ICC's revamp plans January 22, 2014

Edwards responds to 'Big Three' criticism

156

Wally Edwards, the Cricket Australia chairman and a key figure in the drafting of a proposal to centralise power in world cricket with India and England, has broken his usual silence to defend the plan in the face of heavy criticism from the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA).

Through FICA's chairman Paul Marsh, the world's cricketers have voiced their strong opposition to the proposed revamp of the ICC's structure, declaring that it would only serve to strengthen India, England and Australia while weakening the rest.

Commonly preferring to work the back channels of cricket administration before speaking publicly, Edwards said he felt compelled to respond to FICA's contention that the nations involved in drafting the proposal had defied their commitment to work in the best interests of the ICC by doing so.

"Traditionally, CA does not comment on ICC discussions it is about to have - we talk to other ICC nations across the table rather than via the media," Edwards said. "But we were today disappointed to see the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations question whether CA and others have met their fiduciary duties as ICC members.

"Setting aside the fact that we are yet to discuss and vote, CA's approach internationally is consistent with its approach at home where we have made significant strides improving the governance of Australian cricket. There will be a discussion in the next few days among the ICC's full member nations about possible changes to how the ICC works.

"CA's view going into that discussion is that we need to continue to promote international cricket competitions including the primacy of Test cricket, we need to improve global cricket leadership and we support that members should be working to promote the interest of the game as their priority."

Edwards is the first chairman of the three nations tabling the proposal to speak publicly about it. Neither N Srinivasan of the BCCI nor Giles Clarke of the ECB have been prepared to talk about the proposal or its implications, preferring to wait until the raft of changes are voted on by the ICC executive board at their next meeting on January 28 and 29.

FICA, which represents player associations in seven of the ICC's ten full member countries, had declared itself "extremely concerned" with the leaked proposal, which would place the ICC largely in the control of the so-called "Big Three" nations. Marsh said players had a real fear the proposal would leave countries outside the Big Three to "wither on the vine".

"There are a myriad of issues with this proposal," Marsh said. "First and foremost, as board directors of the ICC, the Chairmen of the BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB owe fiduciary duties to the ICC that include putting the interests of the ICC ahead of those of their individual boards, a duty to remain loyal to the ICC and avoid conflicts of interests and to act in good faith to promote the success of the ICC. We seriously question whether all of these duties have been met.

"The proposals relating to scheduling are disturbing. The reassurance to the boards outside the 'Big Three' that they are guaranteed to earn more in the next rights cycle than they have in the current one ignores the fact they are almost certain to lose more money from a re-shaped Future Tours Programme (FTP) than they will gain from ICC distributions, when the 'Big Three' inevitably pick and choose who, when and where they will play.

"Of significance is the section that offers a guarantee from Cricket Australia and the ECB to play three Tests and five ODIs per cycle to each of the top eight members, yet there is no mention of any such guarantee from the BCCI. Each of the member countries, including Australia and England, rely heavily on Indian tours for sustainability of the game in their country. What chance do the majority of members have of survival if the BCCI decides not to tour their countries on at least a semi-regular basis?

"The result of this is that the gap between the 'Big Three' and the rest will get bigger and bigger, which will undermine the competitiveness of future ICC events and therefore the value of rights in future cycles. This will affect everyone and it cannot possibly be in the interests of international cricket nor of the health and sustainability of the world game of which the ICC is supposed to be the custodian."

Boards of ICC members outside the Big Three have expressed differing views on the proposal, with Cricket South Africa arguing the idea is "fundamentally flawed" and "in breach of the ICC constitution", while New Zealand Cricket said it was wrong to jump to the conclusion that the proposal would be bad for cricket. However, FICA has raised concerns about the potential increased financial strain that could affect countries already struggling to make money from the game.

"We also have significant concern with the notion that distributions from ICC events should be based on commercial contribution," Marsh said. "The result of this will be the countries that need ICC income most will receive the least, whilst the 'Big Three' will get the lion's share even though they are already financially healthy because of the value of the rights to their bilateral series.

"The role of ICC events should be to assist in levelling the financial playing field by distributing the proceeds from these events fairly, rather than further widening the gap between the rich and poor. Whilst these are an entirely foreseeable commercial outcomes, for the cricket fan the greater concern is the increasing gulf in quality between the 'Big Three' and the rest. The essence of sport is competition and those in control of the ICC should be doing all they can to promote and provide a level playing field. This proposal will achieve the complete opposite.

"Ironically the proposal espouses the principal of meritocracy. The linking of immunity from Test relegation for BCCI, ECB and CA to an argument that this is necessary 'solely to protect ICC income' is plainly wrong, given the fact no Test-based ICC events feature in the forward thinking and therefore all revenues generated from Test cricket are kept by the boards hosting the respective series."

Daniel Brettig and Brydon Coverdale are assistant editors at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on January 26, 2014, 12:44 GMT

    Dear IND-ENG&CA - Cricket is Business to you but ‪#‎Oxygen‬ for us in Bangladesh. Don't take our #‎Oxygen‬ for your Business....

  • on January 26, 2014, 10:36 GMT

    Big3's proposal is for the betterment of cricket by winning more. This will result in attracting more followers in their respective countries so here is my alternate proposal. * The big three should be given the authority to play on the kind of pitches they want play. Like India if they are performing well on flat pitches they should be given flat pitches around the world no matter if they are playing in South Africa or in New Zealand. Same for England if they cannot play on slow and spinning pitches they should be given the chance to choose the kind of pitches they want to play * Big3 should also be given the authority to drop any three players in the opposition. Take For example Srilanka, Aussies should have authority to drop any three players like Snagakara, Jawaredane and Malinga before match and then play against them.

  • on January 25, 2014, 17:10 GMT

    This is the worst idea like "Big3" from any kind of top executive . How can they think like this!!!! Without SA, SL, WI, PAK..... they are big3! How they calculate it? Only money! We, billion of supporters are not stupid. We will hate and avoid this type of discrimination.

  • JetsFanInDenver on January 24, 2014, 18:50 GMT

    On one hand most boards openly say that they depend on BCCI for sustaining themselves and on the other hand they do not want to nourish the hand that feeds them.

    The reason BCCI generates a whole bunch of revenue is because cricket is the most followed game in India and attracts sponsors. But in this ever changing world where there are professional sports leagues with deeper pockets trying to get the attention of the Indian viewer it becomes even more critical for BCCI to ramp up its marketing and promotion of the game. So why would these other boards not want BCCI to have a bigger chunk of the revenue ?

  • on January 24, 2014, 16:28 GMT

    The more subltle message here is that the "big three" are saying that over the years countries benefitting from ICC payments have not exhibited financially sound accounting for those funds. With the new media deal coming in 2015 it is expected that overall revenues will increase and that before the other boards receive any more funding they must make themselves more efficient and use any ICC payouts in constructive ways. If India waste money it is their prerogative as they earn and contribute the lions share of revenues but if the boards of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh are corrupt or waste money why should they receive any increase.

  • Equanimous on January 24, 2014, 15:13 GMT

    The argument that if india brings in 80 percent they should get 80 percent , is deeply flawed. First India doesn't bring in 80 percent by themselves. They have to play another team to do that. Second, they don't own the game itself. The game survived when they weren't a part of it and will endure without them. Do they pay royalties to the guy who invented the game? Seems to me that they should be thankful for getting as much as they do.

    ICC must be an independent organization to safeguard the interests of the game and to develop it. All funds generated by "the game" should go to them and invested back into the game.

  • SaadRocx on January 24, 2014, 14:56 GMT

    Cricket will die the day Big3 happens.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 24, 2014, 7:48 GMT

    @Greatest_Game, mate relax! No point in letting your blood boil. You guys can't generate interest in your own public even when Kallis is retiring. Only day 5 stadium had some reasonable numbers, if I'm not wrong. Bottom-line is in spite of having a very good team, what does it tell you that the numbers are so weak from your countrymen. Instead of showing your frustration here, realise that BCCI is strong not because the people in BCCI are strong but because the craze for cricket in our country is unconditional. Nobody needs to force us to watch cricket. We just need excuses to go watch cricket. Show half this anger (that you are showing here) at your own countrymen's utter disinterest in cricket and wake them up. So, mate you see the point here? This game is played for money and fame. That's the cold and harsh reality. It's in the best interest of CSA to toe the line drawn by BCCI, CA and ECB, IMHO. India and SA are always friends and I hope all the differences will be sorted out.

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 24, 2014, 5:03 GMT

    Putting my thinking cap on, what the BCCI are trying to do makes SENSE. For example, if I bring over 80% of income in a big family with several members, of whom nine are about the same age as me, then obviously I get a bigger say in matters of the house as well as a nice hefty allowance every month for my personal expenses and enjoyment. That's exactly what the BCCI are trying to do or 'get' rather. It makes perfect sense now. The sad part though is world cricket won't benefit in any way. The BCCI will become even richer followed by England and Australia, and the rest will become poorer. The countries in between like SA, SL, and PAK will suffer the most because they are technically 'developing' nations of the cricket world and this is when they need to improve their financial position more so than ever before. World cricket is at the crossroads.

