Let's not be beastly to the Indians.

I was bemused to see ICC CEO Malcolm Speed, of all people, lecture India’s cricket board on its responsibility to cricket the other day. The cause of this lecture was India’s desire to scrap the commercially insane Future Tours Program that the ICC somehow foisted on the cricket world in 2004.

And I was even more bemused to see the normally sensible Michael Atherton accuse the Indian cricket board of being selfish and the ‘big beast’ of international cricket in the Sunday Telegraph. Atherton’s complaints reek of hypocrisy given that the ECB did not exactly give the 2004 Champion’s Trophy the prime time place on England’s cricket schedule.

But the 2006 Champion’s Trophy is a distraction- the real dispute seems to be to be about the Future Tours Program.

To me, it seems that the FTP is doomed, because it is built on the fallacy that the ten full members are a gathering of equals. They are of course, nothing of the sort. There are three full members. India, Australia and England, all of which have a large enough cricket base to support them financially. I consider them ‘full members’ because these nations are able to host Test Cricket matches and make a profit on them, or, at the very least, not lose large sums of money on them.

The second tier members, Bangladesh, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and West Indies, are not able to generate enough money through playing Test Cricket and must rely on top ups from one-day International cricket, and by hosting the first tier members. This generates TV revenues (and in the case of England, considerable tourism benefits.)

The spirit of the FTP is that the first tier members should ‘spread the wealth’ by guaranteeing the second tier members a sufficient slice of the pie. But in practice, the FTP asks too much of India, and specifically India. Since geography offers England a natural monopoly of the middle months of the year, there is freedom for the ECB to do its own thing. Australia has long claims on the Christmas period through tradition, and also because the long supremacy of its Test team gives Australia an extra prestige.

It seems to me that India is not asking that much; they want to have the focus of the cricket world on them in the September to November period, and they want to play against commercially attractive opposition in that period. Given India’s place in the cricket world, the ICC should give India its due, and back down, and people like Michael Atherton should apologise.