Future of Zimbabwe cricket June 27, 2008

India likely to back Zimbabwe

Cricinfo staff

The BCCI is unlikely to support any stringent action against Zimbabwe at the ICC's annual meeting in Dubai next week, a top Indian board official has indicated.

"We have always supported Zimbabwe cricket and have nothing to do with the political situation there," a senior BCCI official told Cricinfo. "In fact, we are a bit surprised that the issue has been brought up once again since the ICC board had discussed this last year and decided clearly that politics and cricket can't be mixed. The BCCI believes that a country's politics and its cricket don't go together. There is no reason to change our stand now."

On Monday, Cricket South Africa announced it was suspending its bilateral agreement with Zimbabwe Cricket, citing the worsening "general situation" there. That was quickly followed by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) scrapping a proposed tour by Zimbabwe in 2009 after the British government advised them it would support such action.

Speaking to Sky Sports on Wednesday, David Morgan, who will take over from Ray Mali as ICC president at the end of the annual meeting next week, welcomed action against Zimbabwe but warned: "It will be a very difficult discussion. India and Zimbabwe are close and India's position is crucial in all this, for sure."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Kerry on June 28, 2008, 5:41 GMT

    How can the BCCI call themselves a just council when they sanction abuses in Zimbabwe, the only way things can change is by what was done to south Africa in the apartheid era. Ban Zimbabwe in all forms whether it be sport or politics. The sporting world has to take a stand and not let a Mugabe destroy the hopes of the innocent people.

  • Chris on June 28, 2008, 3:13 GMT

    Zimbabwe has been the ICC's basket case for over a quarter of a century. It should have been granted Test status before Sri Lanka (they had hardened cricketers and were stronger at that time) but were only conveniently granted when South Africa returned to the fold. Who knows! If they were able to keep Hick nurture their junior players under the more steadying influence of Houghton, Pycroft,Curran, Traicos, Brandes and Rawson whilst they were still playing, it may have made them a more competitive team and an attractive proposition.

  • Leigh on June 27, 2008, 15:10 GMT

    Whatever happened to no normal sport in an abnormal society. This smack of double standards. But maybe in the new world "CASH IS KING"

  • venkat on June 27, 2008, 15:01 GMT

    The principle by which people are asking for zimbabwe to be banned if applied unequivocally then England and Australia should also be banned for supporting the illegal war in Iraq where thousands of iraqi civilians are murdered and were termed as collateral damage. So let's ban England and Australia first and then take on zimbabwe. As australia and England have their own reasons for waging a illegal war, so does BCCI has its own reason to support zimbabwe cricket, atleast they are not supporting mugabe only zimbabwe cricket

  • Kailash on June 27, 2008, 13:59 GMT

    Cricket and politics have to be "mixed". Cricketers live in a country and are affected by the politics. Ignoring politics means not caring for the people. Of course such interference is only necessary in case of gross negelect of the people by the rulers of that country.

  • Syed on June 27, 2008, 13:23 GMT

    Who said that politics and sport don't mix? They've mixed it before and they will do in the future..! Struggle for power and money has been the order of the day, so why call upon the honest truth. Sometimes I wonder whether they really exist. The ICC does not have the muscle or the bite but the BCCI now has both. Politisizing cricket administration in Zimbabwe was the first breakdown which caused many good players to revolt, quit or leave the country thereby plummeting the standard of the game there. So, what do you do in such a situation? BCCI wants more power cricketwise and the western powers want control and power otherwise..! It is naive to think that they don't mix.

  • stholas on June 27, 2008, 13:03 GMT

    This is disgusting. It's easy to say that sports and politics do not mix, and I can see the logic in that, but it's well documented that the funds given to the Zimbabwe cricket board are not being used for cricketing purposes. Continuing to support Zimbabwe cricket with ICC funds is akin to writing a check to Mugabe. This is no longer an issue of sports vs politics, the Zimbabwe cricket board is no longer a sporting organization. I have always resisted Western hypocrisy, but I think that they've got it right this one time.

  • Usman on June 27, 2008, 12:36 GMT

    Politis and sports do not mix. If people are so concerned about human rights violation in zimbabwe, why arent countries like Aus/SA etc helping the zimbabwe players. Think about the players in Zim who love cricket and have a dream to play the great game. If you want to ban Zimbabwe, help the players by making them play in Aus/ SA/Eng domestic cricket. Peole say that Pak and Ind did not play for a long time. But they are playing now. SA was banned but we all know that the palyers still played first class cricket in Eng.

  • Lawrie on June 27, 2008, 12:33 GMT

    It just simply another showing that India want to run the game. They think they are the power house and they think they can make all the decisions. I am not surprised in the least.

  • m on June 27, 2008, 12:32 GMT

    Could somebody explain this to me? I've read the articles and I've read the posts. Anything the international community can do to put pressure on a corrupt and dangerous regime should surely be a good thing. Corruption in Zimbabwe stretches as far as the cricketing world, just ask their exploited players. Perhaps the international community should also take a stand against China too, but the fact that they haven't doesn't make it wrong to take a stand against Zimbabwe.

    So then why does the BCCI not support international efforts? Surely not for the sake of a vote. India already has all the money and hence the power. Surely not because of the "politics and sport do not mix argument. Perhaps they don't mix, but the consequences of not acting may be so terrible (and a single death is terrible) that even a futile gesture is better than no gesture at all. Obviously, I'm looking from my own perspective, but I just do not see the other side. Can someone explain what I'm missing?

  • No featured comments at the moment.