Gideon Haigh
Gideon Haigh Gideon HaighRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Cricket historian and writer in Melbourne

Who administers the administrators?

Players are expected to follow a code of conduct. But is there one such for those who govern the game? Self-regulation is no longer a solution to corruption in cricket

Gideon Haigh

January 31, 2011

Comments: 7 | Text size: A | A

Shashank Manohar at the ICC's board meeting, Dubai, October 14, 2007
BCCI officials have washed their hands off the financial irregularities in the IPL, preferring to let Lalit Modi take all the blame © International Cricket Council
Enlarge

A tenth World Cup. A fourth Indian Premier League. England, then Australia, hosting India. For cricket, the year of 2011 holds golden promise. That gold, though, is proving more difficult to handle than it should.

Is cricket corrupt? One finding on this question will be returned on February 5, when the judges who last month heard charges of spot-fixing against three Pakistani cricketers publish their deliberations. Whatever the result, it won't be pretty. Even assuming the charges stick, there is precious little for cricket to congratulate itself on: it took a tabloid newspaper, then a parallel police investigation, to make most of the case.

There is, moreover, a disturbing inattention among cricket's governing classes to the matter of corruption in their own ranks. Players at least are bound by a code of conduct. By what are administrators bound? A classic definition of corruption is "authority plus monopoly minus transparency". What form of words could better describe your average member board of the ICC?

The risk of administrative corruption is something cricket tacitly acknowledges. Last October, after an ICC executive board in Dubai discussed corruption as a general issue, chief executive Haroon Lorgat followed up with a letter to each member organisation, in which the ICC sought to "remind all registered players, support personnel and Member Board officials about their responsibilities, our clear stance on corruption, the need to abide by the ICC Anti-Corruption Code and that failure to do so could result in severe penalties". One paragraph is worth citing in full:

The Board was also determined to ensure that any other form of corrupt activities in the administration of the game (i.e. outside of the international players and support personnel group who are covered by various rules and regulations) should be rigorously dealt with to protect the integrity of the game. In this regard the Board agreed that any substantive allegations against any individual involved in the administration of the game should be thoroughly and independently investigated, unless there are disciplinary processes contained within the constitution of a Member Board for a credible review to be held internally.

In one respect, it put the boards concerned on notice, that houses not in order should be made so. It also, however, exhibited some of the ICC's limitations. The word "substantive" looks innocuous enough in this context - after all, who would be expected to investigate something "insubstantive"? But what about when there is disagreement about "substantivity", as there evidently is between Mtutuzeli Nyoka and Gerald Majola, respectively president and CEO of Cricket South Africa, in the matter of the bonuses rained on that body's executive after the second Indian Premier League? And what about when there is disagreement about the adequacy of internal disciplinary processes, as there is between the BCCI and its erstwhile wunderkind Lalit Modi in respect of the many and varied allegations against the latter? So what starts on the right rhetorical track - "determined to ensure", "rigorously dealt with", "protect the integrity" - wanders off in such a way as to afford ample wriggle room.

And exactly what "severe penalties" did the ICC really have to brandish? The ultimate sanction, one supposes, would be suspension, which was mooted in some punitive circles last year for the perennially dysfunctional Pakistan Cricket Board. Yet it is surely only a very last resort, because the sufferers would chiefly be blameless fans, mainly those in Pakistan, but also those who recognise the team as cricket's most exorbitantly talented and mercurial.

So what does the ICC have to hand where enforcing any sort of minimally acceptable behaviour on its members is concerned? The answer is: not much. Bear in mind that it has taken a decade for the ICC's member boards to recognise it as an appropriate forum for the policing of match-fixing, following the failure of their individual whitewashings. The only concerted attempt to get to the bottom of the activities of a member was the insertion of forensic accountants into the Augean stable of Zimbabwe Cricket, which three years ago cost Lorgat's predecessor his job; around even the PCB in the last six months, the ICC has trodden warily, anxious not to look too doctrinaire.

There is, however, more and more reason for concern. In south Asia, where so much of cricket's wealth is located, corruption is a daily, deep-rooted fact of life. On the annual corruption index published by Transparency International, an NGO, India (87th), Sri Lanka (91st), Bangladesh (134th) and Pakistan (143th) all rank in the bottom half of the table.

