The following article by Rod Lyall first appeared on the CricketEurope website on 21 August 2007. Reproduced by kind permission of www.cricketeurope.net
"The Scandal of the ICC Global Development Program"
The 2007 ICC Annual Report and consolidated accounts, are predictably, an extremely glossy production.
The report is, in the manner of these things, full of sharp-focus photography and rather softer-focus language. There’s plenty of talk about “stakeholders”, a “successful commercial program" , “sponsor servicing and support”, and the ICCs success in “delivering cricket’s major events”.
There are, to be sure, occasional hints of self-criticism: the late Percy Sonn refers in his Presidents report to “several issues with” the 2007 World Cup, Malcolm Speed talks about “many lessons to be learned from the event” and that phrase returns in the section on the tournament itself.
But you search in vain for any specifics, such as the absence of the crowds, the absurd length of the tournament (not unrelated, of course, to that successful commercial program), or the control freakery which led to the banning of musical instruments and liquid refreshments not bought on the ground, and the confiscation of jounalists’ pens.
The world of cricket looks pretty idyllic when viewed from the tower blocks of Dubai. That is to be expected perhaps, in the context of an annual report that tends to stress the positives.
But the Consolidated Financial Statements of ICC Development (International) Ltd make for rather more interesting reading if you’re prepared to take the time.
Consider this: out of a surplus for the year of $39.4m., $ 28.6m were allocated, the remainder, very sensibly, being transferred to the reserves. Of the $28.6m, $13m was paid to the ICC Members, the same amount was allocated to the Global Cricket Development Program, and $2.6m went to the special development fund of the Asian Cricket Council.
There is no break-down of how the first $13m was distributed among the membership and the published accounts of the ten Full Members are remarkably reticent on the subject, but it seems like a fair bet that they received at the very least, the lions share.
The statement gives a bit more detail about the distribution of the Global Cricket Development Program funding among the ICCs five constituent regions. Of the $13m allocated, only $8.026m was actually utilised and of that $887,000 (11%) of it for central costs and the High Performance Program.
This left $7.139m., which was shared out in a very unequal manner. The following table compares the distribution with the actual number of ICC Associates and Affiliate members in each region for the year in question:
Associates Affiliates Total Allocation
No. % No. % No. % Amt (‘000s) %
Asia 7 21.9 11 18.6 18 19.8 4,619 64.7
Europe 10 31.2 17 28.8 27 29.7 864 12.1
Americas 5 15.6 12 20.3 17 18.7 565 7.9
Africa 7 21.9 12 20.3 19 20.9 664 9.3
East A/Pac 3 9.4 7 11.9 10 10.9 427 6.0
And these figures, remember, do not include the further $2.6m, which the Asian Cricket Council received in respect of the 2002 Champions Trophy!
In other words, the Asian Cricket Council, with around 20% of the ICC’s Associate and Affiliate members, received nearly two-thirds of the money allocated to the Global Development Programme, while Europe, with nearly 30% of the members, got 12% of the funding. I know these figures are right, because I was so gob-smacked that I worked them out three times to make sure.
So not only is the cake itself too small – although $13m., or even $7.1m., isn’t to be sneezed at – but the slicing of the cake is so inequitable that it beggars belief.
It’s hard to see how such a pattern of distribution can be justified. It can’t be based on the numbers of players in the Associate and Affiliate countries, because the latest figures I have seen Asia ranked fourth on that criterion, after Africa, Europe and America.
The ICC would no doubt say that the vast revenues which it obtains through the fanatical support which cricket has across the Sub-continent and its diaspora justifies such a vast weighting in favour of the Asian region.
That might make sense to the marketing men, but it makes nonsense of the ICC claim to be committed to the development of cricket as a worldwide sport.
Perhaps they would argue that the imbalance is partly corrected by the High Performance Program, but participation in that is earned through performances on the field, and it cannot be right that a region should be penalised for the excellence of its leading countries. And it is also true that the HPP itself is something of a poisoned chalice, with much of the money ear-marked for specific, ICC-dictated purposes, never reaching the countries themselves.
It’s not a coincidence that most of the leading Associates, and especially those in Europe, have serious financial problems because their income simply isn’t enough to cover the demands being made of them.
A cynic, on the other hand, might wonder whether the imbalance in funding has something to do with the dominance of the Asian Full Members and their allies on the ICC Board, which enables them to do pretty much as they want, whenever they want.
The result, in any case, is that the Asian region had enough money last year to run a five-team three-day competition on a home-and-away basis, something that is beyond the wildest dreams of ICC-Europe. The fact that most of the teams involved were too weak to compete with the eight countries, three of them European, who play in the Intercontinental Cup, was obviously irrelevant.