  • Manoj1234 on January 24, 2014, 0:29 GMT

    It seems OK if this is only about the financial distribution. If you contribute to 80% of the revenue you will not be happy getting 5% of the share. Its not a charity.

  • on January 26, 2014, 12:44 GMT

    Dear IND-ENG&CA - Cricket is Business to you but ‪#‎Oxygen‬ for us in Bangladesh. Don't take our #‎Oxygen‬ for your Business....

  • on January 26, 2014, 10:36 GMT

    Big3's proposal is for the betterment of cricket by winning more. This will result in attracting more followers in their respective countries so here is my alternate proposal. * The big three should be given the authority to play on the kind of pitches they want play. Like India if they are performing well on flat pitches they should be given flat pitches around the world no matter if they are playing in South Africa or in New Zealand. Same for England if they cannot play on slow and spinning pitches they should be given the chance to choose the kind of pitches they want to play * Big3 should also be given the authority to drop any three players in the opposition. Take For example Srilanka, Aussies should have authority to drop any three players like Snagakara, Jawaredane and Malinga before match and then play against them.

  • on January 25, 2014, 17:10 GMT

    This is the worst idea like "Big3" from any kind of top executive . How can they think like this!!!! Without SA, SL, WI, PAK..... they are big3! How they calculate it? Only money! We, billion of supporters are not stupid. We will hate and avoid this type of discrimination.

  • JetsFanInDenver on January 24, 2014, 18:50 GMT

    On one hand most boards openly say that they depend on BCCI for sustaining themselves and on the other hand they do not want to nourish the hand that feeds them.

    The reason BCCI generates a whole bunch of revenue is because cricket is the most followed game in India and attracts sponsors. But in this ever changing world where there are professional sports leagues with deeper pockets trying to get the attention of the Indian viewer it becomes even more critical for BCCI to ramp up its marketing and promotion of the game. So why would these other boards not want BCCI to have a bigger chunk of the revenue ?

  • on January 24, 2014, 16:28 GMT

    The more subltle message here is that the "big three" are saying that over the years countries benefitting from ICC payments have not exhibited financially sound accounting for those funds. With the new media deal coming in 2015 it is expected that overall revenues will increase and that before the other boards receive any more funding they must make themselves more efficient and use any ICC payouts in constructive ways. If India waste money it is their prerogative as they earn and contribute the lions share of revenues but if the boards of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh are corrupt or waste money why should they receive any increase.

  • Equanimous on January 24, 2014, 15:13 GMT

    The argument that if india brings in 80 percent they should get 80 percent , is deeply flawed. First India doesn't bring in 80 percent by themselves. They have to play another team to do that. Second, they don't own the game itself. The game survived when they weren't a part of it and will endure without them. Do they pay royalties to the guy who invented the game? Seems to me that they should be thankful for getting as much as they do.

    ICC must be an independent organization to safeguard the interests of the game and to develop it. All funds generated by "the game" should go to them and invested back into the game.

  • SaadRocx on January 24, 2014, 14:56 GMT

    Cricket will die the day Big3 happens.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 24, 2014, 7:48 GMT

    @Greatest_Game, mate relax! No point in letting your blood boil. You guys can't generate interest in your own public even when Kallis is retiring. Only day 5 stadium had some reasonable numbers, if I'm not wrong. Bottom-line is in spite of having a very good team, what does it tell you that the numbers are so weak from your countrymen. Instead of showing your frustration here, realise that BCCI is strong not because the people in BCCI are strong but because the craze for cricket in our country is unconditional. Nobody needs to force us to watch cricket. We just need excuses to go watch cricket. Show half this anger (that you are showing here) at your own countrymen's utter disinterest in cricket and wake them up. So, mate you see the point here? This game is played for money and fame. That's the cold and harsh reality. It's in the best interest of CSA to toe the line drawn by BCCI, CA and ECB, IMHO. India and SA are always friends and I hope all the differences will be sorted out.

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 24, 2014, 5:03 GMT

    Putting my thinking cap on, what the BCCI are trying to do makes SENSE. For example, if I bring over 80% of income in a big family with several members, of whom nine are about the same age as me, then obviously I get a bigger say in matters of the house as well as a nice hefty allowance every month for my personal expenses and enjoyment. That's exactly what the BCCI are trying to do or 'get' rather. It makes perfect sense now. The sad part though is world cricket won't benefit in any way. The BCCI will become even richer followed by England and Australia, and the rest will become poorer. The countries in between like SA, SL, and PAK will suffer the most because they are technically 'developing' nations of the cricket world and this is when they need to improve their financial position more so than ever before. World cricket is at the crossroads.

  • Manoj1234 on January 24, 2014, 0:29 GMT

    It seems OK if this is only about the financial distribution. If you contribute to 80% of the revenue you will not be happy getting 5% of the share. Its not a charity.

  • Greatest_Game on January 23, 2014, 23:04 GMT

    Aus are pathetic at cricket anyway. They have lost their spine. All they can do is beat the Poms. Whoooopeeee! Even India thrashes Aus. Sad, but true. Aus batting is so poor they are trying to get Kepler Wessels to come out of retirement, hoping a Saffa can save them again. Like the Eng team - more Saffas than Poms.

  • Greatest_Game on January 23, 2014, 23:00 GMT

    @ oz_rules wrote "@ProteaMan, every facet of the game? where r u in ODI and T20I? SA is the worst No1 test team in this aspect. When AUS, IND and ENG were No.1 in test cricket they were at the top of ODI and T20I as well."

    Aus are ODI #1 because SA & NZ took down India. India destroyed, completely destroyed, Aus in tests & ODIs. Aus have their current, shortly to be held ranking, ONLY because of NZ & SA. Aus could not do it alone. The best Aus can do is to beat the Poms, who were crushed by SA in 2012 & never recovered.

    The same happened to Aus, & will happen again when they tour SA. Aus will scuttle home with tails between legs crying BCCI, ECB, help us - the Saffas are thrashing us again, throw them out of the ICC. Relegate them. They are too good for us all.

    Yeah man - we are waiting. There will be blood.

  • Greatest_Game on January 23, 2014, 22:52 GMT

    India cannot beat South Africa at cricket. Period. SA completely dominates India. Therefore, there is no chance that India will tour SA. The BCCI hates to see their team lose, and of course they will. England is sick to death of SA coming to Eng, beating them & retiring another Eng captain. The last time Aus lost consecutive home tours - before their recent defeats by SA in 08 & 12 - was to the Windies somewhere back in the 80s. There is o chance that "The Big #" as people are already calling them, will continue to allow their teams to be dominated by SA. They will simply not Play SA. Their "assurances" are worth nothing. Zero.

    They will isolate SA, and prey upon SA's best talent to bolster their flagging ranks. Already SA has the most players in international cricket. We know where Eng get their batsmen & keepers, even skippers like Tony Greig, NZ their keepers & bowlers. India will solve their problem of never having any quick bowlers - they will just ship them in from SA.

  • on January 23, 2014, 19:37 GMT

    My Proposal to make Cricket more popular and profitable: (Continued after previous post) 4.Pool B" countries will need to play with other members of their pool (3 series ) and play against 2 countries from Pool A (2 series) in each year. Next year, they will play against 2 countries from rest of the 4 countries of Pool A. It will be mandatory that Pool B countries will need to play 2 countries from Pool A in each year. As a result, Pool B countries will get opportunity to play against 5 countries from both pool. 5.All the series must be consists of minimum 3-tests,5-ODIs and 3-T20s. As a result,all the countries of ICC will get opportunity to play minimum 15-tests, 25-ODIs and 15-T20 matches in each year.(As all the countries will need to play 5 series -against 5 countries). 6.ICC will finalize ATP based on above mentioned policy.Except this,ICC members may organize series within themselves based on mutual understanding. But,ATP matches according to Policy must be obeyed.

  • on January 23, 2014, 19:29 GMT

    To make cricket more competitive, make ATP more attractive, I have some suggestions: 1.ICC can make the test playing countries in two pools: Pool A: Australia, South Africa, England, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka Pool B: West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe Note: every 2 years time, pool will be fixed for next 2 years duration -first 6 ranking countries will be in Pool A and last 4 countries will be in Pool B. 2.All the countries of ICC will need to play minimum 5 series against 5 countries in each year. 3."Pool A" countries will need to play against "3 countries" from Pool A and "2 countries" from Pool B in each year. Next year, they must play with remaining countries of each pool with whom they did not play in the first year. As a result, Pool A countries will get opportunity to play against 5 countries from both pool. 4.Pool B" countries will need to play with each other of their pool (3 series) and play against 2 countries from Pool A (2 series) in each year.....

  • on January 23, 2014, 17:14 GMT

    Ok, no more cricket for me if this bill gets passed. I'm going to football, at least the governing body and the respective boards do care about the sport there....

