The Corridor

Recent Posts

PLEASE NOTE The Corridor is moving grounds at the moment. This is the old site, and comments have been disabled. Check back tomorrow and we should be safely ensconced at our new home


ICC: the white Commonwealth?

By Will 2 years ago, at the end of August Leave a comment on this post

The sport cannot go forward until those two blocs are working together, and that can only be done when ICC is manifestly less of a white Commonwealth club. For the past 20 years it has, to all appearances, been a cartel run by Australians. Highly competent administrators, no doubt, who have for the most part - and despite an obsession with ludicrous money-making wheezes such as last year’s “SuperTests” - done a good job and raised the profile of the sport. But there remains an impression that the Asian countries are permitted into the halls of power on unequal terms. Only when they are equal partners will cricket start to embrace a 21st century whose face is likely to more brown than white.

The Asian countries’ belief that, despite supplying two-thirds of the money in the global game, they are endless patronised by white administrators is the cankerous root of the current crisis. It had to be confronted some time; it might as well be now. The long-term good will outweigh the short-term damage. It is essential that the next chief executive of ICC is Asian, and rather than be in swanky Dubai perhaps its headquarters should be in Islamabad or Mumbai. A bit of bending over backwards to make up for past errors may be in order.

So says Stephen Moss at the Guardian. Your thoughts, please. The more this debate rumbles on, the less it appears to involve the game. Has this incident with Darrell Hair and Pakistan more to do with the ever widening gap of relations between East and West in society? Is this really about ball tampering, or skin colour? I am of course playing devil’s advocate, but Moss raises some interesting points. Leave yours below.

Tags: , , , , , , , |

15 Responses to “ICC: the white Commonwealth?”

  • Wraye wrote:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 10.35 pm

    No problem with you playing devil’s advocate here with me, Will.

    I think we all know the answer yet the big guns do not and the whole Pak/ Hair episode - and it surely will be only one episode in the history of cricket - shows one main thing. The game is being administered by businessmen with no ground roots level knowledge of cricket, no basic man-management skills. And of the millions of us world-wide who play the game, surely they have a field of experience to choose from, or not ???

    I was astounded to hear today on BBC 5 live that both Michael Vaughen and Sexy Bum Warnie did not know that a game could be forfeited - and they are captains???? Oh pluuu-eaase! That cannot be true? Or can it?

    Just where have we come to when the national Boards sell our souls and TV/radio rights for a quick buck, when you can bet that more than 80% of those spectators with bums on seats are more literate, more cognisant of the Laws and have more man-hours on the field than 80% of those decision makers and commentators? Probably more than 95% of us Europeans playing cricket here have strong social and friendship ties to players originating from other countries? Just tonight, for example an Ozzy asked me, a Pom and woman to boot, to be in his team at the weekend. Jeez, I felt honoured!

    The cricketers are not no blame. Neither are those at grass-roots level.

    Rather those twats in the upper eschelons who have never bowled or batted or been forced to make a decision under pressure. Get them buggers out of cricket and we would all get on much better.

    Sorry to rant on - loved your interview, Will. Well done.

  • Alexander Morrison wrote:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 11.39 pm

    Um, wasn’t Ehsan Mani, the last President of the ICC, from Karachi? I thought moving the offices to Dubai (that renowned centre of cricketing excellence) was also supposed to move the administration of the game closer to its Asian heartland (Dubai was in Asia last time I looked…….). Suddenly even that’s not good enough, it seems. As a matter of fact, I’d rather see cricket being run from somewhere where they actually play the game in India or Pakistan: not Islamabad, which is a soulless bureaucratic excrescence with no cricketing history, but perhaps Lahore or Bombay. Mind you, it’s hard to see the BCCI and the PCB agreeing on that one, so perhaps we’d better let it slide. Back to the point: the idea that Asian countries are excluded from any say in how the game is run is at least ten years out of date. Ever since Jagmohan Dalmiya snatched the 1996 World Cup away from England the balance of power has shifted slowly but decisively. It can be seen in the Asian bloc pushing for Bangladesh to be given Test status (and then, in India’s case, carefully avoiding having to actually play them once the extra Asian votes had been secured). It can quite clearly be seen in England being victimised at the last World Cup for, quite rightly, refusing to play in Zimbabwe (I know they fudged in the end and claimed it was for security reasons, but we all know why they didn’t want to go). That was also Dalmiya’s doing, and his insistence that England forfeit those matches and refusal to reschedule them ensured they couldn’t qualify for the second round. When Inzamam’s case comes up it will be judged by Rajan Madugalle, who was also the man in charge of the committee that decided that Shabbir Ahmed was chucking. Who brought his action to the attention of the authorities: why, none other than Darrell Hair, and guess what? He was absolutely right that time, even though this incident is being cited as evidence of Hair’s prejudice against Asians. The race card is just being waved to obscure the issue here. I don’t think Hair is a good umpire, and even if the ball had been tampered with he should have done what Shep and Dickie Bird used to do in similar circumstance i.e. warn the fielding captain, tell him that he should ask for a replacement ball and then get on with the game. That’s what the spirit of the game requires, but Hair is a stickler for the letter of the law, however obtuse it may be, which has led him to serious run-ins with the South Africans and New Zealanders as well as the Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. Hair may well have got it horribly wrong this time, and if he has it’s compelling evidence that he’s too abrasive and confrontational to make a good international umpire, and he should go. It does NOT mean that he is a racist, or that cricket is somehow institutionally racist. The Asian cricket boards are revelling in their new-found power and wealth, even if the main aim seems to be to stage ever more meaningless ODIs. They cannot claim to be victims any more.

