ICC annual conference

Cost, structure behind Twenty20 culling - ICC

Sharda Ugra in Hong Kong

June 30, 2011

Comments: 15 | Text size: A | A

Dawlat Ahmadzai celebrates the dismissal of Gautam Gambhir with his team-mates, Afghanistan v India, World Twenty20, Gros Islet, May 1, 2010
The likes of Afghanistan could be missing at the next World Twenty20, as the ICC decided to cut four Associate-Affiliate teams due to structural issues © AFP
Related Links
Players/Officials: Haroon Lorgat

The decision to cut four Associate-Affiliate teams from the next two World Twenty20 events was taken because of the structural issues, including costing, with regard to a "package" of three ICC events, ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat has said. The three events are the World Test Championship, the 50-over World Cup, and the World Twenty20; by adding four teams to the 2015 50-over World Cup, the ICC had no choice but cut the number from the Twenty20 events.

"If you change one, you have to change the other," he told ESPNcricinfo.

When asked if it cost was a factor Lorgat replied, "It is true to say that there are always financial implications... part of the restructure brought in a Test championship. That's a new model, a new event so obviously you've got to fund it. We wanted to have a 10-team World Cup in a 50-over format, which is sustainable provided you have context and you have a proper contest. In the World Twenty20, we were prepared to go up to 16 teams competing in that event. In order to balance all of that, it was very much a package decision we had made where funding would have balanced out, the model would have balanced out, the competition would have worked in my view... Once you change one, you have to see what the implications are on the other. And it was 14 teams in the World Cup and back to 12 in the Twenty20."

Lorgat did not reveal the increase in cost that would have been incurred from hosting another 16-nation Twenty20 event next year but Associate-Affiliate representatives understood the cost of four more teams from the non-Test playing nations would be an additional $3 million per event. When asked whether the package plan had been explained to the smaller nations in April, Lorgat said, "I didn't meet with them personally, but they have delegates with them who are engaged in these debates." In the Executive Board, the 40 smaller nations are represented by the heads of Bermuda, Scotland and Singapore.

Later, speaking at a press conference, Lorgat said the decision would not be changed, "It was important for us to have made that decision [about the size of the World Twenty20 field] in this conference because the planning for that event is well under way... we will be releasing match schedules, venues and so on and that decision is pretty much cast in stone."

The ICC ended its annual conference with a full council meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, housed in Hong Kong's tallest building, the International Commerce Centre. Representatives from Malaysia, Botswana and Papua New Guinea spoke for their comrades, expressing their displeasure and what the subsequent ICC statement called "disappointment" at the package agreement.

As the conference broke up after a final group photograph and one last lunch, feelings were mixed. Twenty20 has always been sold as the easiest format with which to globalise the sport and to have numbers slashed after offering six non-Test nations a spot in next year's event has disappointed many. Several Associates have worked at getting their teams into the World T20 qualifying competition in the UAE next year, only to be told that the numbers had been cut from six to two. Lorgat conceded the point: "I support the view that the best way to globalise the game would be through the Twenty20 format and that is held every alternate year. So in my view 16 teams participating in the Twenty20 every two years is the way to globalise the game. But as I said, this was part of a comprehensive restructure, if you change the one you have to change the other."

Some younger Associate representatives said it was the first time they had got a chance to be heard. One of the older members, attending his 20th and last ICC annual meeting, said he believed the Associates and Affiliates had found their voice and he found them more confident than ever before. But he said that in the past, the Full Members had mingled more freely with the Associates and Affiliates whereas in Hong Kong there had been clear social divisions between the two. In this conference, the first time in five days that the two worlds collided was on the last night of the event on Wednesday at the gala dinner. The ICC's growing globalised world is far from flat.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (July 1, 2011, 23:58 GMT)

How exactly is a test championship meant to work if everyone plays a different amount of tests?

