International Cricket Council: Great Sport but Bitter Spirit
The motto of the International Cricket Council is “Great Sport Great Spirit”. But the spirit was anything but great after the failed attempt by Australia and New Zealand to install former Australia Prime Minister John Howard as the next ICC President. The reaction from both Australia and New Zealand raises many questions about their perception and intent when it comes to the world of cricket.
The ICC was set up by England, Australia and South Africa in 1909. It was then called the Imperial Cricket Conference and most of the crickets playing nations (except Australia) were still under British rule. The founding members England and Australia gave themselves veto power and almost total control over the rules, schedules, marketing and finances of the ICC (prior to 1989 the ICC was administered by a private British club known as the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)). It was only in the mid 90’s that reforms started taking place primarily due the emergence of India as the financial center of the cricketing world.
Former Australian Prime Minster was nominated to the post by Australia and New Zealand. It was their turn to nominate the president and normally the nominee is approved by members of the ICC. But test playing nations including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe and West Indies opposed the nomination (the nominee should get 7 out of the possible 12 votes to win).
The reaction from Australian businessman and former CEO of the ICC Malcolm Speed was stunning. He said “The decision of the ICC members to reject the nomination of John Howard by the cricket boards of Australia and New Zealand is a disgrace and an insult to both countries”. ICC is a democratic institution. The nomination of John Howard was rejected by countries that did not support his candidature through a democratic process. Why is this so difficult to understand?
The countries that reject Howard’s nomination are not saying that they did so because he is an Australian. They simply do not think that Howard is the right fit for the post of ICC President. Howard was the Prime Minster of Australia from 1996 to 2007. His social views are extremely conservative and are well known.
As a politician and a Prime Minister he was against multiculturalism and was a strong supporter of “One Australia” immigration policy. He is famous for saying that “I don’t think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything, for a country to say ‘we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be and nobody else”. Any Australian who was non-white clearly understood what John Howard was trying to say.
The question is why would Australia and New Zealand think that a person with such views would be welcomed by countries like India as a President of the ICC? It was downright foolish of Australia and New Zealand to nominate Howard to this post. There are many former Australian and New Zealand players who are loved and regarded highly in the cricketing world. Why pick John Howard who has little or no connection to the cricketing world?
Malcolm Speed added “The man who is to be the next ICC president, Sharad Pawar, is the Minister for Agriculture in the Indian government – a serious full-time job, feeding 1.2 billion people. He is a good and fair man but he will be working part-time as ICC president and, take it from me, he knows little about cricket administration”. I am very disappointed when Malcolm Speed made these statements. Why talk about feeding 1.2 billion Indians? What type of message is he trying to convey? This is precisely the kind of talk that cost John Howard the nomination.
I agree that it will be very difficult for Sharad Pawar to be the Minister for Agriculture and the President of the ICC. But majority of the members of the ICC who voted for him do not think that this would be a major problem. It is also totally unfair to say that Sharad Pawar does not know a lot about cricket.
Sharad Pawar has a long association not only with Indian cricket but also with the ICC. He was the Chairman of the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) from 2005 to 2008 (the BCCI for all practical purposes is the most important cricketing body in the world). So how would John Howard who has zero experience governing a cricket council be better qualified than Sharad Pawar? Malcolm Speeds comments are outright ignorant and racially motivated.
Malcolm Steel was not done yet. He added “To conclude, let me make a prediction. The ICC head office moved from London to Dubai in 2005. Howard’s rejection is a clear sign that the ICC will be based in Mumbai by 2012”. Malcolm Steel is fighting a losing battle. He sounds like many of the old timers who are refusing to let go of the past. Times have changed. India accounts for 75% of the revenues of the ICC. So it is only natural that India plays a more dominant role in the ICC. Also, it would be nice if Malcolm Steel and his supporters from New Zealand read up on what democracy and one man one vote really means.
“And so this is Xmas for black and for white, for yellow and red, let’s stop all the fight” – John Lennon
Related posts:
- Australia Should Be Allowed to Play Cricket in Mumbai
- What is Wrong With Indian Cricket?
- Ian Chappell Wins Round 1 against MS Dhoni
- IPL Puts India in an Embarassing Situation
- Why Did IPL Exclude Players from Pakistan?
Category: Sports & Entertainment