The PCB does nothing to discourage the view that the bribery and graft endemic in Pakistan civil society does not pervade cricket also. Nobody batted an eyelid last year when Lt Gen Tauqir Zia recounted a conversation with a "gentleman" who rang him during his four-year PCB chairmanship:

"So he said, 'So-and-so player should be included in the team because he fixes matches and we get money. You know, that's our livelihood.' So I said, 'Ah, I can give you appointment and a job in Pakistan Cricket Board. Why do you have to earn money, you know, in a wrong manner?'"

The caller declined the job - apparently he was making enough money where he was, thanks. But welcome to a country where a match-fixer can apparently ring the board president and be offered a gig.

Sri Lanka Cricket, meanwhile, was last year dubbed Sri Lanka's third most corrupt institution by the country's own sports minister Chandrasiri Ratnayake, who then promptly broke his promise of reform. Capable of the instant constitution of a star chamber to punish Suraj Randiv for bowling a no-ball, Sri Lanka Cricket has somehow proven incapable of organising an election of office bearers since its so-called "interim committee" was appointed in March 2005, or of doing anything about last year's allegations by former captain (and former ICC executive board member) Arjuna Ranatunga that "the money that comes from TV rights deals has gone into the pockets of some individuals".

 
 
The game contains too many people living too comfortably, who find it expedient to look the other way, and not just in its administrative echelons, but players, agents and media too
 

As for India, where last year's headlines were all of the Radia Tapes and the 2G scandal, and where one estimate is the country has been illegally bilked of as much as 40% of gross domestic product since independence, the strategy of the BCCI of simply heaping blame on Modi has worn thin.

When they appeared recently before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, the BCCI's three senior officials simply disclaimed all responsibility for their organisation's breaches of the Foreign Exchange Management Act during the second IPL, sidestepped the funding of IPL franchises through tax shelters like the Bahamas, Mauritius and the British Virgin Islands, and otherwise impressed as accountable to nobody. With a year to move on from Modi, the BCCI has made slow progress on restoring faith in its processes: approximately nobody who watches the IPL, for instance, believes, rightly or wrongly, that the salary cap is other than cosmetic, and that player retention has not been engineered to benefit vested interests.

Treating corruption in cricket as a south Asian problem, however, is unjust. The cricket economy is global, and the challenges affect everyone, a pursuit used to counting its pennies having abruptly become wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. In some respects cricket is like a poor but happy soul suddenly in receipt of news about a vast inheritance, and as a result surrounded by a host of new "friends" who want to "help" him - although, of course, they also expect to be rewarded for it. The game contains too many people living too comfortably who find it expedient to look the other way, and not just in its administrative echelons but players, agents and media too.

Cricket administration is also experiencing a cultural shift from residual claims to a philanthropic status - for which it enjoys in many countries an exemption from tax - to something resembling more closely a publicly listed company, but for which it is yet to accept proper degrees of commercial oversight, continuing to arrogate to itself the respect due a charity ("We are doing this for the good of the game!") while doing nothing to disguise its profit motive ('We've got to maximise stakeholder value!").

Direction in that climacteric will have to come from the ICC, which for all the BCCI's status as financial bellwether, is still a major distributor of revenue to the world's far-flung cricket community. This year, containing as it does a World Cup, the ICC will distribute hundreds of millions of dollars among its members - yet it will lose all oversight over those monies the minute they are disgorged. How sure can the ICC be that these funds will actually enrich the game, given the involvement of often small local organisations with few financial controls and essentially no probity checks? Will the ICC be able to ennumerate the constructive playing, organisational and infrastructural ends to which these payments have been put?

The answer is that they can't, but that arguably they should, that a system essentially of self-regulation is coming to a point where it is inadequate to guard cricket against the influence of those who are chiefly parasitic on it, and that a system where the difference in the standards of behaviour expected of those who play the game and those who run it now gapes too wide. It should be an exciting year for cricket, but excitement passes; of abiding public respect and trust does the game also have a need.