  • Lord_ABRACADABRA on January 23, 2014, 13:11 GMT

    Shame on BCCI ... You guy's are going to regret all this ..I bet

  • on January 23, 2014, 12:44 GMT

    im not gonna watch cricket anymore!!!!!............associate country never get a chance to play any big game with full member country. icc thinks only 8 country allowed to play even loose or win...!! icc should do open competition in whole global for world cup Qualifying match like a football......full member country scared to play with other country because of if they loose the match unfortunately it will be shame......that's why india,australia,england giving pressure n pressure to icc and creating their own rules......means other countries can't improve their cricket. that's why icc should think about it and try to broke out cricket craze in the world

  • haq33 on January 23, 2014, 10:44 GMT

    And so at last we see the true face of the conspiracy - the republic WILL be reorganised into the 1st galactic empire.

  • crick_sucks on January 23, 2014, 10:31 GMT

    @rafiqweb, economics is the name of an extinct animal, isn't it?

  • crick_sucks on January 23, 2014, 10:30 GMT

    @ProteaMan, every facet of the game? where r u in ODI and T20I? SA is the worst No1 test team in this aspect. When AUS, IND and ENG were No.1 in test cricket they were at the top of ODI and T20I as well.

  • crick_sucks on January 23, 2014, 10:25 GMT

    @wapuser, why do you single out India. I am sure that is the case with Australia as well.

  • on January 23, 2014, 8:50 GMT

    I thought we were past those days when the world was being ruled by kings & queens. The stronger parties deciding to rule the world because they feel it needs a ruler & they will continue to keep ruling foreve.

  • on January 23, 2014, 8:23 GMT

    India is one step away from having the players incite a new body to represent them. I can tell you without fear of contradiction South Africa will acknowledge them as the rightful board if it acts in the best interest of cricket. The current Indian board is shameful in their pursuance if commercial interest at the cost of cricket interests.

  • Sagarneel on January 23, 2014, 8:07 GMT

    This is nothing but an ugly battle of a bunch of power loving people. Cricket is gradually becoming a dying sport, and instead of broadening horizons, the plans are set to shrink it further. Infact, the greatest change that cricket needs at this moment is the ICC itself.

  • Neel_123 on January 23, 2014, 7:59 GMT

    @ Mahiuddin Hafiz-ul Huq: "Cricket is not played even by 1/15 of world's population."

    Strange! I thought INDIA alone has more than 1/6th of world's population!

  • on January 23, 2014, 7:55 GMT

    soon bcci will start reverting all the cricketing (on ground) decisions going against india . I BET

  • catchoftheday on January 23, 2014, 7:30 GMT

    Two things.

    1. ICC's first responsibility is for the game as a whole, not just cricket in particular countries like Australia (Div 1) or Estonia (Div 5). ICC is the custodian of the world game and need to be seen to have more than the vested interests of their own country.

    2. The point they make about the best countries playing the best countries more often means that their first mistake is in not including South Africa in their group of three / four - but that smacks of politics. In that sense the idea of a top group and a promotion - relegation system is not so bad, but it also needs to somehow include the chance of all the other countries being able to pit themselves against the top teams as a way of developing their own skills. Further, emerging teams need to be able to come in, be competitive and widen the real interest in the game.

  • on January 23, 2014, 7:18 GMT

    Mr Supreet Singh, I remember when cricket used to be the gentleman's game... then people like you started to have a say in it...

  • rafiqweb on January 23, 2014, 6:56 GMT

    Inia, Australia And England should banned from ICC.

  • sandeep33 on January 23, 2014, 6:48 GMT

    Agree wiht surpreet singh,,,if it is good for india then, they should go for. we dont get any favours from our haters. so why we should do any favours for them..

  • ProteaMan on January 23, 2014, 6:30 GMT

    This is all about money. It started with the BCCI president's personal inside fighting with Mr Lorgat from South Africa (shortened tour of India to SA). Here is South Africa, with top rankings in just about every facet of the game shunted to the backyard to serve AUS, the Poms and India!

  • on January 23, 2014, 6:21 GMT

    Establishing this decision will make the cricket as a regional game not the global game as it will not inspiring the current nations beyond these three. Furthermore, no new nation will be attracted by the plan. Moreover, Cricket will became a business only not recreation.

    The nations should veto this self assassinating case with great sympathy to the cricket raising voices against the ruling decision. We hope the next meeting will declare the abandonment of the newly generated harmful policy.

  • on January 23, 2014, 6:21 GMT

    if it is good for india then, they should go for. we dont get any favours from our haters. so why we should do any favours for them..

  • on January 23, 2014, 5:45 GMT

    I see the life of the game of Cricket very short with less respect and integrity compared to the sports like Football, Tennis etc. Australia, India and England are planning to conquer this game and run it the way they would like to. But let me tell you all that, cricket will die soon if there is not any established and neutral board/ council to implement this game. In eye of the board/ council, all teams must be equal and treated accordingly.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 23, 2014, 5:38 GMT

    I initially thought it's a good move with some minor modifications. But on thinking further, I realize that this big 3 system is not in India's best interests. ICC is anyway at the mercy of BCCI now. It would be a grave blunder by BCCI to allow two other boards to sit on par with them at the same table. BCCI should not support this proposal, which must have been cleverly planned by CA and ECB. England is anyway not a great cricketing nation. They are almost minnowish and very boring to watch. BCCI should just be happy with the undisputed leaders of world cricket tag. Simple as that! If I were BCCI, I wouldn't support this proposal one bit. But if BCCI indeed sees more financial potential for India with this proposal, then they should fight tooth and nail to bring this proposal to fruition. Good luck BCCI. The way you improved the lives of many people connected with cricket in just a decade's time is commendable, something that ECB and CA together couldn't/didn't do in over a 100 years.

  • TheBigBoodha on January 23, 2014, 4:30 GMT

    As I mentioned before (for some reason unpublished) CA is going down this path because of the fears that India will break away from the ICC and then lure all the best players into the IPL with big money, thus destroying international cricket.

    There. That didn't hurt anyone, did it?

    Personally, I think CA and the ECB should tell the BCCI to stick it. But that's just me.

  • on January 23, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    I find it funny how the best test nation in the world by some margin at the moment has no say in this. Shouldn't they wait until they're at least playing good cricket?

  • willmot on January 23, 2014, 4:23 GMT

    Under this proposal test cricket would be unlikely to have see, Warne against Lara, Murali vs Ponting, Wasim vs Tendulkar, Steyn vs Peterson. Disgraceful.

  • chechong0114 on January 23, 2014, 2:51 GMT

    The sport of cricket has been around since the 18th century and yet with all its history it still has not been able to make an impact in any of the wealthy economies of the world. Apart from Australia, England and maybe India the game has done little to nothing to make a mark in developing wealthy countries like China, USA, Japan etc. Just look at the latest nations that have gained ICC status in the sport and u get a very clear image of how big a failure the ICC has been as a body and how poorly they are at promoting and commercialise the sport. Afghanistan, Kenya, The Netherlands, what kind of economy do these nations have to make a real mark on the sport and probably turn over any kind of financial profit that will assure their sustainability for the future years to come. The thinking behind the sport is full of such confusing, and I believe it has reached its boiling point to where the ICC as a body is just ready to throw in the towel hence the reason for the current decision.

  • Davidgold on January 23, 2014, 2:00 GMT

    Edwards says that CA has, "made significant strides in improving the governance of Australian cricket." Viewed through the prism of commercial acumen this is undoubtedly true. But through the prism of the wellbeing of the game worldwide and keeping the spirit of the game alive, it's rubbish.

    CA has been on a corporate trajectory for well over a decade now. Tightly media managed, heavily spun 'on-message' media is the order of the day. All in service of turning an extra buck any which way they can.

    Bottom line is that Edwards, James Sutherland and various other 'suits' at CA are interested in money above all else. They like to 'spin it' that their primacy interest is the game, but through their prism that wellbeing is measured purely in terms of 'placing their product' to maximise income.

    I'm an avid Aussie cricket fan and am disgusted at the arrogance and greed demonstrated by ECB, CA and BCCI in their proposal.

  • Roysingh1972 on January 23, 2014, 1:39 GMT

    I think no team in any sports, should be given the chance to never be demoted, it shows there is unfairness in ICC, which would lead to other teams boycotting the ICC. This might lead to all other teams except the ICC most loved 3, form a new board. It all about the $$$ Who will be demoted if India, Aus or England came last in the top test group? The team place before them? This is a unfair blow to sports.

  • jmcilhinney on January 23, 2014, 1:28 GMT

    As an England fan who lives in Australia, I can't say I'm a big fan of this proposal. Not that the ICC really works the way it should anyway but it's hard to see how a brains trust of just CA, ECB and BCCI will work more in the interests of the international game.

    That said, the idea of some that the other nations should break off and form their own association is a bit naive. If those other countries can hardly stay financially viable now, how would they do so without playing against Australia, England and India.

