BDforever
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 14,387
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
The Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (FICA) on Wednesday (January 22) slammed the position paper prepared by the working group of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) Finance & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee, stating that the “best interests” of the sport was at stake.
The working group, of which representatives of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCC), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA) were key members, proposed sweeping changes to various aspects of the ICC’s structure.
A key proposal was the setting up of an Executive Committee (EC), in which the BCCI, ECB and CA would be permanent members, with one other member nominated on an annual basis by these three boards. The EC would hold the power to nominate the head of the influential F&CA committee, the ICC chairman, and also supersede the executive board of the ICC, which is made up of full members.
The proposal has divided opinion among the remaining seven boards. Martin Snedden, a New Zealand Cricket (NZC) board member, expressed his support for the proposal on Monday, even as Chris Nenzani, the Cricket South Africa (CSA) president, labelled the paper “fundamentally flawed”.
The ratification of the proposal will be at stake when it is put to vote during a meeting of the ICC full members in Dubai on January 28 and 29. The paper needs seven votes out of 10 to pass.
The paper proposed radical changes to the way cricket is run, including a recommendation for a revenue distribution model based on the “contributions of individual members”. The FICA, however, accused the BCCI, ECB and CA of acting on vested interests.
“After reviewing the working group’s proposal, the FICA Board and our members are extremely concerned about the future of international cricket,” said Paul Marsh, the executive chairman of FICA. “This proposal is designed to vest control of the game in the three boards of India, Australia and England. It is not in the best interests of the global game and we have real fears that it will only serve to strengthen the ‘big three’ countries whilst the rest are left to wither on the vine.”
Marsh said the proposed revenue sharing model would only widen the gap between rich and the poor boards. “The result of this will be the countries that need ICC income most will receive the least, whilst the ‘big three’ will get the lion’s share even though they are already financially healthy because of the value of the rights to their bilateral series,” he said. “The role of ICC events should be to assist in levelling the financial playing field by distributing the proceeds from these events fairly, rather than further widening the gap between the rich and poor.
“The essence of sport is competition and those in control of the ICC should be doing all they can to promote and provide a level playing field. This proposal will achieve the complete opposite.”
Marsh claimed that the duty of every ICC member, to put the interests of the ICC above their own, was being broken. “First and foremost, as Board Directors of the ICC, the Chairmen of the BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB owe fiduciary duties to the ICC that include putting the interests of the ICC ahead of those of their individual Boards, a duty to remain loyal to the ICC and avoid conflicts of interests and to act in good faith to promote the success of the ICC. We seriously question whether all of these duties have been met.”
One of the recommendations on the position paper was to abolish the Future Tours Programme (FTP) and hand precedence to bilateral tour agreements, where boards can decide tour frequencies and schedules among themselves. However, FICA raised questions as to how the smaller nations would survive if they failed to play the ‘big three’ in general and India in particular.
“The proposals relating to scheduling are disturbing,” said Marsh. “The reassurance to the Boards outside the ‘big three’ that they are guaranteed to earn more in the next rights cycle than they have in the current one ignores the fact they are almost certain to lose more money from a re-shaped Future Tours Programme (FTP) than they will gain from ICC distributions, when the ‘big three’ inevitably pick and choose who, when and where they will play.
“Of significance is the section that offers a guarantee from CA and ECB to play three Tests and five ODIs per cycle to each of the top eight members, yet there is no mention of any such guarantee from the BCCI. Each of the member countries, including Australia and England, rely heavily on Indian tours for sustainability of the game in their country. What chance do the majority of members have of survival if the BCCI decides not to tour their countries on at least a semi-regular basis?”
The triumvirate also questioned the relevance of Test rankings, and proposed that a system of promotion and relegation be introduced in Test cricket. However, they also said that the trio of India, England and Australia would be immune to relegation, “solely in order to protect ICC income due to the importance of those markets and teams to prospective ICC media rights buyers.”
“Ironically the proposal espouses the principal of meritocracy,” said Marsh. “The linking of immunity from Test relegation for BCCI, ECB and CA to an argument that this is necessary ‘solely to protect ICC income’ is plainly wrong, given the fact no Test-based ICC events feature in the forward thinking and therefore all revenues generated from Test cricket are kept by the Boards hosting the respective series.”
In conclusion, the FICA called on the seven remaining full members to reject the proposal at the Board meeting next week. Marsh said: “The game deserves far better than this and all within FICA call on the other seven ICC Board members to reject this proposal at next week’s Board meeting. The future of the game depends on them doing so.”
source: FICA slams Big Three’s proposal | News | Cricket Blogs, Opinions & Analysis | Wisden India
The working group, of which representatives of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCC), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA) were key members, proposed sweeping changes to various aspects of the ICC’s structure.
