Government's place in the cricket world

Tony Becca, ON THE BOUNDARY

Cricket, like football and many other sporting activities, has surrounded itself with rules and regulations aimed at protecting itself from government interference, and recently the International Cricket Conference (ICC), the body which governs the sport, has fine-tuned its own rules and regulations to further protect it.

Following what is happening in West Indies cricket these days, it is important, to all who are really interested in West Indies cricket, not only to know but also to understand what the new regulations are, from top to bottom.

Following the many quarrels between the West Indies Cricket Board, some of its players, and the West Indies Players Association, West Indies cricket has been suffering, based on the poor state of West Indies cricket and the equally poor performance of the West Indies team. The fans have been hurting, and some people, including some influential ones, have been calling not only for a change to the administrative structure of West Indies cricket but also for a change in those who form the administration.

And based on all those problems, some governments have stepped in with one government shutting down one board by putting padlocks on its doors and withdrawing funding and some governments have been threatening some boards.

These developments also have seen some people jumping with joy.

The amendments to the ICC Articles of Association late last year were done, according to a release from the ICC itself, in order to follow the "well established principle of modern sporting governance that national federations should be autonomous and free from interference from government in the administration of their affairs".

electED or appointed

As far as the election of its members are concerned, the ICC's new amendments state that members elected to their boards should either be elected to those positions by virtue of a free and fair election process held by the membership body, or be appointed by their membership to those positions, or be nominees from outside their membership who are appointed by their executive body.

In other words, no one may be appointed to a board by a government or by government officials, and no one can be removed from a board by a government or by government officials.

A government official, however, can be elected to a board and an executive can appoint a government official to a board, although such a member would be a non-voting member.

As far as interference with a board is concerned, the new amendments state that this includes, but is not limited to, involvement of government officials in the selection or appointment of cricket teams, coaches, or other personnel, including the right of approval or merely ratification, the making of recommendations, or the right to veto selections or appointments.

Government is also barred from influencing, directly or indirectly, and among other things, the day-to-day decisions of the administration, the staging of cricket matches, the dates of such matches, and the process or outcome of any disciplinary enquiries.

The government, however, is free to provide financial assistance, such as a loan or a grant, to a national federation and to attach conditions to that financial assistance providing it does not contravene its rule dealing with interference with the game.

The government will also have a right to investigate the affairs of a board in order to ascertain whether any criminal offence has been committed, including fraud, dereliction of director's duties (including fiduciary duties), or contravention of any relevant legislation.

accountability not interference

With the ICC's Governance Review Committee, the architect of the amendments, believing that this would be a case of accountability and not interference, the government can deal with a national federation that is dysfunctional.

In other words, although the ICC says no interference, the national federations cannot operate outside the laws of the country.

Based on the ICC's new amendments, the call for a take-over of West Indies cricket by the governments, for the governments to replace some members of the board, is not on, and rightly so, and it is not on because of an extract from the Articles of Association which says, "Where a government interferes in the administration of cricket the executive board of the ICC shall have the power to suspend or to refuse to recognise that national federation."

Cricket, according to the ICC, except when it comes to financing, should be run by cricketers and not by politicians.

Cricket, except for the money needed for the normal development of the game in schools and youth clubs, except for promoting cricket as a recreation sport, can do without interference from governments, and without politics and politicians - even in the West Indies.

Cricket, like any other sport, should be left to expand itself, to go where it can go, based on its popularity and the money it earns.

When it comes to leadership of the game, when it comes to getting sponsorship for the competitive side of the game, if cricket is really still the "national" game, if every West Indian, or almost every West Indian, including businessmen, played the game at one time or the other, at one stage or another, and more or less have a "feel" for the game if not a "passion" for it, then there should be no problem finding quality leaders and good sponsorship for the game or from who can benefit from identification with the game.

nature of professional sport

That is what professional sport is all about, that is what elite sport is all about, and West Indies cricket, it is said, is professional.

People, it should be remembered, pay to see professionals play professional sport, and professional sport should look after itself, in every way. It is as simple as that.

Apart from that, West Indies cricket administrators, who try to run professional sports with little spectator support and with contributions from governments, really have nothing, or very little, to fear from the ICC.

The new ICC amendments are now in effect, and the member boards have until June to comply with them "failing which they will be provided with a model constitution or suitable provisions for implementation".

Here comes the problem: "If after a further 12 months a Member Board is still not in compliance, sanctions may be considered. In accordance with the discretion afforded to it, the ICC Executive Board will no doubt apply its mind to the circumstances of a particular case prior to imposing sanctions for non-compliance."

The ICC has a history of being a toothless tiger and the reality of the situation is that we may never see any sanctions, at least not where England, or Australia, or South Africa, or India are concerned, even though Dr Julian Hunte, ex politician and present president of the West Indies Cricket Board, is the chairman of the ICC's Governance Review Committee.