Cricket South Africa (CSA) has outlined a detailed response to the proposals put forward by the boards of Australia, England and India in a 10-page document.
The document, a copy of which is with The National, invokes the spirit of Nelson Mandela, beginning with a quote on democracy by the former president, and ultimately accepts without qualification only three of nine revamp principles it draws from those accepted by the ICC board in a meeting in Dubai last week.
The proposals will in all likelihood be put to a vote on Saturday in an ICC meeting in Singapore. But the battle to push them through will not be easy, going by CSA’s response, a similarly detailed set of legal objections by Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), as well as a letter by the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) which also expresses its opposition.
CSA’s role will be key, as the document shows. In detailing the history of the board and its role as one of the founder members of cricket’s governing body, the response highlights both CSA’s position as lead opposer to the changes as well as a reminder that it should be regarded among any elite of cricket.
This dual purpose is best seen in its objections to the proposed creation of an Executive Committee (ExCo), which it asks to be expanded to six members and on which it asks for a seat.
“CSA believes that the role of EXCO is going to be very important within the ICC and therefore its composition should be increased from the proposed five to six members. Furthermore, CSA strongly believes that, apart from being a Founding Member of the ICC, it is also a major cricket nation and deserves status on the ICC EXCO and F&CA committees during this transitional period.”
But the ExCo’s terms of reference must be approved and “importantly, these committees cannot be greater in its powers than the ICC Board. In other words, like any and all Board committees, they must be accountable and report to the Board.”
Significantly, CSA says it does not support the ICC chairman “remaining as the Chairman of the Member Board. This is clearly not in the best interest of the global ICC family as it will lead to real perceptions of conflict of interest.”
As has been the board’s private line all along, the board wants far greater transparency in the proposed financial restructuring before they agree to the proposals, indicating that, a month after the draft paper was first presented, members are yet to see a calculation of how new revenue figures were arrived at.
“Before CSA agrees to the proposed scorecard (and therefore differentiated funding), it requires a full and detailed understanding of the criteria/inputs and mechanism that would drive funding allocations. This will provide the basic transparency necessary for all Members to understand and be able to advance their position.”
Referring to the historical contribution parameters cited in calculating the scorecard, CSA brings up its own past, when its membership was taken away during the years of Apartheid.
CSA “vehemently opposes any criteria that would penalise South Africa for its interrupted membership of the ICC during the Apartheid era. This would serve only to discount the struggle for freedom led by none other than Nelson Mandela and it would in fact harm the majority of our cricketers (mostly black African) by prejudicing our transformation projects.”
Even though it agrees in principle to the idea of a Test Cricket Fund, it wants a clearer idea of its mechanics (but is happy to have the details worked out after approval).
On the proposed deregulation of the FTP, CSA are not in agreement. The current FTP, CSA says, is already binding “and we support the need for this to be supplemented by bi-lateral FTP Agreements as is presently the case ... The complete deregulation of the current FTP structure is not supported as it would not be in the best interests of international cricket and therefore ICC Members.”
It is a deft document, however, and implies a willingness to negotiate further. It raises no objections to the idea of introducing a meritocracy to all forms of cricket, or the creation of a new company which will tender future commercial rights for ICC events.
Nor does it oppose incorporating a “more efficient operating model for all ICC events, with a simplified accounting model across ICC income and expenditure to help better manage ICC administrative and event costs.”
But its deftness is revealed in two demands it makes at the end. One, CSA asks that it enter into immediate discussion to secure an ICC major event in the next ICC cycle (2016-2023), a period in which all ICC events are hosted by the big three boards, as well the 2027 World Cup.
It also calls for a resolution of an ICC inquiry against Haroon Lorgat, the board’s chief executive; that has resulted in Lorgat being disallowed from dealing with matters relating to the ICC or the BCCI. CSA “wishes for the current investigation into its CEO to be concluded as quickly as possible and is not willing for the case to be dropped. Needless to say, it is impacting on the efficient functioning of the organisation (and the CEO) and it is also incurring unnecessary costs.”
On Friday, a day before the meeting, the three opposing boards held strategy meetings ahead of a possible vote. SLC is engaged in a battle of legalities with the ICC already; having been told by the ICC that the revamp proposals are legally sound and can be put to vote, SLC replied with another terse letter, reiterating its arguments and gently reminds the ICC legal head of the need to act as an impartial advisor.
“We note that as a professional you are bound by your code of ethics to act and provide your views in an impartial manner,” the letter reads, “and trust you are mindful that you must discharge this onerous responsibility in the best interests of the ICC and its constituent Members.”
osamiuddin@thenational.ae