A key proposal was the setting up of an Executive Committee (EC), in which the BCCI, ECB and CA would be permanent members, with one other member nominated on an annual basis by these three boards. The EC would hold the power to nominate the head of the influential F&CA committee, the ICC chairman, and also supersede the executive board of the ICC, which is made up of full members.
The proposal has divided opinion among the remaining seven boards. Martin Snedden, a New Zealand Cricket (NZC) board member, expressed his support for the proposal on Monday, even as Chris Nenzani, the Cricket South Africa (CSA) president, labelled the paper “fundamentally flawed”.
The ratification of the proposal will be at stake when it is put to vote during a meeting of the ICC full members in Dubai on January 28 and 29. The paper needs seven votes out of 10 to pass.
The paper proposed radical changes to the way cricket is run, including a recommendation for a revenue distribution model based on the “contributions of individual members”. The FICA, however, accused the BCCI, ECB and CA of acting on vested interests.
“After reviewing the working group’s proposal, the FICA Board and our members are extremely concerned about the future of international cricket,” said Paul Marsh, the executive chairman of FICA. “This proposal is designed to vest control of the game in the three boards of India, Australia and England. It is not in the best interests of the global game and we have real fears that it will only serve to strengthen the ‘big three’ countries whilst the rest are left to wither on the vine.”
Marsh said the proposed revenue sharing model would only widen the gap between rich and the poor boards. “The result of this will be the countries that need ICC income most will receive the least, whilst the ‘big three’ will get the lion’s share even though they are already financially healthy because of the value of the rights to their bilateral series,” he said. “The role of ICC events should be to assist in levelling the financial playing field by distributing the proceeds from these events fairly, rather than further widening the gap between the rich and poor.
“The essence of sport is competition and those in control of the ICC should be doing all they can to promote and provide a level playing field. This proposal will achieve the complete opposite.”
Marsh claimed that the duty of every ICC member, to put the interests of the ICC above their own, was being broken. “First and foremost, as Board Directors of the ICC, the Chairmen of the BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB owe fiduciary duties to the ICC that include putting the interests of the ICC ahead of those of their individual Boards, a duty to remain loyal to the ICC and avoid conflicts of interests and to act in good faith to promote the success of the ICC. We seriously question whether all of these duties have been met.”
One of the recommendations on the position paper was to abolish the Future Tours Programme (FTP) and hand precedence to bilateral tour agreements, where boards can decide tour frequencies and schedules among themselves. However, FICA raised questions as to how the smaller nations would survive if they failed to play the ‘big three’ in general and India in particular.
“The proposals relating to scheduling are disturbing,” said Marsh. “The reassurance to the Boards outside the ‘big three’ that they are guaranteed to earn more in the next rights cycle than they have in the current one ignores the fact they are almost certain to lose more money from a re-shaped Future Tours Programme (FTP) than they will gain from ICC distributions, when the ‘big three’ inevitably pick and choose who, when and where they will play.
“Of significance is the section that offers a guarantee from CA and ECB to play three Tests and five ODIs per cycle to each of the top eight members, yet there is no mention of any such guarantee from the BCCI. Each of the member countries, including Australia and England, rely heavily on Indian tours for sustainability of the game in their country. What chance do the majority of members have of survival if the BCCI decides not to tour their countries on at least a semi-regular basis?”
The triumvirate also questioned the relevance of Test rankings, and proposed that a system of promotion and relegation be introduced in Test cricket. However, they also said that the trio of India, England and Australia would be immune to relegation, “solely in order to protect ICC income due to the importance of those markets and teams to prospective ICC media rights buyers.”
“Ironically the proposal espouses the principal of meritocracy,” said Marsh. “The linking of immunity from Test relegation for BCCI, ECB and CA to an argument that this is necessary ‘solely to protect ICC income’ is plainly wrong, given the fact no Test-based ICC events feature in the forward thinking and therefore all revenues generated from Test cricket are kept by the Boards hosting the respective series.”
In conclusion, the FICA called on the seven remaining full members to reject the proposal at the Board meeting next week. Marsh said: “The game deserves far better than this and all within FICA call on the other seven ICC Board members to reject this proposal at next week’s Board meeting. The future of the game depends on them doing so.”
source: FICA slams Big Three’s proposal | News | Cricket Blogs, Opinions & Analysis | Wisden India
