Nick Bendel
Cricket Australia is Dizzy with confusion
December 20th 2008 11:53
Standing shoulder to shoulder with the Indians, as the English have been doing in the wake of the Mumbai Massacre, is a stirring example of the former. Standing shoulder to shoulder with the Indians, as the Australians have been doing in relation to the Indian Cricket League, is a shameful example of the latter.
For those who don’t recall, it was the unofficial ICL that was the first Twenty20 league to be launched on the subcontinent. In response, the aptly-named Board of Control for Cricket in India- embarrassed at being caught unawares and appalled by the thought of losing some of its almighty influence- launched its own Indian Premier League, and threatened to excommunicate anybody who signed up for what was branded a rebel organisation.
But that was far from the end of the matter. The powerful BCCI, which generates about 70 per cent of the sport’s revenues, decided that it wasn’t enough just to bully its own countrymen- it also decided to tell foreign boards what they could and could not do. Allowing their players to join the IPL- which is expected to generate as much as a billion dollars for the BCCI during its first decade- was encouraged. Allowing their players to sign with the opposition was forbidden. Foreign boards were further instructed to treat rebels as the Indians had been treating theirs- that is, slapping them with lifetime bans preventing them from participating at any level of official cricket. While no explicit threats were made against any country that might have thought about dissenting, none needed to be. Everybody understood that if cash-strapped boards opted to think for themselves, the BCCI would ensure that a lot less money was sent their way in the future. The result was that all nine of the other test nations- at least initially- fell into line.
And none did so more enthusiastically than Australia. Although Cricket Australia is amongst the richest and most powerful governing bodies in the world, it nevertheless concluded that independence was an indulgence. Consequently, solidarity with the BCCI was declared, and a message that insubordination would not be tolerated from any of its players or officials delivered. Only retirees such as Jason Gillespie, Damien Martyn, Matthew Elliot, Michael Kasprowicz, Ian Harvey and Jimmy Maher dared to ignore that message.
Because no current Australian internationals have accepted contracts from the ICL, the league has received far less coverage locally than it did in other parts of the world. New Zealand, for example, was forced to confront the issue a year ago when its strike bowler, Shane Bond, agreed to lucrative terms with the rebels. To Bond’s dismay- and to the dismay of the ICL, which has repeatedly announced that it would happily release its players for international duty- he was expelled from the Black Caps. Pakistan has recently sacked its leading batsman, Mohammad Yousuf, for the same reason, while Bangladesh, which can ill afford to lose even a single player, has just banned a team-full of them.
Now, for the first time, Australia has found itself in a similar situation. Having been invited by the national team’s fast bowling coach, Troy Cooley, to pass on a few tips at the Centre of Excellence, Jason Gillespie has just been uninvited. “I just found out that, because of my involvement with the ICL, that doesn’t allow me to go and do any coaching there, which I think is quite unusual…It would have been two weeks working with under-age kids. Blokes are available and they don’t want to use us.”
If the ex-paceman has been left dizzy with confusion, nothing could be clearer to CA. “It is a common view among all ICC nations that we don’t support unofficial competitions,” spokesman Peter Young explained. “Where unofficial competitions recruit players from our stables it transfers value out of official cricket into other places, including into the pockets of private entrepreneurs. Based on that principle, we didn’t believe it was appropriate to go ahead with a coaching offer. Where a player is involved in an unofficial competition, they are unable to support our cricket. It is the same as it was back in the early ‘70s with value being transferred out of community-owned cricket and into privately owned cricket.”
Persuasive though Young’s argument may sound, it could be that Gillespie does, after all, have the most complete understanding of the situation. “Why don’t they just come out and say they are scared of India and be done with it?” The South Australian has captured CA’s position in a nutshell: his former governing body is in it for the money.
What makes this position so maddening is that it is as short-sighted as it is greedy. Any benefits that Australia and the other test countries may gain from supporting the BCCI can only be less than those enjoyed by the Indians, as the extra money and power that they are ceded is dwarfed by the money and power that they help the Indians create. To use an analogy, the BCCI is like a powerful businessman, and the other boards its cowering employees. These employees are given incentives to boost the businessman’s revenues, but are then allocated just a small percentage of the expanded profits. So, as the workers take a small step forward, their boss makes a giant leap. In other words, while they are busy congratulating themselves on getting richer, they fail to appreciate that- relatively speaking- they are actually getting poorer.
