True colors emerge in cricket’s governing regime

Two weeks ago, I said that “every so often cricket’s fabric is subject to transformational tremor. We may be on the brink of another one.”

This was based on the World Cricketers’ Association’s comprehensive review of the game’s global structure and its subsequent report. This called for an overhaul of four central pillars of cricket.

It was always going to be the case that the WCA’s call for the first pillar – the game’s governing body, the International Cricket Council – to be “modernised” to “ensure that it is fit for purpose to lead the global game” would raise hackles at the ICC. This was a direct attack on the way that cricket is led. Add to that the WCA’s assault on the principles by which the game’s revenues are unevenly distributed by the ICC at present and not on those based on equity and fairness in growth, then retaliation was inevitable.

The third pillar relating to current scheduling patterns by the ICC was criticized by the WCA for lack of clarity and consistency, with suggestions for improvement provided. Regulation is the fourth pillar on which the WCA called for greater levels of financial accountability within the ICC.   

These criticisms of the ICC are not new. In 2012, an independent governance review of the ICC, headed by Lord Woolf, called for sweeping changes in the administration of cricket and the functioning of its governing body. Woolf recommended a restructuring of the ICC’s executive board to make it more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries. He also called for measures to increase transparency in dealings by the ICC and its members.

The recommendations were not binding on the ICC and were not acceptable to the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Consequently, the