  • on January 23, 2014, 1:01 GMT

    Please do not do it for the sake of Cricket. Because this would only cause to unpopularise and harm cricket which is not played by not even more than 1/15th of world's population. Just 10 nations play at the top level!!!! Look at FIFA and look at ICC who is greater. In FIFA India and Australia have no domination like what they did in ICC likewise England for their own self-interest. So please stop ruining the cricket or I assume other nations would prefer to come out of ICC to form another cricket body. Do ICC think this would help cricket to develop. Do not please put any opinion for the self-interest of "The Three-Nations'. Or this will simply undemocratise the world of cricket. Nobody will gain except these three nations.

  • on January 23, 2014, 0:49 GMT

    What people fail to understand is that the "Big Three" are the "Big Three" because when the ICC was established, England, Australia and India were CARRYING the other cricket nations financially and the ICC was established to try to help the sport become stronger, globally. It was established with the understanding that the "Big Three" would not suffer and had veto power. NOW people complain about the "Big Three" wanting to establish a cartel, when it was the "Big Three" which dragged the other nations up!!

  • Shaggy076 on January 23, 2014, 0:47 GMT

    Currently all countries are dictated to b the BCCI, they will buy votes from where ever they need it by offering tours (then cancelling where appropriate ie South Africa). The Big 3 proposal is better than the current system as unlike the BCCI the CA and ECB have the survival of cricket at the top of its agenda and now the BCCI has to convince either of them to get what they want.

  • InsideHedge on January 23, 2014, 0:16 GMT

    @BestB: You and plenty of others have written such threats. Pls. do write to your respective boards and encourage them to go it alone. The BCCI alone generates about 70% of existing revenue with ECB and CA probably generating another 28%. That would leave about 2% that the Holy 7 generate.

    Considering boards such as the Sri lankan one can't even pay its own players when today they receive a healthy slice, pray tell me how they would fund the sport if they went without the Big 3? And Big 3 is's what they are whether you like it or not.

    Instead of letting out hot air, perhaps you should consider the merits of the proposal. All that needs tweaking is the immunity to relegation for any one team.

    The game, as it stands 2day, is hardly watched by anyone outside of India regards TV. There's immense competition from other sports, and the 5 day Test format only thrives in England. Take the ECB out of the equation and Test cricket is dead.

  • on January 23, 2014, 0:09 GMT

    Mr. Wally Edwards should be singing the song "We are the people" from the Australian pop band Empire of the Sun. The lyrics go "WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO RULE THE WORLD". People meaning the Big 3. I hope Mr. Edwards keeps "Walking on a Dream" (another one by Empire of the Sun) and that this doesn't happen because I am sure all cricket lovers will say "WE DON'T CRICKET....WE LOVE IT" (Dreadlock Holiday by 10cc).

  • ShutTheGate on January 22, 2014, 23:59 GMT

    So If I'm reading this correctly, the big three generate a large % of the revenue and have to share that revenue with the other member organisations who fail to attract interest in the game?

    Why make cricket communist?

    If SA, NZ and the West Indies have failed to develop interest in cricket why should others prop them up?

  • on January 22, 2014, 23:56 GMT

    Big Three is utter disgrace to what cricket it right now. You guys are honestly inhuman. Get a life. You people aren't the only ones playing test cricket, other teams are progressing... Aus lost Ashes won it back,England won Ashes lost it.. they ain't consistent either.. India can't even perform outside of their homeland... Probably fixed that series vs Australia too cause I have never seen 5 matches of the series cross 315 every Damn time and get it chased down too.. You people are too funny. Big Three, more like "Inconsistent as Hell Three"

  • aztecs on January 22, 2014, 23:41 GMT

    Am i reading this right? BCCI siding with Giles and Edwards, the very two men who approached Mr Stamford to undermine the BCCI position only a few years ago! Come on even you with all your money cant see what the ECB/CA are trying to do? Even the picture posted on this site with Clarke and Edwards should be a clue. All the BCCI is doing is handing back power to the other two at the expense of the years of good will shown by other boards towards BCCI over the years. Now if you really want to dominate the cricket world your better off siding with CSA and PCB they will always stick with you and it will really send the shivers down the ECB/CA who will have no choice but to see you as the refined friend as oppossed to the unrefined friend who hasnt got a clue at the moment.

  • on January 22, 2014, 23:30 GMT

    As a batsman, Edwards wasn't that great and as a beaurocrat he doesn't appear much better. The ICC is for the promotion and betterment of ALL international cricket not just those involving India, Australia and England. We need to9 support the lesser nations and have them here during the cricket season not as an add on before or after the normal cricket season. Look at the India v NZ test series, for goodness sake the Super rugby competition is already on. In Aus why don't we get Bangladesh or the Kiwis or Pakistan to tour during our peak periods for the Boxing Day and New Years tests? The reason is the broadcasters. Its also rubbish that Australia depends on Indian tours here. Compare attendances at the tests here this summer to those when India tours. No comparison.

  • Little_Aussie_Battler on January 22, 2014, 23:14 GMT

    As some wag on here wrote, let's just create a new governing body without the big 3. Yes, do that. You cannot afford to pay for your own cricket, let alone international cricket so where will you get the money from, start mining Bitcoins perhaps?

    What is fair is right in principle, but the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rule.

    Time to just sign up and let the adults run things from now on.

  • ElPhenomeno on January 22, 2014, 23:06 GMT

    This was long overdue, you cannot contribute 80% of revenues and watch the profits be distributed equally to the likes of Sri lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

    I am only upset they are leaving SAF out of it. ;)

  • on January 22, 2014, 23:02 GMT

    As a Bangladeshi cricket fan I want all other cricket board to make a new council and show theses 3 how to play Cricket (The Gentlemen Game)! If BCB is threatened by BCCI that they wont be supportive about upcoming Asia Cup and T20 WC, I don't think cricket fan would care about that. Lets go against this proposal and save our cricket. We can make 7 nation WC which is better than 3 nation WC joke!

  • Puffin on January 22, 2014, 22:26 GMT

    It's still a ridiculous proposal: giving the top three financial contributors a bye however woeful their national teams are, that's not sport. It's more like the Eurovision song contest (which as we know, contains little music and lots of politics).

  • Cricket_theBestGame on January 22, 2014, 22:14 GMT

    @BestB - agreed. the other 7 nations should start their own talks with SA as the leader. create a 7 nation league, get help from their government, local businesses within those countries. get the players on board with pay cuts which will get better over time when it is established. sort of like kerry packers rebels back in the 70s, 80s.

    the key to this is help from govt, businesses and players taking a paycut for the future of the game.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on January 22, 2014, 22:11 GMT

    the proposal is basically a take over. what makes it worse is the pre-condition that the 3 big will not ever get relegated to 2nd tier. thats the crux of the problem. finance wise it may just work but if these 3 are always there with one from 2nd tier is this really competition??

    if they want to control the game then rid away of the 2 tier idea. then they may get some support. or was this be design to prop 2 tier idea as a bargaining chip??!!

  • Moppa on January 22, 2014, 21:32 GMT

    @RoshJ, I don't propose anything, I'm not even arguing in favour of the current proposal (I don't feel I have enough information to understand the thinking behind it). I'm just pointing out that most of the arguments against it either ignore cricket's present reality, or misunderstand/misrepresent the intent of the proposal at hand. @number-09, I certainly don't understand your argument as to why smaller nations would not push for bilateral tours.

  • ASHTARR on January 22, 2014, 21:29 GMT

    The time for a 'Kerry Packer' Tsunami in cricket is ripe....Show me the Money!!!...and why am I not surprised that the Mastermind behind this scheme is an Aussie.....Aussie Aussie Aussie...God what next.....

  • on January 22, 2014, 21:04 GMT

    We love cricket, we cry if our team lose,,, we dream to upright if we fall...we enjoy if we win...CRICKET IS NOT A GAME, NOT FOR BUSINESS ONLY... It means life to me...i am crazy for cricket...IS IT R8 TO TAKE MY EMOTION n LIFE...pls ans big 3 ??????

  • on January 22, 2014, 20:54 GMT

    This is a insane plan/proposal in the contest of current world. This will decline the popularity of cricket rather than increasing it. All countries should get similar facilities and there should be more initiative/activity to promote cricket worldwide.

  • on January 22, 2014, 20:15 GMT

    Willy has just done exactly the same thing as Paul Marsh of FICA. That is waging war in the media. Where else do you find a voice? I think Paul has done exactly what needs to be done. The draft was drawn up in ultimate secrecy and, so much so, that the top brass of the ICC were also in the dark. I am surprised by the lack of outcry among the P-7 members. I think the P-7 (paupers seven) will be bullied to accept B-3 (bullies three) with threats and promises that are not meant to be kept. We are just witnessing the end of test cricket as we know of. I think this will accelerate prevalence of the shorter version of the game and push test into eventual oblivion. I also think there will be migration of talented players who want to play to the nations that will still be playing this form game.