Posted by cricket2011 on (July 1, 2011, 10:39 GMT)



Posted by   on (July 1, 2011, 7:41 GMT)

Whatever we say now but the whole thing is now finalized and we have to face the implications now

Posted by Vernacular_Press on (July 1, 2011, 1:58 GMT)

@LeScotsman...pls read the article clearly...... ICC would ve used the money which is due to be spend for associates during WC2015.

Posted by Joji_ on (July 1, 2011, 0:35 GMT)

Frankly speaking I don't a lot of difference in governance structure of PCB and ICC anymore !! Both are pathetic .

Posted by ankukam on (June 30, 2011, 23:52 GMT)

I really wish the BCCI, ECB and CA would get some sense and part with a small part of their revenue to help develop the sport outside the 10 Test nations. Really sad that these heavy weights dont want to see the development of the game outside their T20 leagues.

Posted by WhatMustTheICCThink on (June 30, 2011, 22:45 GMT)

Amazing! Didn't they announce record profits after the last (14 team) World Cup? And now they're saying they can only afford 12 and 10 teams for future events. Lies.

Posted by   on (June 30, 2011, 21:42 GMT)

I don't think cost is the issue here - LeScotsman is right that it's a dishonest answer. It's much more about appeasing those who wanted a 10 team WC in 2015.

No player can really complain about having to play one extra match, as they would with the 16 team format, crowds will enjoy the couple of extra days, and there are lots of exciting things which can happen in 4 team groups where only 2 progress.

Posted by   on (June 30, 2011, 19:41 GMT)

Is not that Simple

World Cup/ Championship

Test Match - Top 8 Teams

One day - Top 8 Teams + 2 Qualifying team (from 9-13)

T 20 - Top 12 or 14 (or what ever)

Posted by diddles on (June 30, 2011, 16:33 GMT)

More sad leadership from the ICC and the various test board executive members. These guys obviously can't walk and chew gum at the same time!! Complete jokers!! Seriously, do they want to develop world cricket or not..you have to question their sincerity at times. At the grassroots level, the ICC development team are doing some good work, but their work and all the countries concerned are being let down by the ICC Executive. It was good to see the public/media and the associates/affiliates pressure the ICC into overturning that silly decision to reduce next world cup from 14 to 10 teams...you want countries like Ireland, Afghanistan, Holland, etc being able to compete in that event..teams like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe came to test cricket through that avenue. But at the same time, Twenty 20 can be used sensibly too as another development tool, and 16 teams for an event that should last at most a couple of weeks, does not seem excessive. The ICC drops the ball again. Sad.

Posted by   on (June 30, 2011, 16:19 GMT)

This is how you make every event possible boring. The WC -15 is boring due to the inclusion of the associates, WCT20 is boring by their exclusion. I would rather watch a 20 over associate carnival than a 50 over associate carnival. The pain increases with every over.

Posted by   on (June 30, 2011, 15:46 GMT)

Yevghenny it must feel bad to be as bitter and out of the loop as you seem to be, it's not just one result, it's the accumulation of things that Ireland have achieved, and done so while not always gaining much help at all but to keep coming back when the big boys try to knock us down...

Posted by   on (June 30, 2011, 15:42 GMT)

1 step forward, 20 backwards

Posted by Yevghenny on (June 30, 2011, 15:08 GMT)

Completely the wrong way round. Nobody will watch an associate v test 50 over game, much more chance of something happening in the 20 over format. I keep hearing about Ireland beating England, but that was a once in a lifetime performance in a match where 99 times out of 100 England win from the position they were in

Posted by LeScotsman on (June 30, 2011, 14:31 GMT)

More dishonesty from the ICC. If cost were the issue, then how come three days ago the Associates had 12 places in the next three world cups, and now they have 8? If cost is the issue, why don't we trim the budget for ICC bureaucrats jet-setting all over the world first-class and lounging in five-star hotels for months at a time? This decision is utterly devoid of logic and fairness.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Sharda UgraClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days