In theory it is a good move, even overdue. The World Cricketers’ Association (WCA) is reviewing the game’s global structure to find solutions to the “increasingly disjointed and cramped cricket calendar.” The WCA has no faith in the International Cricket Council (ICC) to do the job.
All very good except for one thing — the WCA has no influence over India which has a players’ association just to satisfy the Supreme Court’s directive. The Indian Cricketers’ Association (ICA) is not a member of the WCA.
Currently, the future of the game is not in the hands of the WCA or indeed the ICC, if we are to be honest. It is in the hands of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). When Jagmohan Dalmiya called the shots, the BCCI rallied the Associate Members, and bought votes and influence that way. Since the advent of television money in the billions, the deal is more straightforward and less tiring. India generates the most funds — and calls the tune.
Interestingly, there is one Indian in the six-member review group which indicates where the real power lies. This is Sanjog Gupta, a genuine cricket lover who has been following the game in India for years. But that is not why he is in the panel. He is, more significantly, the head of sports in Disney Star, the channel that has changed the tenor of cricket’s conversations.
Rich combination
India have the audience for the game, the market for products advertised on television, and some of the best players in the world. It is a rich combination no one dare ignore.
The other members of the WCA panel are Paul Marsh (Australia), Sana Mir (Pakistan), Tony Irish (South Africa), Tom Harrison (England), James Kitching (former Director of Football Regulatory, FIFA). Nothing they say or do is binding on India. In the present climate it is dangerous for international teams to try and isolate India. It was nearly attempted once — but that had less to do with money than administration.
According to the WCA, 84% of its players are in favour of having specific windows so domestic franchise leagues and international cricket can co-exist. This was an idea suggested by India in the early days of the IPL, but it was turned down.
The WCA is exploring areas that need change. The problems range from the scheduling (“confusing and chaotic”) which forces players to choose between club and country, to the economic disparity (“reliance on just a few to fund the entire game”). Player employment and contracts (suffering due to lack of a clear global calendar, argues the WCA) is another area. All worthy. And we will know in December when the recommendations are made just how many solutions are workable. In other words, just how many India will find profitable to accept.
The notion that the players deserve a say on the future of the game is a step up from the past when administrators administered and players played, and never the twain met, so to speak. The argument then (although few articulated it) was that soldiers cannot decide on future wars; that is left to the politicians.
No evolution
The BCCI hasn’t evolved beyond seeing players’ associations as trade unions which need to be curbed. Indian players have no organised way of putting their ideas across — that is left to some top players who tend to ignore the big picture in favour of what is good for themselves as individuals. Former players too don’t dare go against the BCCI in case their post-retirement opportunities dry up.
When the President of the Indian Cricketers’ Association Aunshuman Gaekwad was himself in dire need of funds for medical expenses, the ICA could do nothing. It was left to the BCCI secretary who seems to decide most things, from Indian captaincy to player selection to rewards for performances unilaterally, to announce an amount.
When it is difficult for even Indian players to get across to their cricket board, it is unlikely that players from other countries will. It will take a lot of ego-boosting, pride-polishing and esteem-pandering of one individual for the WCA to succeed. Still, it has worked in other fields! Too cynical? Well, cynicism and pragmatism are close cousins.