What is the solution? The answer is to unionise. For as much as the other nine countries need the Indians, the Indians need them even more. If the businessman’s entire workforce goes on strike, he will be ruined, because there is no other pool of labour to draw on. Yes, players such as Dhoni, Tendulkar and Sehwag compel millions of Indians to watch the IPL, but the league’s real lure comes from the much greater number of foreign stars it has in its ranks- stars such as Warne, Gilchrist, Symonds, Ponting, Hayden, Lee, McGrath, Muralitharan, Jayasuria, Sangakkara, Kallis, Chanderpaul, Afridi, Akhtar and Vettori. The same principle applies to international matches; yes, millions of Indians will tune in to watch their heroes perform, but they also want to get to know all the other cricketers from all the other teams. If India is ostracised, it will quickly discover that there is little joy to be had in playing itself, and must surely, sooner or later, be prepared to modify its behaviour. Any South African who lived through the years of boycott could tell you that.
It is time for CA to follow the lead of some of its associates and grow a backbone. The feisty Arjuna Ranatunga, who these days presides over Sri Lanka Cricket, decided earlier this year to allow so-called rebels to play in its domestic competition, despite the fact that his impoverished board is in much more urgent need of Indian patronage than CA. The England and Wales Cricket Board has backed down as well, albeit after learning that banning anybody who had participated in the ICL was an illegal restraint of trade.
If Gillespie resorted to the courts, we might very well discover that CA’s policy was also unconstitutional. However, it shouldn’t come to that. Australia should follow the lead of England and Sri Lanka and adopt the one approach that is both ethical and intelligent. If Gillespie or any other uncontracted cricketer wants to go and play in the ICL, why the hell shouldn’t they? Of course, the same rule should not apply to those who are on retainers, but if somebody has not signed an agreement with CA, why the hell should he be maltreated for then deciding to sign an agreement with somebody else? Such behaviour is manifestly unjust.
Furthermore, it is stupid, due to the vicious cycle that it entrenches. When countries excommunicate their players and officials for linking with the ICL, they simultaneously weaken their hand and boost India’s. That in turn makes them more dependant on the BCCI, which in turn makes them more compliant, which in turn makes them more willing to accept conditions that weaken their hand and boost India’s. And so we go on and on, allowing the Indian giant to grow ever-bigger. At this rate, it won’t be long before 75 per cent and then 80 per cent and then 85 per cent of the sport’s revenues come from that part of the world.
Jason Gillespie needs to be re-invited to coach at the Centre of Excellence. Rebels need to be welcomed back into the fold and urged to pass on their knowledge to the next generation. Cricketers have to start being treated with decency. And, above all, the BCCI bully needs to be confronted forthwith, because if it is permitted to get any more dominant, it might one day be too late. If CA takes a lead on this issue, it just might find that other persecuted boards follow. That would be precisely the kind of solidarity that cricket needs.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Comment by Buckman
I agree with most of what you say about the Dizzy situation, he should certainly be allowed to coach. If it was a current national player (ie like Bond), then you can understand a board banning him from the national squad. But retired players shouldn't be treated the same. Surely it's no worse than retired AFL players going to punt in the NFL...
I believe the option of unionising, however, is the wrong one. The way I see it, the other nations need India far more than India needs them. The elephant in the room here is the Indian Premier League. If the other nine boards get too uppity, BCCI can always focus its vast resources on the IPL and shun international cricket altogether. It's difficult to see the top players turning down contracts vastly in excess of what they are getting in order to play international cricket. Consequently, it's difficult to see Indian audiences turning off the IPL should it have the majority of big name players in its ranks. International Cricket will be relegated to the second tier in the same way international soccer has - only without the same drawcard that is the World Cup of Football.
So what can CA do about this? The answer is probably nothing. By kowtowing to what the BCCI want, they are probably merely delaying the inevitable. As is always the case, privatising such competitions tends to make them vastly more profitable. Cricket's been through one revolution in the late 1970s, but that will be nothing compared with what will happen next.