  • abc3 on January 22, 2014, 19:55 GMT

    I see no problem in this change. Let's see. BCCI contributes 80% of income to ICC and gets 10% in return. Aus and Eng might make up for for another 15%. Rest of 6 nations combined contribute 5% (less then 1% each) but want an equal share of 10%. Talk about crying foul. Pak, SL fans and others, try to fix your respective incompetent boards and let them work on pulling in more revenue instead of mismanaging funds all the time and again coming to beg for more. Then you have the right to demand a fair share if your respective boards are competent and committed enough to work on increasing revenues. Everybody wants BCCI to routinely bail them out of the financial mess time and again and yet at the same continue to hate BCCI at every given oppurtunity. Gratitude.

  • on January 22, 2014, 19:46 GMT

    india a big 3? what an irony, the country is now afraid of loosing to 'all' (which they very often do, with the dribbings I have witnessed over last 25 years). Sad state of cricket. it should rather leave cricket

  • on January 22, 2014, 18:55 GMT

    I think that the proposal will get passed by hook or crook. So it would be better to think about including certain conditions in it. I suggest the following: 1. If the FTP is scrapped, tours have to be on a strictly reciprocal basis. So if India invites WI for 'x' number of tests and ODI's they have to play that many in WI as well. 2. The above commitment should be legally binding and if it is not met, the revenue generated from extra home matches should be split 50 - 50. 3. Minimum guarantee of 3 Tests and 7 ODI's home and away with all Test playing nations (current and future) over a 8 year period. 4. A cap on the share of revenue from ICC's divisible pool to a maximum of 3 times the minimum share of a Full Member. The minimum share of a Full Member can not be less than twice the maximum share of an associate member. 5. The clause regarding non-relegation of Big 3 has to go away.

    I think that this proposal takes care of merit and financial contributions.

    And I am not a Big 3 fan.

  • on January 22, 2014, 18:51 GMT

    bcci have think finding 3 or 4 good paces to be world cricket with out selling of people who put them there.

  • on January 22, 2014, 18:29 GMT

    I am least bit surprised with such propositions from the mighty 3 (or am I supposed to call Almighty 3 ?). It's been a long time ICC has turned into a puppet, this is just a mere confirmation.

    Keep playing 10 test series twice a year all among yourselves. And if the players or spectators ever lose interest, charge 'em up with IPL, cheerleaders, betting and much more....And if anyone ever blame you for killing the goose that laid golden eggs, kill them too.

    But please!! If a child in the suburbs of Harare, or stints of Chittagong ever swings a bat, please sire, do him a favor by reminding him he will never see his team playing test matches, let alone playing it himself. He will be grateful for nipping the dreams in the bud.

    All Hail Big 3!!!

  • on January 22, 2014, 17:55 GMT

    Let them do that... they will just play among themselves.. Rest 7 should make a new council. Rest of the world will join to them definitely

  • bored_iam on January 22, 2014, 17:39 GMT

    @BestB: I believe that going ahead with such a move will be INCREDIBLY against the interests of the 7 boards. Unfortunately, Ind, Eng & Aus generate the maximum (some say nearly 60-70%) of the revenue. Trying to develop something without these bodies will unfortunately not help the cause of the other 7. I for one believe the biggest body to suffer will be the CSA. Theirs is the No. 1 team but they still cannot seem to generate the interest in their fans to sustain their board. Pak too is still suffering due to the absence of home cricket. In attendance I honestly believe that is the only country that can fill up stadiums. Unfortunately till the other 7 reduce the Big 3's dominance, they are bound to be in trouble. This proposal might just get passed. Solution: Bring back Cricket to Pak. That's one cricket country nation STARVED of good cricket. They'll definitely bring in significant revenues. But SL, WI are unfortunately dying cricket populations.

  • Atish_Man on January 22, 2014, 17:37 GMT

    @BestB thats just a wishful thinking. Though i am also against this draft, there is no way that big3 will be thrown away by G7. Simple G7 cannot survive without big3.

  • Pippy_the_dog on January 22, 2014, 17:21 GMT

    What a surprise, the totalitarian leaders of cricket have little more regard for the views of the players than they for those of the fans. Maybe it would be better to lobby the TV companies, they seem to be the only ones whose opinions matter.

  • KosalaDeSilva on January 22, 2014, 17:11 GMT

    Agree with BestB, Just leave this BIG 3 ( as they like to call ) and other 7 countries should concentrate on proper cricket... Those 3 can do a family business kind of cricket business...may be add more things, like making cricket films, toys, video games and make more money... But at least other cricket nations will get more good cricket without this 3 nations...

  • SaroarIslam on January 22, 2014, 17:04 GMT

    This is the most worst proposal ever in cricket history. .we should have protect this as a cricket lover's

  • BestB on January 22, 2014, 16:51 GMT

    The other 7 nations should just leave ICC and let the three bosses play amongst themselves. We others can set up our own free, clean cricketing organization, and I am sure it will be way better off than the present ICC.

    its time to say bye bye ICC, we don't need you.

  • cricindia4life on January 22, 2014, 15:47 GMT

    One argument that may work to put this ludicrous proposal to rest... With BCCI, ECB, and CA forming the decision making club there's a fair chance that the BCCI might get out-voted on several issues (like the DRS) by ECB and CA. The reason for BCCIs power has been the carrot and stick policy they use with other boards like those in SRL, PAK, WIN, etc to force them to vote according to its interests. BCCI would no longer be able to do that and thus become less powerful than they currently are. If BCCI were to realize this, the draft proposal would go right into the trash can.

  • on January 22, 2014, 15:47 GMT

    I think this proposal is good. Let it be. Let the big 3 do what they must. The rest of the 7 should form a new governing council and boycott the big 3. This new council should allow more playing facilities to the associate countries and eventually this will be the doom for ICC.

  • on January 22, 2014, 15:47 GMT

    what mr edwards fails to understand that the ICC is made up of those very boards he is trying to downplay and without those boards there are no ICC therefore acting in the best interest of the ICC means acting in the best interests of cricket and all the boards that makes it possible for him to be part of an ICC

  • tigers_eye on January 22, 2014, 15:26 GMT

    Mr. Wally Edward, A wrong can not be right. An esteem gentleman like you don't know this simple fact of life? Very strange!!!

  • Choudury on January 22, 2014, 15:06 GMT

    Only 10 countries play test cricket, yet "GREED" will break it apart. That will happen when businessman/politicians run the boards.

    A bold initiative for the LITTLE 7 countries would be to draw up a FTP for themselves. Allocate 1 test per 4 year cycle to the big 3, while holding 3 to 4 test per series amongst themselves. Let the big 3 play tests against each other all they want - and see if the fans appreciate that.

  • tushar35 on January 22, 2014, 14:55 GMT

    Cricket Nations, Here is the solution, just boycott ICC, India, Australia, England and New Zealand. Let them have their own four nation's league. They can have their own bilateral matches as much as they want. Let them live in peace.

    On the other hands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe form a new Cricket Council and include Ireland and Afghanistan giving them full membership. Create a democratic FTP. Encourage more countries into cricket.

    Trust me, ICC will die within two years, and cricket will be vanish from those four nations within four years or so.

  • DeckChairand6pack on January 22, 2014, 14:29 GMT

    Cricket has never really been a big sport in South Africa in terms of spectator numbers - relative to the big 3. Player numbers are also relatively few. But, clearly, we have been able to develop a culture of excellence whereby we have the best team in the world. We have the Mace. But with only a max of 9 cricket playing nations worth mentioning, it's worth considering how reliant they all are upon one another. We all need each other. Can you imagine watching Aus and Eng playing each other 10 times in a row...? Again? Talk about a cure for insomnia and an argument for euthanasia!

  • I_Love_My_India on January 22, 2014, 14:13 GMT

    I am an Indian and I believe it is a stupid move. Just compare it with any other sports like soccer. English, German and Spanish clubs account for the major revenues for soccer. But that does not mean that they should be the Big 3. Countries like Brazil, Argentina and others, though poor are most of the times have better players. I wish ICC to be independent as FIFA is. Also, if things go out of control, I wish if Indian government intervene and dissolve the current corrupt BCCI.

  • robheinen on January 22, 2014, 13:42 GMT

    Thank God for politics. These people would really be bored without it. O and thank God for money, the lubricant of power.

  • on January 22, 2014, 13:31 GMT

    "Big 3"? I thought South Africa were the number 1 test team in the world. So much for meritocracy.

  • GlobalCricketLover on January 22, 2014, 13:28 GMT

    FICA raised the most apt question - are these board members discharging their duties at all? which is act in the interest of the game and not any selfish needs of their own countries....I am sure any independent review would find these 3 as violating that code of conduct...shameful.

  • GlobalCricketLover on January 22, 2014, 13:26 GMT

    In what world is it good governance to restrict the decision making to just 3 of the 15-16 nations? If this man is really after good governance he should ask for kicking out all playing nations representatives and handover the control to independent board that only vows for spreading and improving the game. the very name of 'business co' shows what mindset these 3 leeches have. I am Indian but fully ashamed of what BCCI is doing.