  • Ollie wrote:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 11.40 pm

    Who’s that Ehsan Mani chap then? ICC President sounds pretty influential to me (or does he wield no real power?).

  • Innocent Abroad wrote:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 11.52 pm

    [2] I agree with every word. And I suspect that had Dickie Bird been umpiring after tea, he’d've discovered that the light was too bad for play to take place before removing the bails…

  • Julian wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 12.26 am

    If you want to make this “run by businessmen (w*nkers)” theory stick, you are going to have to give us some solid analysis.

    I’m not going to give an article you haven’t written yet a full fisking, but looking at the “ICC Management Team” we have:

    (http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/about/management.html)

    Percy Sonn, ICC President (South Africa) - Sports Administrator and Businessman (OK - I’ll give you this).

    Malcolm Speed, ICC Chief Executive Officer (Oz) - Lawyer, Sports Administration since 1970s

    Jeff Rees, General Manager and Chief Investigator, ACSU (UK) - Policeman

    Campbell Jamieson, ICC Commercial Manager (Oz) Cricket Admin since 1989

    David Richardson, General Manager – Cricket (SA). 42 Test Matched. Nuff said.

    Matthew Kennedy, Global Development Manager. (Oz) Whole career in sports administration. Keen cricketer.

    Jon Long, Manager - Member Services & Corporate Affairs (UK). Career in “sport”.

    Brian Murgatroyd, Manager – Media & Communications. (UK/Oz). Sports journalist. Club cricketer.

    Faisal Hasnain, Chief Financial Officer. (UK). Accountant. I should hope so!

    John Moore, HR and Administration Manager (UK). Personnel man. Club cricketer.

    Urvasi Naidoo, In-House Lawyer (UK/USA). Sports lawyer.

    3 from the management team are not white.

    Further the referees mentioned as adjudicators are Sri Lankan and West Indian.

    I see no domination of “white commonwealth” wheeler-dealers. Perhaps there is an overhang of London Personnel, but then they only just moved to the sun. I’ll give you that there is an Australian preponderance, but that is probably related to perceived Australian competence in administering cricket.

    I’m open to the argument but you’re going to have to prove it.

    Personally, I thought it was the Indians in the ascendant. If it was run by the white commonwealth, surely England would not have had all the kerfuffle over the Zimbabwe Tour?

    Awaiting a thorough analysis.

    Julian

  • Julian wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 12.31 am

    In summary, it is the Guardian wearing its usual hat - that is the one with the hole to talk through.

  • Hammy wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 7.06 am

    This smacks of some form of positive discrimination or affirmative action. Choose the best person for the job and be done with it. There should be no favouritism brought into the area of the governing body. Why shouldn’t the Yanks run the ICC as they have more money than anybody?

    Umpires should be there to adjudicate the game based on the rules. If the rules being adjudicated to the letter of the law bring out some grey areas then address them. The governing body should back the umpires. If the umpires are incorrect in their decision making or interpretation then they require a quiet word, re-training or punishment.

    The game needs to be administered properly and by the right people. Let’s not get down to a popularity contest or give in to some righteous-thinking groups. I don’t care who runs the show as long as cricket is the winner.

  • saurabh wahi wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 2.56 pm

    I think the fundamental problem with the ICC is that is a incompetent organization (at best)…

  • suraj wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 5.08 pm

    Actually its the reverse- after the initial hysteria there are some fans and experts from the Asian nations blaming Inzy and Pak while there are fans and experts from Eng- Aus (to a lesser extent) who think Hair acted badly (I have no idea where NZ stands on this).

