Vikram Limaye, one of the four court-appointed Committee of Administrators, voted against the proposals because the panel was formed only a few days before the ICC meeting and there was “no scientific basis” behind the revenue distribution model. It is possible that since CoA are only temporary caretakers of the BCCI, Limaye may have chosen it wise to not make any binding commitments.

Hammering while the iron is hot

According to some reports, the BCCI stands to see its share of ICC revenues decrease by a whopping 34% from the 2014 financial model expectations, while every other cricket board would see theirs increase substantially. There was no real scientific reasoning behind the 2014 model either; BCCI took credit for the fact they operate in a country of cricket-obsessed billion people. England and Australia, cohorts in the Big Three, were instrumental in drafting and pushing through the changes, now once again stand to gain even as they and BCCI no longer seem to share the same financial vision.

The new revenue model apparently was designed on the basis of “equity”, “good conscience” and “common sense and simplicity”. This has as much foundational strength as the Big Three’s we-bring-in-more-money-so-by-God-we-will-take-out-more-money principle. With the long-running court struggles of the BCCI, and hence their weakened position in the ICC board, world cricket’s governing body chose to hammer while the iron was hot and essentially presented this proposal as a fait accompli.

Shashank Manohar has been all talk and no action as ICC chairman (Image credit: PTI)
Shashank Manohar has been all talk and no action as ICC chairman (Image credit: PTI)

When Manohar became the ICC chairman, he said a lot of aspirational things that sounded good and continues to do so with pronunciations of caring for the “long term benefit of the sport from the largest nation to the smallest”. But what he accomplished is to push through changes when the biggest power broker was decidedly at its weakest. It is true that BCCI has routinely strong-armed its way through, especially in the N Srinivasan years, but as Limaye argued at the meeting, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Opportunistic politics

England and Australia, the two biggest revenue generators after India, have played opportunistic politics to undercut India at the ICC. Giles Clarke, he of “I’ve got every right to put my board’s interests first” fame from the documentary Death of a Gentleman, led the Big Three efforts and is still the president of ECB, and has now gone to the other side. Some of the prime movers from Australia from 2014 are gone now, but self interest still reigns supreme there as well.

The revenue distribution models, of 2014 and 2017, are both flawed and seem to value the contribution of the cricket boards for something they really had no hand in. Unless cricket boards come to dictate procreation policies of the countries they find themselves in, it does not make any sense to award a large chunk of the revenues to one nation, and the members – at least those that have equal voting rights at the ICC table – all have to be given differing revenue amounts. Some argue that sharing the revenue equally is a waste, especially on a board as corrupt as the one in Zimbabwe. True, but push for accountability and transparency in governance, and harsh penalties including the termination of membership when the expectations are not met.

If Manohar was serious about his ambitions of running a sport that is equitable to all its members, this was the opportunity to level the playing field. The various boards still have their own revenue streams from bilateral cricket and their own domestic T20 franchise leagues. The ICC money needed to to go to all the nations evenly, to grow the sport globally. Instead, we have been given the same old ideas – with a new fresh smelling coat of varnish – and the big boy boards looking out only in their self-interests, and the big chunk of ICC’s money still going to only a handful of nations. The new boss is (almost) the same as the old boss.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, and all that.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.