  • mbilalhussain on January 22, 2014, 13:23 GMT

    let the big 3 play each other and other 7 countries & accociates make their own organization and bycott the big 3. people will get tired watching big 3 again and again - playing same teams again will not makes things better for marketing agencies and TV channels..they would pay less by less series after series when supply would be more.. its a simple of rule of economics..when supply is more, demand gets less. people had enough of watching SA vs PAK in back to back series of about 20+ matches and wanted to see their teams play others.

  • BellCurve on January 22, 2014, 13:16 GMT

    Generally, this talk abouth the "Big 3" is misleading. The BCCI accounts for 80%+ of cricket revenues. So the BCCI is the clear leader. Then comes ECB. Then CA. Then CSA. Then PCB. Then the rest. The structure is therefore multi-tiered. First tier: India; 2nd tier Eng+Aus; 3rd tier; SA+Pak; 4th tier: the rest. If you start with this clear fact then this proposal is short-sighted. It does not address the fundamental issue that the BCCI has lots of money, and the rest don't. Over time I believe that international domestic competitions such as the IPL will expand in India. A club structure will emerge. International cricket will be reduced to a fraction of the calendar.

  • spindizzy on January 22, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    Strangely this has brought together the supporters of cricket in England, Australia and India in a way their boards never could manage.

    To oppose their machiavellian corruption of the game we love.

    Time to take back control of cricket from people who think they control it.

  • on January 22, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    Ridiculous proposal. Very few countries play cricket anyway as compared to other sports and now they want to restrict this game to a club of three countries which will practically spell the end of cricket as it is. And it could not have been more ill-timed coming on the heels of 5-0 thrashing of England by Australia coupled with the hopeless winning form of India outside of its shores. On current form Pakistan even with the huge problems it has and South Africa are much superior to both India and England. The real test of Australia will come when they next visit South Africa. I hope that they would be wise enough not to put this proposal on the table.

  • on January 22, 2014, 11:57 GMT

    This is likely to backfire on the ICC if this proposal is passed

  • Starboomber on January 22, 2014, 11:53 GMT

    It's sad to see that money is the main arguement not the game. It doesn't matter how bad you can play as long as you generate money...

  • number-09 on January 22, 2014, 11:49 GMT

    @ Moppa - I do not think that you understand the implications of such a move. The poorer countries will be at the mercy of the big 3 where test are concerned, and would not push for bilateral tours with a preference only for home tours. The big 3 will be immune to test relegation, because that will be the next step. They will host majority of all world tournaments. Where as CA and ECB guarantees a 3 test, 5 ODI tours to the top 8, BCCI has committed to nothing. Their recent mantra - biggest earner keeps all the spoils. The commercialization of cricket by Kerry packer was warranted for its time, and cannot be compared to this power grab. BCCI want to keep all the spoils, want to show the colonial powers that they are boss. and true to their insensitivity with their caste system the poorer boards will flounder. Its a world sport, and only competition makes the sport better.

  • on January 22, 2014, 11:41 GMT

    I believe we should let the 03 countries (Aus, Eng and India) establish there own cricket leagues and make a separate ICC for themselves. While everyone thinks that this will weaken the other cricket teams, i think the opposite will be true as the other teams will learn to live without these three teams, improve the cricket teams of Bangladesh, New Zealand and West Indies to a certain degree and in the end these three will come begging to be part of the cricket fraternity again.

  • shahidali1 on January 22, 2014, 11:36 GMT

    I totally disagree with the latest decision of giving powers to three country. In 21st century, it is very disturbing that all members countries are not allowed to have their say. Ridiculous.

  • RoshJ on January 22, 2014, 11:20 GMT

    @ Moppa......so what you propose is to hand over the power to the same "big 3" (whatever) who at the first place made ICC toothless?..funny argumant to say the least! I mentioned this once (and cricinfo decided not to publish that comments though it was the most obvious thing to suggest)..what will happen the "small rest" decide to organise their own association ignoring the "3"? Cricket will be ever more interesting to see the 3 playing each other again and again..if it is the finiancial contribution that matters most we might as well form 2-3 teams from india itself and watch they play and India's billion will pay!

  • Neel_123 on January 22, 2014, 11:15 GMT

    @Paul John Kruger:

    Ha ha.. isn't this what current proposal is about? Big 3 playing more with each other than with other 7!?

    As far what happened if other 7 make a new cricket organisation- this happens: Other 7 boards will go bankrupt on the first day! No money to pay even to their national team. Forget about investing in new stadium etc.!

    Zimbabwe invited Pakistan- occurred huge loss! SA played SL and Pakistan- did not earn a single penny. Invited India- earned lot of money from TV rights (sold to Indian public). What did Saffa public contributed to SA cricket board riches?- Nothing. Even the farewell match of great Kallis was played in front of few spectators! One wonders what these 'other 7 boards' are doing to popularize cricket in their territories! Why the matches between teams from 'other 7 boards' are a huge loss to host board?

    BTW, one IPL tournament earns in 6 weeks is many times higher than what BCCI earns by playing 50 test matches. Go figure!

  • lankavigi on January 22, 2014, 11:11 GMT

    He hasn't really helped himself. Time to retire Mr Wally, we need people who can think along with the modern generation.

  • on January 22, 2014, 11:09 GMT

    If India was not bringing money to the party they would on balance be forced to be an equal, not withstanding their current status in recent years what have they done in world cricket, right now they are getting hammered outside if India, beaten in SA, whats next? England thoroughly thrashed in Oz, Lets see what Oz does in SA. The reality is that no one country or group of countries can claim any pejorative rights. Their seems to be a sense of entitlement being established where one does not exist. I can see this going to the Court of Sports Arbitration as the administrators are clearly acting in their own countries interests and not the sport.

  • manizee on January 22, 2014, 11:03 GMT

    Urgent need to implement the Woolf report. This is the only way we can not only save but also better the game we love so much.

  • venkatesh018 on January 22, 2014, 10:37 GMT

    How much can world cricket bow down to the wishes of one nation, however powerful that may be? Why can't the other nations in the ICC ever think of the long term?

  • Moppa on January 22, 2014, 10:36 GMT

    A few points seem to be getting mixed up or forgotten in this debate. One, as far as I'm aware, no-one is suggesting that South Africa, Pakistan or anyone else should be excluded from Test cricket. Secondly, current Test rankings are irrelevant to the underlying financial balance of power in the game. Third, people seem to forget that the ICC as of today is toothless, ineffective and unable to direct the game in the broader interest against the commercial interests of the bigger nations and India in particular. (My hope is that by formally recognising reality, the Big 3 will be held accountable to uphold the interest of the broader game). Fourth, Kerry Packer came to cricket chasing the dollars and made it a much better game - the point being, commercial imperatives do not necessarily weaken the game. People need to analyse and understand what is proposed and how it relates to cricket's present reality before making emotional and often irrelevant arguments.

  • Abdul-Jabbar on January 22, 2014, 10:20 GMT

    @Drsandip Mehta. So let the so called big three play cricket among themselves and let every one of them win their home series as 4-0, 4-0,5-0 etc. every time and see how much money they can generate. Cricket official and supporters should be sensible persons. Come on be sensible not dacoits and do not misguide the masses.

  • LillianThomson on January 22, 2014, 10:17 GMT

    This should be the least of Edwards' concerns.

    Here in Australia last year Channel 10 lost in its bid for domestic cricket rights, simply because the Nine network was allowed to match their bid.

    You don't need to be Einstein to work out that England and Australia want India's money, but know that their own audiences don't really want to watch India's dibbly-dobbly bowlers ad nauseam. Or that the other 7 Test nations will be eager to get a better offer.

    Sooner or later - I give it 3 years, 5 at most - an enterprising TV network in England or Australia will realise that it can buy the other 7 international teams outside the Big Three plus England and Australia's best 20 players for much less than the price demanded by the Big Three.

    Suddenly there will be no ICC.

    The smart network(s) will have the entire cricket world except for India, and on a sound budget and will be able to set up their own structures in a post-ICC, post-BCCI world. Packer. EPL. SuperLeague.

    It's happened before

  • on January 22, 2014, 10:15 GMT

    @mehta this is not commerce but s game .. There are others way of distributing the shares other The casting out the rest of test playing nations and is s bad strategy anyways ... People will be excited to see these teams playing each other for a certain period but after that you will only find empty stadiums n death of test cricket ..

  • on January 22, 2014, 10:15 GMT

    My view is the everybody outside of the big "3" should resign from the ICC & instead form the WCA or World Cricketers association with all the players resigning from the ICF & instead forming the WCPF or World Crciket Players Federatiion so then the big supposed 3 will then have nobody else to play revenues will be lost & they will then find out the hard way that they don't actually rule the roost!

    If you think the idea above is sound please feel free to share!

  • CricketFever11 on January 22, 2014, 10:14 GMT

    So let the big three play their cricket with each other only. Go to hell ICC.