    These crossover fans might be small in number but even the others are questioning Hair’s man management and decision making vs “racist” attitude. Ditto for the “white” nations who are blaming Inzy for not continuing the game rather than his Asian heritage.

    The big issues remain:

    1. An umpire who while knowing the rules too well does not know squat about managing situations

    2. A captain who might be nice guy but knows squat about rules

    3. ICC who might set the rules and the spirit of the game but are unable to translate it into a right balance when it comes to implementation

    Racism and East-West divide has little to do with it

  • Bowman wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 5.46 pm

    How pathetic it is that even in sport people can not put the whole race issue to a side.

    How are the ICC racist?

    They sure may be bloody useless but i don’t see how that has anything to do with the board being all white.

    Can we please stop talking about intergration in cricket? It’s all the papers talk about and i get sick of it.

    How can someone be against racism the say ‘the next ICC president has to be Asian’ which is a blatantly racist comment.

  • Karan wrote:
    August 24th, 2006 at 5.51 pm

    Personally, as an Indian, I agree with Alexander Morrison — the balance of power in the game changed pretty decisively quite a while ago. I also think Dubai is a far more logical choice than Mumbai or Karachi, for a host of reasons, both practical and symbolic. On a symbolic level, it’s probably best that the HQ of the game not be in the Subcontinent, just as it shouldn’t be in London or Sydney either. Dubai serves admirably as a neutral location, one that is close to the Subcontinent but also not too far away from the UK. On a practical level, they have world-class financial and transport infrastructure, something the HQ of an international body needs. As others have pointed out, the last ICC head WAS a South Asian.

    There’s only one area where I might be disposed to agree with Moss — based on Julian’s list, it does seem possible to argue that Brits are a tad overrepresented in the ICC Management Team — but, as Julian points out, that’s because London was ICC HQ until very recently. But I think we might all agree that the ICC could do with having its management a bit more thoroughly internationalized — I don’t see any WI or IND citizens on that list, for example…. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that corporate India, in particular, has not produced a host of super managers who might be ripe for jobs like “Commercial Manager” or “Global Development Manager”? There are plenty of Indians running global giants like McKinsey these days, after all.

  • saurabh wahi wrote:
    August 25th, 2006 at 8.10 am

    As an Indian (living in England), I agree with Karan Alexander Morrison. I am sick and tired of people blaming race for all their ills though I admit I have been guilty of it in the past (wink, wink!).

    Karan, though India has produced a host of good managers and leaders, our track record in managing our own Cricket is pathetic. So I can understand why the ‘white’ countries are a bit vary of letting the game be run by guys who can’t even sort out basic things like scheduling a match!

  • saurabh wahi wrote:
    August 25th, 2006 at 8.15 am

    “South Africa were yesterday floated as the favourites, although media reports last night said New Zealand and West Indies had also been sounded out”

    Why not India, who are also prepared and had their recent ODI series cancelled? Besides, would it not make sense to replace one sub-continantal team with another.

  • auvergne wrote:
    August 25th, 2006 at 8.44 am

    Having lived in SE Asia for nearly 20 years (having come from England), and being a member of the UK based Association of Cricket Umpires & Scorers as well as an active participant in Asian Cricket Council umpiring courses in the region, the differences between the two approaches/cultures is quite marked. While ACU&S are pretty strict about adhering to established procedures, there’s a tendency in the ACC to establish, and publish, procedures, but then ignore them. I remember Derek Pringle (who I played against in school cricket) writing a few months ago about the differences as he saw them: his contention was that the Anglo principles of “serving your apprenticeship” and “fair and square” were not grounded in the subcontinental approach to life. My experience, not just in cricket but in business, suggests that personal contacts play a much greater part in life out here than they do in England. Typically, I have to say, to the detriment of assuring quality.

  • Razib Ahmed wrote:
    August 25th, 2006 at 9.22 pm

    This is very controversial issue as racism and ethnicity are related to the matter. Well, there may have discrimination in terms of the two groups (east and west) and race (black and white). Though I am not sure about the existence of such mentality among the people involving to cricket, I can ensure that the existence of such mentality may direct the game to an end. Here, another thing is noteworthy that among the Asian teams, the madness of people for cricket is seen most significantly. It does not mean that the people of other cricket playing countries do not love cricket rather I am to say that in terms of universal popularity Asian countries are far more ahead than the teams of other region. Being the richest cricket board of India will give testimony supporting my claim. So, if there is any discriminatory mentality exists then it will have some bad effects on cricket.


    • « Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? | Main | Peter the Lord’s cat »