ICC news February 4, 2016

ICC announces review of 2014 restructuring

ESPNcricinfo staff
119

Play 03:00
Promising signs in ICC restructuring

The ICC has announced it will carry out a complete constitutional review of the changes brought about by the "Big Three" takeover in 2014. Moves have already begun to dismantle the system of governance proposed by the BCCI, ECB and CA two years ago, with confirmation of the expected change to make the ICC chairman an independent position.

The outcomes from the ICC board meeting on Wednesday also included removing permanent positions for India, England and Australia on the Executive Committee and the Financial & Commercial Affairs Committee - the ICC's two most powerful forums.

In a statement, the ICC said the board had "agreed to carry out a complete review of the 2014 resolutions and constitutional changes with a view to establishing governance, finance, corporate and cricketing structures that are appropriate and effective for the strategic role and function of the ICC and all of its members".

Shashank Manohar, the BCCI president who is also currently serving as ICC chairman, signalled his intention to roll back the changes overseen by his predecessor N Srinivasan in an interview last year, when he referred to "the three major countries bullying the ICC". Manohar will now head the five-man steering group set up to conduct the review, with an aim of putting forward recommendations at the ICC's annual conference in June.

Alongside Manohar on the steering group will be ECB president Giles Clarke, in his role as chairman of the F&CA Committee. Clarke was one of the architects of the ICC revamp - which resulted in a greater share of revenue for the three main boards - and had been expected to run for the position of chairman. The rest of the group will comprise heads of the ICC's Governance Review Committee, Executive Committee and Associate/Affiliate Member group: Nazmul Hassan, David Peever and Imran Khawaja respectively.

The introduction of an independent chairman was intended to "avoid any potential conflicts of interest and to follow best practice principles of good governance". The ICC's next chairman, to be elected later this year, will no longer be able to hold a position on their home board, as Srinivasan and subsequently Manohar did.

Candidates to succeed Manohar must have served as an ICC director. The chairman will be able to serve for a maximum of three two-year terms.

Manohar said the board had agreed on a need for greater transparency and would reinstate the practice of Full Member boards presenting their audited accounts to the ICC on an annual basis. Three of the board's four annual meetings will now take place outside of the UAE, where the ICC is headquartered, with the Annual Conference set to be held in Edinburgh from June 27 to July 2.

"We had very purposeful and positive meetings, and the decisions taken clearly reflect that we collectively want to improve the governance in a transparent manner, not only of the ICC but also the Member Boards," Manohar said. "This, in turn, will enhance the image and quality of the sport. No Member of the ICC is bigger than the other and I am determined to make a meaningful contribution in this regard with support of all the Members."

Other areas addressed during the board meeting in Dubai included an update on the cricket's potential viability as an Olympic sport, which concluded that further work was required; and the establishment of an Anti-Corruption Oversight Group, which includes former India batsman Rahul Dravid, to annually review strategies to fight corruption.

The ICC has also reinstated Sri Lanka Cricket's full membership. SLC had been stripped of its voting rights at the ICC table in April last year, when the ICC took a dim view of a politically appointed board in Sri Lanka. That board was dissolved and elections held early in January. The ICC also said "SLC is now entitled to full funding", after having kept payments due to SLC in escrow last year.

The USA Cricket Association remains suspended, although the ICC has approved development and high-performance projects for 2016, to be funded from a "special projects" budget.

A change has been made to the qualification process for the 2018 Under-19 World Cup, with the highest-placed Associate team from the ongoing tournament in Bangladesh being given an automatic spot, alongside the ten-Test playing nations. The remaining five sides will qualify through the regional qualifying tournaments.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • rezauk on February 6, 2016, 9:45 GMT

    Theres always 2 sides to every argument. Most importantly all Test sides must be treated equally. A structure should be in place to allow a non test side promotion to the Test Arena for a given period of time. If competing then continue. I don't have any objection to India or anybody else keeping their money as long as they don't get special treatment or additional voting rights. It's just not cricket as we say here in the UK.