  • on January 22, 2014, 10:10 GMT

    Kenyan cricket which at one stage showed so much promised has regressed badly. I foresee Afghanistan going the same direction once Pakistan stops baby-sitting it. This is the same useless body which is killing Irish cricket. In any professional environment, one person should represent one country and that's it. Boyd Rankin, Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan have no business to be playing for England. Maybe that big 3 deserves each other. India is bullying everybody, Australian players think insulting opponents is cool and England is poaching players everywhere.

  • malepas on January 22, 2014, 10:10 GMT

    If anyone has any doubt how these 3 Big''ots will run the cricket, just look at how they are managing their affairs now even they don't have the ultimate powers, India nearly destroyed SA tour so they can financially hit SA cos they didn't like one administrator of that board, BCCI also have been actively involved in destroying PAK cricket,not only not playing with them but also butting in last minute to disrupt their series with other countries, recent PAK tour of WI is an example. When was the last time England and Australia toured Zimbabwe?? or BD toured India??? you have to go into archives to find an answer,, now when we see this behaviour from these 3 when they suppose to have no extra powers in ICC, what they will do, when they will be BE ALL AND END ALL of this organisation. This is a BAD idea in the history of BAD ideas. ICC needs reforms but to cut the powers of these 3 and make them play with all members at least once in 3 years cycle. Otherwise it be the end of Cricket.

  • on January 22, 2014, 10:09 GMT

    considering India are currently getting hammered by the so called 8th best team in the world, it's ridiculous to consider them in the top three of anything. Sure they make money but their cricket is weak outside of their home. This will get thrown out without thought.

  • TheCricketeer on January 22, 2014, 10:08 GMT

    The fact that such a proposal is even seeing the light of day shows the state of cricket.

    I believe very strongly if you want to save world cricket the way forward is to ditch the 50 over game at international level. T20 is a far more exciting and better revenue generating form of limited overs cricket anyway. It is also easier to spread and brings teams closer together which means more countries can be competitive.

    Test cricket needs some innovation to make it more attractive. Lets move the day / night discussion forward. Lets look at a proper schedule with a proper league table with big money prizes. Lets look at bonus points in that table for run rates and penalties for slow over rates. Lets standardise one or two rules - like the free hit after a no ball. Lets add some razz mataz without impacting the core integrity of the game. Maybe an annual big money knockout tournament.

    ODI cricket is boring (and all the powerplays in the world wont change it) and getting in the way.

  • Matt.au on January 22, 2014, 9:58 GMT

    Posted by Louella Cerejoon (January 22, 2014, 8:25 GMT) This way they get to kill 2 birds with one stone...They get to destroy SA thats the No: 1 Test side.

    Louella, how often do you and or your friends, family and acquaintances go and support CSA and the Sth African players by attending a game? I'm sure you do attend games as you seem very passionate, do the others that I mentioned?

    It seems to me the fundamental problem with cricket in Sth Africa and most of the other 7 member boards is lack of public support - paid attendance at the grounds.

    I keep saying it but it hasn't been published here on cricinfo for some reason - the way passionate supporters of the 7 struggling boards can help them survive in both the short and long term is get to the occassional game.

    Once companies see the crowds at game the sponsorship dollars will flow - that's probably long term.

    Short term is some of the income from increased gate reciepts will, hopefully, be used to promote the game further.

    S

  • cooljack_143 on January 22, 2014, 9:53 GMT

    all the INDIAN HATERS are shouting here!!!!!!!!!! Wonder what happens to SA if IND doesn't tour them in future,Steyn & co should be bowing to Amla & CO...Being no 1 doesnt mean your board is strong.There is much bigger difference between board & Players.Everyone knows why SA appointed haroon:-)

  • deloyar on January 22, 2014, 9:48 GMT

    hmmmm....i think its better kept the big three and sacked the rest from cricket!!!Rubbish

  • zoot364 on January 22, 2014, 9:43 GMT

    Beneath the details these proposals are about appeasing the BCCI - giving them even more so they don't walk away from the whole ICC structure.

  • on January 22, 2014, 9:42 GMT

    big three generate most of revenues. so they shall get their fair share. it can noy be distributed equal .this is common business sense.nobody is playing for charity. come on be practical dont be begger. earn your share

  • on January 22, 2014, 9:40 GMT

    For all those who are suggesting " Leave out the big 3" form another league PLEASE UNDERSTAND --

    all other boards will have to declare bankruptcy ! You wont have enough to pay your players. The game won't exist in these OTHER countries. Ind Aus & Eng can still run it atleast for a while and buy out ur players for T20 leagues. All of you know what happened with Kerry Packer right ?

    Please do understand what you are saying makes NO sense ....

  • quittthewhinging on January 22, 2014, 9:36 GMT

    It must be galling for the cabal to have to accept one of the "minnows" as leading the Test rankings at present. And just when things were going so well too!! LMFAO

  • on January 22, 2014, 9:19 GMT

    The proposal is a joke. Booming profits for the 3 in charge, whilst world cricket crumbles around it. India already have too much power as is.

    How about we have an ICC board who looks after the interest of cricket for the majority and not the few! A board who isn't dictated too, but looks after the best interest of the game.

    That would be ideal.

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:57 GMT

    The Big Three want to run cricket, but the Number One Test team in the world is South Africa. How's that for a slap in the face. I have never trusted any sports administrator. Major hanges in sport have been brought about by players, never administrators, who somehow believe they are more important than the game.

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:57 GMT

    Lets this proposal get through, cricket under current circumstances in no good either, it is still being dominated by these 3 specially BCCI. Approval of this would make it official that should result in formation of a NEW cricketing body by other 7. Please let it through otherwise Cricket will keep struggling, just imagine the long term positive effect on cricket. ICC will be left with only 3 then, let them play with each others.

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:42 GMT

    This is a disgraceful and divisive proposal. Cricket spreads and more and more countries are playing at a decent level. Why the "Big Three" should have the right to control its growth is beyond all understanding.

    England, in particular, is hardly a powerful force in Test cricket right now whilst South Africa is comfortable No.1 in the Test rankings.

    Cricket in the other countries will become poorer financially whilst the Three already have oodles of boodle.

    However, Cricket South Africa has a habit of electing abrasive or even dishonest characters with little real cricketing knowledge to negotiate or indeed even try to run the ICC.

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:41 GMT

    thats it cerejo, it is a disgrace to exclude smaller countries from decision making. bad enough what happened at the india tour to sa , it doesnt have to be put in as a rule that they are the sole rulers of how a tour should look like.

  • Balisaf on January 22, 2014, 8:40 GMT

    I am completely appalled by the lack integrity of the ICC. Its seems the is no limit to the greed and lust for power among certain administrators of the sport. The sport and its fans accross the world are being taken for a complete ride with scarcely any compunction. I sincerely hope, should this proposal be forced through, that the rest of the cricketing countries will also use the power in their disposal - to ban the 'big 3'. Such bullying is completely dispicable!

  • dunger.bob on January 22, 2014, 8:39 GMT

    I'm not a lawyer so I understood pretty much none of that. What the hell is happening?

    @ Abm Biddut : India, precious few. England, a decent amount. Australia, an astonishing amount.

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:39 GMT

    no comments!

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:25 GMT

    This way they get to kill 2 birds with one stone...They get to destroy SA thats the No: 1 Test side & at the same time they will also get to snap up the players like DeVilliers, Steyn etc. Also India gets rid of Pakistan at the same time a real thorn in the flesh to them.

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:16 GMT

    hope this proposal does not get passed it is most disgusting derogatory thing i have ever heard i dont no how can anyone allow these 3 deluded boards to take all their revenue and us their power. if the big 3 want to rule cricket then they should abandon cricket for other nations i literally want to puke .Can anyone justify such rulings i challeng any fan of these countries to convince me . how can anyone forcefully take some ones earnings their livelihood .no matter how modern we think we our the antiquated concept of plundering and ruling and bossing others remains there and will remain there

  • ReverseSweepRhino on January 22, 2014, 8:16 GMT

    When three national boards become more powerful than the governing body, something definitely isn't right. Either the global game needs to assert its superiority over the boards, or it needs to be put out of its misery entirely.

    Hopefully, we have a major schism in the ICC. It splitting into two boards--one based on financial dominance by a few and the other based on equal standing of all members would be a great thing for the game to experience in order to determine its priorities in a world which is more globalized than ever before.

  • BradmanBestEver on January 22, 2014, 8:14 GMT

    Why should cricket be immune to human greed?

  • on January 22, 2014, 8:14 GMT

    @Abn Biddut: very well said. because, u knw, olympic medals count is such a relevant stat in this discussion!

  • Nutcutlet on January 22, 2014, 8:07 GMT

    And the elephant in the room is the one from SA! There is no justification for the big three to exclude the other cricketing power on the planet - the one with the best team, btw. No one seems willing or able to address this 'oversight'. Personally, it all looks to me to be a stitch-up by the three rich boards - and, given the business mentality of the personages involved, that's totally predictable. I just cannot accept that when push comes to shove, Clarke, Srinivasan and Edwards are cricket -lovers more than they are businessmen. What does a business man do with loss-making ventures? Oh the price of everything, the value of nothing. Nothing changes.