This year the European tournament program involves ten tournaments, with 56 teams participating, representing 20 different countries. That’s more countries than in the whole Asian region. And it has to be done, relatively speaking on a shoestring.
The allocations of the Global Development Programme are a scandal, which in any other world than that of cricket would before now have given rise to vigorous public debate. The vision, as expressed in the ICC’s Strategic Plans and Annual Reports is a laudable one, and there are people who work hard to put it into effect.
But that vision is betrayed by a stream of favouritism and patronage which must change if the whole strategy is to succeed. To leave it as it is would be one more crime against the ICC’s much-touted Spirit of Cricket “
Cover Point felt the issues raised in Rod’s article were fundamental to the future development of cricket in Ireland and at the very least deserved a response directly from the ICC. We contacted the ICC and James Fitzgerald, Communications Officer responds:
“In relation to Rod’s article, it has been public knowledge for a long time now (since shortly after the ICC Development Program started in 1997) that - under an ICC Executive Board resolution and an Memorandum of Understanding with the Asian Cricket Council through to 31 December 2008 - the $13m per two-year cycle allocated to it by the Full Members from the profits of world cricket (specifically the ICC Champions Trophy) is broken down 50% to Asia with the remaining 50% - after central / High Performance Program costs being taken out - going 26% to Africa, 25% to the Americas, 16% to East Asia - Pacific and 33% to Europe (these remainder divisions are determined - and regularly reviewed - by the ICC Development Committee after taking into consideration all factors and arguments).
You would be well aware of the contribution that the Asia Region and its Full Members (4 of the world's 10) makes to the generation of this significant revenue which is then able to be spent on the wider development of the game and I can advise that this 50% Asia entitlement was actually re-adopted by the ICC Annual Conference / Full Council of Members 2006 for the new developing cricket world funding scenario/period 2009-15.
As for the special fund mentioned in the article which the ACC has also been entitled to receive from some previous ICC Champions Trophy events (depending on the level of profit), I advise that this can - and has been - spent by Asia on both its Full Member and Associate/Affiliate Member activities.
For the record, musical instruments were never banned during the ICC Cricket World Cup, nor was food/drink that was bought outside the ground and to the best of my knowledge (and I have asked several people in relation to this) no journalist had his/her pen confiscated during the event.
I hope this further information helps but please do note that, as Rod admits in his article, all matters have been reported openly and accurately in all our publications.”
Cover Drive
Given the cash-strapped state that Irish and European cricket finds itself in it may come as somewhat of a surprise to find that the global game is in rude financial health. The ICC annual Report for year ended 31 March 2007 shows a healthy after tax surplus of $39.448m.
The figures in the ICC Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07 speak for themselves. Of the $8.026m utilised for the Global Cricket Development Program during the year, the Asian region was allocated $4.619m or 58% of the total. For the 18 Asian Associate and Affiliate members this represents an average of $ 256,600 per country. For the 27 European Associates and Affiliates just $864,000 was allocated - an average of $32,000 per country.
The ICC make the point in their response that Asia accounts for 4 of the 10 Full Members. However this point throws up more questions than it answers. Weren’t Bangladesh (one of the Full Members) comfortably defeated by Ireland at the recent World Cup? Despite amateur status (because Ireland doesn’t have the money to turn professional), aren’t Ireland probably already better than Bangladesh? So, what is the basis on which Bangladesh are Full Members and what is the basis on which Ireland are not?
Irelands’ success is a tremendous opportunity for the ICC. Nothing succeeds like success and nothing would fuel the growth of cricket as a global sport more than to see a “minnow” like Ireland emerge to shake things up among the global established powers. That would really inspire and fire the imaginations across the Associate and Affiliate cricketing world. .…
However, as things stand, Ireland, as the strongest of the Associate nations globally and the one most ready to move on to the next level are the biggest losers in all of this.
What signal is the ICC showing to European and global cricket if Irelands heroic performances, not only in this years World Cup but for a number of years now at all levels are in danger of counting for nought due to lack of funding, when funds are clearly available?
The Irish Cricket Union needs to be lobbying its contacts in the English Union (Scotland are the next biggest losers after Ireland), Australian, New Zealand, South African Unions, politicians North and South and anyone else who will listen to have this situation addressed.
Ireland represents for the global game its biggest opportunity since Sri Lanka. It is the time for the ICC to show their mettle. Irish cricket needs a major cash injection and support to move to the next level. Right now.
