FILE PHOTO: The logo of the International Cricket Council (ICC) 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 (now the International Cricket Council), they had the power of veto. It was a crooked system.
Nevertheless, England saw it as their moral responsibility to take the game to the colonies. Perhaps they needed teams they felt they could beat; Perhaps it was a way of inculcating some values in the local people. Perhaps the emphasis was on English through games.
Whatever it was, and despite the apparent condescension involved, the game spread. By the 1930s India, West Indies, New Zealand were all playing Test cricket; South Africa played its first Test in 1889, and played a ‘World Cup’ in 1912 with the other two ICC members at the time, England and Australia. That tri-series was a colossal flop. Perhaps then realized that the cozy club was too cozy. There was a need for more variety, a better range of styles, more variety.
money replaced history
Now, more than a century later, history (and geography) have been replaced by money as the basis of the cozy club. England has some, Australia has a little and India has a lot. In 2014, these three countries decided to hijack the game by proposing a share of the ICC’s financial pie, giving them the biggest share and leaving crumbs for the rest.
India was already the richest and most influential cricketing nation. Then I wrote in these columns that the problem with a unipolar world is that the greatest good for the greatest number is replaced by the greatest good for the number one. The administration of cricket has always been motivated by selfishness. As written by Usman Samiuddin wisden india almanac, “Decision-making[was]about larger self-interests leaning 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 the universal interest, but it rarely is. Nearly a decade after the Big Three’s hijacking bid, the ICC has proposed a similar surplus revenue-sharing model. In the 2024-27 cycle, the ICC proposes that of its $600 million annual surplus, India will take home $231 million or 38.5%. England gets the next highest share of $41.33 million (6.89%), followed by Australia ($37.53 or 6.25%) followed by Afghanistan ($16.82 million or 2.8%). 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 nations) starts the level. Then things like cricket history, performance in ICC events, progress of women’s cricket and professional contribution to the kitty are considered. There is an ambiguity about some of these factors (how do you put a number on the history of cricket?), and the marking will be essentially arbitrary. However, the commercial value of India cannot be doubted.
With India in the second phase of international cricket for so long after its debut in 1932, with few wins, little money and little chance of getting into the higher ranks, the table-turning provoked feelings of unbridled nationalism. During all those decades, India had one strength above all others – its population. We were humans then, now we are the market. Television and digital media are ready to pay mind-boggling amounts to capture this market.
India has reached a stage where it does not need ICC money. Apart from the Big Three, most countries depend on ICC handouts and cannot afford to resent India, whose tours fill their coffers.
Justified demand?
India demanding its pound of flesh as the country that contributes the largest amount to the cricket economy is understandable. Selfishness rules. But shouldn’t the ICC look beyond this and look at the development of the game? Certainly, the ICC cannot do without India in the short term. But India can’t go on without the ICC, or they’ll be reduced to playing a few countries again and again until television takes an interest.
India’s argument that a lot of money goes to corrupt national boards that do nothing for cricket is a valid one. ICC should make arrangements to stop this. Keeping India happy and letting the rest take care of themselves cannot be the only policy of the ICC. The governing bodies have more responsibilities than the national ones.
There is money in cricket, as evidenced by the ICC’s $600 million surplus. But all this is not going towards the development of the game. The countries that need it the most are getting the least amount and that can’t be good for the game.