  • on January 22, 2014, 7:57 GMT

    There is FIFA. Who wants to spread football every corner of the planet Earth. And there is this ICC (they should be known as Indian Cricket Council), who just want to destroy cricket by limiting it on playing with only Eight countries!!

  • ooper_cut on January 22, 2014, 7:53 GMT

    Globalisation of Cricket is a waste of time, cricket can never find new audiences. No one in this fast age will find cricket interesting unless they have been brought up with it from their infancy. These 10 plus maybe 5 countries are the ones that will continue to play cricket seriously. The English haven't been able to spread it far and across as they did drinking Tea.

    Point is cherish what you have and don't try to force it down anyone's throats and waste money on that.

  • on January 22, 2014, 7:48 GMT

    How can the ICC even think of putting that to a vote i wonder? The socalled big three have been traditionally been benefitting more from cricket revenue and all other big decisions concerning cricket. What more power do these guys really need? Its unfortunate that ultimately their decision will carry the day and associations like my poor zimbabwe will wait to grab the crumbs under the table.

  • Udendra on January 22, 2014, 7:37 GMT

    @Hammad-Hasan: you have said it very well.

  • on January 22, 2014, 7:29 GMT

    Australia, England and India.... they think they are big dogs, but they are nothing but poodles. How many Olympic medals they collected together combined?

  • Anti-ZCAdmin on January 22, 2014, 7:24 GMT

    Cricket is an international sport and not an individual or coalition sport. I'm a very disappointed man.

  • joeyleondlovu on January 22, 2014, 7:20 GMT

    This is a bad thing to do instead of having the big 3 ICC should be looking at the failures of the current structure, Kenya, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies CA are failing because of ICC concentrating on AUS, ENG, IND, SA and Pak. Eng and AUS play more cricket than Ken, Zim, Ban and WI combined. How are these countries expected to improve without much play time. And then you have the guts to call for 'big 3'. What this looks like is segregation of countries

  • Hammad-Hasan on January 22, 2014, 7:18 GMT

    Football has the highest number of members yet they have congress in which they take one member from all the countries and that congress take decisions. ICC has 10 full members and yet they want to have concept of veto power. Thats y cricket was never global game because these 3 countries dont want to make it is a global game. Ireland has been denied test status so that England can get better irish players. Australia starts to give citizenship to players from other countries so that they can make their team stronger. Indian board president family is involve in match fixing scandal and still these 3 boards want more. CRICKET IS TRULY WORLD MOST DISGUSTING GAME AT PRESENT AND IN FUTURE AS WELL.

  • on January 22, 2014, 7:15 GMT

    So Wally Edwards's so-called response is to talk a lot and say nothing. How typical.

  • Clan_McLachlan on January 22, 2014, 7:15 GMT

    That Wally has been so quick to respond to FICA while ignoring everyone else shows what power lies in the hands of the players. Hopefully FICA stands firm.

  • BlazingArrow89 on January 22, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    He is making a comment because he knows the rest of the world has figured out the powerplay that is being made by the "Big Three". It is about time they start taking responsibility for the fact that they want cricket to be a 3 nation world.

  • on January 22, 2014, 6:12 GMT

    All people are not foolish @Rajan

  • on January 22, 2014, 6:08 GMT

    What's the basis for big 3? As far as I know these are the three teams that has had some of the heaviest defeats in the last two months or so. AUS lost about 12 test matches, India lost about 12 already and s continuing and England has lost with Shame and how do these 3 become big 3?

  • JawadSyed on January 22, 2014, 6:00 GMT

    Cricket is a sports, lets not make it a business. The proposal by the 'Big Three' is wrong and against the sportsman spirit of the game. FICA has done the right thing to take a stand against such prejudiced proposal

  • on January 22, 2014, 5:23 GMT

    May this proposal expose those who thought it up and support. My word, what next, firing squads?

  • Lion_96 on January 22, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    I think the BCCI role is important to defeat this resolution. They havent made many fans (outside India) over the years, but if they make the right decision for the good of the game, they will win respect throughout the Cricketing world.

  • enayet on January 22, 2014, 5:15 GMT

    What the "Big Three" are trying to do is to form a cartel. This proposal will certainly wreak havoc with the already struggling cricketing countries. Countries like Bangladesh have been given less opportunities in the recent past to play test cricket. Yet, they performed well against countries like West Indies, New Zealand and Srilanka. If the proposed resolution is passed, Bangladesh will lag behind further in terms of performance in test cricket. The other countries will also suffer if this resolution comes into effect. The ramifications will be enormous. Therefore, the rest of the countries should air their grievances in strong possible terms to save the game in their respective countries.

  • SR.Shapan on January 22, 2014, 5:11 GMT

    I think Australia, England and India cricket board are fully mad. How they can think this stupid proposal? They want to be Master and other 7 team will be servant! How stupid thinking? My proposal is other 7 test playing country should banned Australia, England and India. And the crowds of this 7 country should boycott the other 3 countries cricket match.

  • on January 22, 2014, 4:48 GMT

    Thats the way to go!!!

  • Udendra on January 22, 2014, 4:41 GMT

    Even if this paper is withdrawn/amended it has already created great shame to the "Gentleman's Game". People responsible for this should be marked for the future by all cricket fans in the world.

  • Sachit1979 on January 22, 2014, 4:36 GMT

    Completely waste proposal. I am an Indian still I don't want India to guide the terms of international Cricket. I am sure our team have no caliber to beat England in England, Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, New Zealand in New Zealand, Pakistan in Pakistan (UAE) and Windies in Windies so we don't deserve to be in elite class and same is the case with Australia and South Africa. They also can't beat Sri Lanka and Pakistan in their venues. If India is really the supremo in terms on money power then they should work for the upliftment of Cricket in ailing nations like Zimbabwe rather than looking for ways to mint more money by commercialization of the erstwhile gentlemen's game.

  • Soulcircus on January 22, 2014, 4:05 GMT

    An excellent response from the FICA which is difficult to refute.

  • on January 22, 2014, 2:11 GMT

    Some non-sense people have other views; frankly to tell them, please don't be over-smart seeing the matter from business point of view. ICC's main theme for the sport must be globalized not to be a business entity for some greedy people.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on January 22, 2014, 2:11 GMT

    Some non-sense people have other views; frankly to tell them, please don't be over-smart seeing the matter from business point of view. ICC's main theme for the sport must be globalized not to be a business entity for some greedy people.

  • Soulcircus on January 22, 2014, 4:05 GMT

    An excellent response from the FICA which is difficult to refute.

  • Sachit1979 on January 22, 2014, 4:36 GMT

    Completely waste proposal. I am an Indian still I don't want India to guide the terms of international Cricket. I am sure our team have no caliber to beat England in England, Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, New Zealand in New Zealand, Pakistan in Pakistan (UAE) and Windies in Windies so we don't deserve to be in elite class and same is the case with Australia and South Africa. They also can't beat Sri Lanka and Pakistan in their venues. If India is really the supremo in terms on money power then they should work for the upliftment of Cricket in ailing nations like Zimbabwe rather than looking for ways to mint more money by commercialization of the erstwhile gentlemen's game.

  • Udendra on January 22, 2014, 4:41 GMT

    Even if this paper is withdrawn/amended it has already created great shame to the "Gentleman's Game". People responsible for this should be marked for the future by all cricket fans in the world.

  • on January 22, 2014, 4:48 GMT

    Thats the way to go!!!

  • SR.Shapan on January 22, 2014, 5:11 GMT

    I think Australia, England and India cricket board are fully mad. How they can think this stupid proposal? They want to be Master and other 7 team will be servant! How stupid thinking? My proposal is other 7 test playing country should banned Australia, England and India. And the crowds of this 7 country should boycott the other 3 countries cricket match.

  • enayet on January 22, 2014, 5:15 GMT

    What the "Big Three" are trying to do is to form a cartel. This proposal will certainly wreak havoc with the already struggling cricketing countries. Countries like Bangladesh have been given less opportunities in the recent past to play test cricket. Yet, they performed well against countries like West Indies, New Zealand and Srilanka. If the proposed resolution is passed, Bangladesh will lag behind further in terms of performance in test cricket. The other countries will also suffer if this resolution comes into effect. The ramifications will be enormous. Therefore, the rest of the countries should air their grievances in strong possible terms to save the game in their respective countries.

  • Lion_96 on January 22, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    I think the BCCI role is important to defeat this resolution. They havent made many fans (outside India) over the years, but if they make the right decision for the good of the game, they will win respect throughout the Cricketing world.

  • on January 22, 2014, 5:23 GMT

    May this proposal expose those who thought it up and support. My word, what next, firing squads?

  • JawadSyed on January 22, 2014, 6:00 GMT

    Cricket is a sports, lets not make it a business. The proposal by the 'Big Three' is wrong and against the sportsman spirit of the game. FICA has done the right thing to take a stand against such prejudiced proposal