  • forExcelienceInCricket on February 6, 2016, 9:01 GMT

    There is scope for making ICC & cricket boards more professional by improving their governance models. The governance model needs to include professionals from various disciplines like any other organisation. Participation of cricketers but only with adequate training in management needs to be encouraged. Boards have to function independent of government control and have to manage the development of sport & related infrastructure in their countries. Cricketers need to be looked after by a fair payment model during playing days & post retirement by respective cricket boards. Boards have also to plan funding of sport thru sponsorship / earnings & not look only for freebies from ICC or other boards. The revenue sharing model based on source of revenue is logical. The needs for funds for a large country like India are far greater. Adoption & success of Cricket in countries is more dependent on popular support, infrastructure, professional management by boards and blaming ICC is unfair

  • fguy on February 6, 2016, 4:24 GMT

    @anshu.s completely agree with you. i dont care about the administration revamps as long as the revenue distribution model is not touched. as it is we're getting only 20% when we contribute 80%+. it should've been a 40% share. why should we subsidise other countries & their shortcomings. do other int'l sporting bodies subsidise Indian sports. does fifa do anything for India? no! so the one game where we are doing well there also we throw away our advantage? ridiculous! as someone else said rightly will any country surrender a permanent seat at UN security council? NO! but here this manohar seems to think of himself as some evangelist. it's not his money; it's ours - the INDIAN CRICKET FAN's. but am not too surprised really by this. he's the same guy who rolled out a green carpet for aussies in 2004 which cost us the series & he did it all for political reasons. CI pls publish.

  • Go-Greens on February 5, 2016, 19:38 GMT

    Good to see finally something in a positive direction for world cricket. Leagues like IPL BPL PSL etc might be earning money for boards but it's just a matter of time that people start loosing their interest. The scarcity of variety of players defines all what has ICC been doing in recent times. And surprisingly, many indian fans have welcomed this move. It's good to see that greediness is kept aside for the sake of cricket. Long live cricket!

  • Diganta Sarkar on February 5, 2016, 18:43 GMT

    On a different context, Manohar would feel the pinch within BCCI very soon as Lodha Committee would also squeeze revenue out of them with demands of transparency and reigning on advertisements. If BCCI revenue from broadcasters fell, then they will not take another fall in ICC revenue very wholeheartedly. Overall, we might see another Srini or equivalent coming up with another similar proposal in a few years. This could happen with ECB and CA as well. So, keeping fingers crossed.

  • Diganta Sarkar on February 5, 2016, 18:43 GMT

    ICC used to distribute 75% of its revenue among 10 member boards equally, i.e. each of them got ~7%. The rest were given to the Associates equally. They now instead distribute the same unequally, i.e. India getting as much as 22% while Zimbabwe getting as low as 2.5%. So, the fundamental argument of revenue distribution was never egalitarian, neither before nor now. Further, the big-10 used to use all their clouts everywhere with automatic qualification in every tournament. For example, in 2007 WC Ireland finished ahead of Zimbabwe but the Zimbabwe board took home 100 times more than the Irish board in that period. Unsurprisingly, cricket expanded little in last 20-30 years. To make any plan work, the funding for upper ranked Associate board must be at par with lower ranked full members and there should be criteria defined path for Associate teams to become full member teams (and should not be too hard).

  •   Sal Husain on February 5, 2016, 18:07 GMT

    when the history of cricket is written Mr. Shashank Manohar will be rememberd as a hero and a visionary. Thank you MR Manohar

  • Nithor on February 5, 2016, 17:56 GMT

    greT, it is looks he is a real gentlemen

  • CricketChat on February 5, 2016, 15:03 GMT

    All changes for the better functioning of ICC. The challenge now is to implement them without fear or favor. All said, it is inevitable that India will have a major say in ICC matters and governance as it contributes the most funding. Just a fact of life.

  • woody3 on February 5, 2016, 15:00 GMT

    As a fan of one of the big three I am genuinely made extremely happy that the awful, short sighted, borderline corrupt and utterly contrary to any kind of "spirit of the game" changes are being dumped. Common sense and decency prevailing is all too rare. All the architects of this agreement if not already banned from office should now retire quietly and hopefully never be allowed to run anything bigger than a local a club raffle again (I would have reservations about letting them run that if I'm honest).

  • No featured comments at the moment.