Imagine a World in which Every International Game Really Counts

The World Cricketers Association shows that it's possible.

People may not listen and nothing may change, but that’s never a good enough reason to stay silent when everyone knows something is wrong in the workplace and you believe you know a better way forward. Especially when you are a member of the workforce. Or the majority of the workforce.

So, the World Cricketers Association spent six months and a lot of money attempting to resolve the many, complex issues facing the global game and released their final report on Wednesday. It is a comprehensive document which not only honestly identifies the problems but offers detailed solutions.

It is not a disgruntled whinge but a constructive assessment of the current leadership structures in place around the world and a playing schedule which is “…chaotic and confusing.” There is nothing random or emotional about its forecast for the future and the likely demise of international cricket should things stay as they are. Every prediction is supported by facts and analysis.

The ICC was restructured in 2014 – emasculated is more accurate – formalising its transition from an administrative body to a private members club in which the BCCI would be far and away the most powerful and influential. The WCA report concludes, obviously, that the global game will never grow or maximise its potential while the members of the club are self-serving above the wider interests of the global game.

The report illustrates, dispassionately, how and why the staggeringly disproportionate revenue distribution will lead to the stagnation and eventual demise of international cricket in many nations outside India, Australia and England. A review and restructuring of the revenue model is the least likely of the recommendations to be adopted. Actually, there is no chance. But this report was about the unvarnished, uncompromised truth.

The suggested solutions are not vague proposals. People who know and care about the game have been saying for years that ‘windows’ need to be created for international cricket just as they are for the IPL. But they have stopped short of actually suggesting when, where and how they might be implemented. Understandably, the intense nitty-gritty involved led most proponents to file the realities in the ‘too hard’ basket.

Not the WCA. They provided a graphic blueprint. Four three-week windows for international cricket between February and March, May and June, the last three weeks of September and the first three of December. It suggests that every nation plays each other in each format in the course of a two-year cycle. The India/Pakistan political situation nothwithstanding. But this was about showing what was possible without pretending it’s a perfect world.

In a move which would have horrified many (including me) just a few short years ago, the report also suggests that fixtures between nations should be a “minimum” of one match. So,Australia and England could, if they chose, to play Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland in one-off Tests. Even single ODIs and T20Is. But with every game ‘counting’ (no more meaningless bilaterals) would they risk doing that? Even if they did choose to ‘do’ a minor nation in eight or nine days with one-offs in all three formats, at least they would be playing them.

And how would these games ‘count’? All 12 Test nations competing for four places in semi-finals and a final in a three (or four) week festival of the best against the best. In the ODI league there would be 24 teams competing for 14 World Cup places and eight Champions Trophy spots. The T20 International league would have 32 teams competing for 20 places in the bi-annual World Cup.

I love it. The ‘big’ members would obviously control the scheduling and it would become a part of their strategical planning. One-off Test matches would have enormous significance. Smaller nations, who would almost certainly lose a series, could rise to the challenge of a single fixture and spring a surprise. Especially in white-ball fixtures.

All of this acknowledges that T20 domestic leagues pay players more in most countries than their national contracts. It also allows time and space for the ‘big three’ to play the Ashes and Border-Gavaskar Trophy over five Tests and space for the T20 Leagues.

The report committee spoke to 64 people – some say there should have been more players - but several of them were national captains and other influential former and current administrators who could confidently say they were speaking on behalf of a significant group of others.

National boards are still driven by the outdated concept of providing ‘content’ during their home summers to satisfy the contracts they have with broadcasters to supply, say, 25 days of international cricket. It’s why Pakistan are currently being flogged pointlessly in New Zealand with a squad of players interested only in their match fees. Similar scenarios have been playing out around the world for years.

Much of the information contained in the report has been known for years but rarely stated openly for fear of angering the BCCI, worrying broadcasters or deterring sponsors. Salaries in most domestic T20 leagues are between two and four times the value of national contracts and the flow of players turning freelance has increased from a trickle to a flow.

The WCA knows what to expect from the ‘establishment’, at least initially. Disdain, disrespect, ignorance and a cold shoulder. Like headmasters and prison warders, most national administrators will regard the report as an attempt by their pupils and inmates to tell them, the bosses, how to run their establishments.

But the hard work which they were unwilling or unable to do, has now been done. A solution to the current malaise and a vision for the future is now in a folder and freely available for all to read, discuss, amend and even implement. It will gather dust for a while the BCCI ploughs onwards making more and more money for itself and leaving everyone else behind. There will be casualties.

But one day, somewhere, someone will say: ‘What did that report from the players say, again? Maybe we should have another look at it…’

(I hate to ask but if anybody feels an inclination to click on the ‘buy-me-a-coffee’ icon, I’d love an Americano… or perhaps even an upgrade to a paid subscription for just £4 per month. But only if you can afford it! Cheers.)