The proposal is in. The big 3 cricket boards will elbow everyone else out and by the looks of it there will be little if any money coming to most of the affiliates and associate members.
Clarke (ECB) and Srinivasan (BCCI)
So how does the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the England and Wales Cricket Board and Cricket Australia's decision to strong arm the International Cricket Council, turning them effectively into a rubber stamp organization with officials elected by the big 3, impact the rest of us?
Edwards (CA) and Clarke (ECB)
Quite apart from the fact that it is kicking sand in the faces of all the other members, the chances are there will be less opportunities for players outside of the test playing nations and quite possibly less opportunity for players outside the big 3. The new proposal scraps the "Future Tours Program" which forced the big nations to play against the others so it's likely that we'll be seeing a lot of games between India, England and Australia and less from the rest - and do you think the big 3 like touring to other countries? Nah, not so much.
The ICC is made up of 10 full members, the guys who get to play test cricket, 37 associate members and 59 affiliate members who get a chance to play in ICC competitions.
It runs the Cricket World Cup, the World Test Championship (if it happens now), the World T20 and the Champions Trophy. It also runs the U19 World Cup, the Women's World Cup, the Intercontinental Cup, which is the associate members world cup, and the Pepsi ICC World Cricket League, which gives the top affiliates and associates the chance to win their way through to the Cricket World Cup.
The organization generates revenue from it's competitions, mainly from broadcast rights and sponsorships. It gives 75% of the surplus, what's left after its costs, to the full members and 25% to the affiliates and associates.
Right now the full members each get an equal share. In the new system the members who earn the most (the revenue coming from India for the World Cup is a lot more than the revenue coming from somewhere like New Zealand) will get the most. This will mean a redistribution of the "surplus". It's to be seen how this will effect the affiliates and associates. They may be left begging as their participation generates very little revenue.
To compound the issue for us here in the US, the new proposal also "suggests" that the top 6 affiliate & associate members get half of what used to be the 25% surplus. If the "surplus" is reduced and half of what's left goes to the top 6 affiliates and associate members, and remember there are 96 associate and affiliate's in total, then those that are left are likely to get somewhere between nothing and diddly squat.
It's likely to cause good old USACA a few issues. I'm not sure how motivated they will be to carry on if there's no ICC money coming in. Other than Darren Beazley the CEO and a couple of other true servants of the game, you just can't see the core group all getting motivated to go out there and raise funds to send our boys to ICC competitions or even to organize for games against other members. They've been looking to hit that one big home run for years and running on promises and ICC funds and now it looks like all that will be left are promises.
If you take a look at the "About" page on the ICC website you'll find a very carefully written document telling of visions for success and strategic direction, all of which stress the importance of growing the game globally. This may have to be rewritten. There's a definite chance cricket may become a 3 nation sport at least as far as the international game is concerned. The rest of us can continue our weekend warrior status completely unaffected.
Sign up to our newsletter using the box below. Play better cricket. Enjoy the game more. Be the first to know about the latest cricket gear and watch our behind the scenes video reviews, plus you'll receive our member incentives.