Gideon Haigh is a cricket historian and writer

RSS Feeds: Gideon Haigh

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by c5nv2838a47i on (January 31, 2011, 22:55 GMT)

Maybe we should be looking at the rise of fan-owned sports team, especially recent ones in England like AFC Wimbledon. We could also learn from the success of the Green Bay Packers in the NFL - a fan owned team from the very beginning. These team organisations are all non-profit, yet manage to generate enough money to pay the players a competitive wage and keep the fans happy.

Posted by John-Price on (January 31, 2011, 21:39 GMT)

"The PCB does nothing to discourage the view that the bribery and graft endemic in Pakistan civil society does not pervade cricket also." I make this a triple negative Gideon - anyway it doesn't mean what you want it to.

Posted by   on (January 31, 2011, 19:32 GMT)

Well thanks for the wonderful essay Gideon on who watches the watchmen? Now any constructive suggestions on how the Governors should be Governed? What rules and restrictions need to be placed upon them and what constraints they need to work under? Easy to say something's wrong hard to actually devise a solution. I would have thought a stricter and well defined code of conduct, independent audits from external bodies against defined constraints within the code of conduct, more focus on and accountability to the fans and their enjoyment of the game built into the charter and a maximum limit to advertising and the general prostitution of the game to tv adverts especially in India (Being an Indian, it's impossible to even follow the commentary coherently because ads cut off half of what's being said).

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (January 31, 2011, 13:17 GMT)

Who watches the watchmen, Gideon? Who watches the watchmen, indeed.

Posted by c5nv2838a47i on (January 31, 2011, 10:23 GMT)

Cricket is owned by the players and the fans. This ownership needs to be formalised somehow.

Posted by Dubby49 on (January 31, 2011, 5:33 GMT)

Constructive criticism requires a suggested solution. What is it?

Posted by   on (January 31, 2011, 4:34 GMT)

Most sports suffer from weak governance. 1st, because tv & sponsorship money has attracted those with knowledge of law & the media industry, who have run rings around existing governance bodies. 2nd because sport's narrative, of inclusion, health & excellence, has allowed those involved in sport to believe they are exempt from the norms & standards that apply to other industries. 3rd, sport attracts meddling, for political & financial gain, by state & national politicians. We have consistently seen the international community fail to put short term personal interests aside to find workable joint solutions in other spheres. Cricket, with it's colonial past & unique association with fair play, has suffered from this consistently & accutely. What is required is leadership by administrators to work with sponsors (who as multinationals will have dealt with many of these issues already), and begin acting as responsibly. Signing up to the UN global compact would be a good start

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Gideon HaighClose
Gideon Haigh Born in London of a Yorkshire father, raised in Australia by a Tasmanian mother, Gideon Haigh lives in Melbourne with a cat, Trumper. He has written 19 books and edited a further seven. He is also a life member and perennial vice-president of the South Yarra CC.

    In Larwood country

Diary: Our correspondent makes his way from Trent Bridge to Nuncargate to find out more about one of England's most fearsome fast bowlers. By Sidharth Monga

    Pitching it up

How a medical charity convinced the MCC and the Swedes to help spread the message of cricket among kids in Afghanistan

    'I'd run to watch if Gower was playing'

Part six: Martin Crowe on David Gower's footwork and the steely determination beneath his elegance

    A tale of two SSC Tests

In 1993 and 2006, South Africa's bowlers had vastly different results in Colombo. Brett Schultz and Makhaya Ntini look back

Are you born to captain?

Nicholas Hogg: Are some people just made to lead and the rest to follow? Let's examine the case of the two Captain Cooks

News | Features Last 7 days

Defensive captains' extended test

The duration of the Test series will allow Alastair Cook and MS Dhoni to reassess the strategies, or provide enough time to get thoroughly exposed

India look for their Indian summer

Billboards are calling the series England's Indian Summer, but it is India who are looking for that period of warmth, redemption after the last whitewash, for they have seen how bleak the winter that can follow is

India's bowling leader conundrum

The present Indian bowling line-up will tackle its first five-Test series without the proven guidance of Zaheer Khan, their bowling captain. India had unravelled without him in 2011. Will they do better this time around?

Bevan's best, and a combined Indo-Pak team

A look back at five high-profile exhibition matches

Five key head-to-heads

From two embattled captains to the challenge for India's openers against the new ball, ESPNcricinfo picks five contests that could determine the series

News | Features Last 7 days