In a cricket World Cup conducted nearly flawlessly, there were very few glitches on the field in a 44-day, 49-match event, which captured billions of global eyeballs for the sport. While the encomiums poured in for an event many described as the best World Cup ever, what stuck out like a sore thumb was the controversy over the trophy presentation ceremony. The president of ICC, who is the titular and ceremonial head of the federation and chairs general and special meetings of the august body, walked out of the final and on reaching Dhaka semaphored his resignation to the world. Now, Mustafa Kamal may be a nonentity in ICC’s governance of cricket and in its power politics, but he held the constitutional right to give away the trophy to the winning captain Michael Clarke. That right was denied to him. On the golden night out at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, it was the chairman of ICC, Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who gave away the trophy. Now, India dominates the ICC, as it well may since over 70 per cent of the revenues comes either to events starring Team India or from advertisements aimed at the biggest captive audience of upwards of 400 million middle class population with newfound purchasing power domiciled in India and its diaspora. That India also drives all the power politics of ICC is perhaps owed to the presence of Srini, a divisive figure in the game who has done amazing things for the ‘body’ of cricket but who has been charged with destroying its soul. The background to the events of the final evening is well known. Kamal had spoken out of turn after the India-Bangladesh quarter final, from which he picked one contentious umpiring moment and blamed it on manipulative politics, while suggesting that the entire tournament was fixed for India to win. There may not be too many takers for Mustafa’s conspiracy theory of a Pakistani umpire deliberately favouring India in declaring a ‘No ball’ for height against a set batsman in Rohit Sharma who took the game further away from the Green Tigers of Asian cricket. Truth be told, the particular episode was poorly handled with neither umpire going ‘upstairs’ to consult their colleagues in the box with the ‘vision’ to gauge the height of the ball and rule more appropriately. Kamal’s statement on events mid-Cup were condemnable and not worthy of a man heading the federation whose feelings for his national team seem to have spiralled out of control. However, it is a moot point whether the faux pas was so severe as to warrant his exclusion from the grand ceremony of the World Cup. Such unforgiving condemnation of anyone else’s mistakes in the game is a trademark Srini reaction, although it could be said that he showed great charitable disposition to forgive himself when the Supreme Court reserved some choice descriptions for his own controversial conduct in the BCCI from where he has been unseated as President by the country’s top court. Had Srini handed over the privilege to the New Zealand PM John Key (the Australian PM Tony Abbott was away in Singapore to pay homage to Lee Kuan Yew) he may have proved his point with great dignity. By grabbing the role for himself, albeit his being the most powerful figure in world cricket by virtue of his being nominated by BCCI to head ICC’s board of governance, Srini betrayed an egoistic trait that sought the honour on cricket’s biggest night. No wonder then that Kamal made Srini the bullseye for personal barbs like “rotten’, etc. Whatever happened with regard to the prize ceremony could be put down to nasty personality politics. The issue is, however, only the top of the iceberg. The Imperial Cricket Conference outgrew its Lord’s garden party days when it went democratic as the International Cricket Council with Sir Colin Cowdrey heading it first and the presidency then passing on to the likes of Jagmohan Dalmiya of India and Ehsan Mani of Pakistan on rotation basis. In the most modern era, the federation moved into its India dominated days with a ceremonial President and a virtual executive Chairman with the reins, financial et al, in his hands. Had this led to a more benevolent regime with more money for all towards development of the game in all the frontiers and beyond of cricket, the development may well have been the best thing to happen. In calling it “India Cricket Council’, Mustafa was not far off the mark. Considering the weight of history, making points against the old colonial regimes may be considered fair game, up to a point. But the manner in which the ‘Big Three’ have arrogated power to themselves with an unequal share of revenues would lead to a divided cricket world, the poorer part of which is now afraid that universal development of the game is not going to be supported by the ICC in an equitable way. India, Australia and England are going to take away the cream of global events to organise while also cutting down on the number of teams in the showpiece World Cup so that there is a greater share of the pie to only 10 teams rather than the 14 who played in the 2015 edition. The decision to limit the field to 10 teams was bound to be most unpopular since the so-called minnows of the game like Ireland and Afghanistan performed remarkably well. There will be place in 2019 only for two teams to join the host England and seven top ranked ODI sides. This is to do with elitism being bred in the game after India’s presence became the dominant one. Cricket, which was known to bring together the high and mighty as well as the hoi polloi on an equal footing on the field of play, is now being driven towards an oligarchy under a potentate who will do far more damage to it than the colonials managed in hundred years. Did not GM Trevelyan write — “If the French noblesse had been capable of playing cricket with their peasants, their chateaux would never have been burnt.” What the Bangladesh official did, wittingly or not, was to expose the big divide that is fast overtaking cricket. If the Srinivasan-led ICC, with a retinue of power brokers and well rewarded former cricketers, continues to run the game only with an eye on the money and taking all decisions based purely on commercial considerations, the game is at grave risk of reaching a plateau when it should actually be competing with myriad forms of emerging entertainment in the modern world. Many former BCCI presidents are convinced that the controversial Srinivasan has allowed things to come to such a pass. His philosophy is not seen to be much different from that of another figure of historical hate in Kerry Packer, the Australian magnate, who once said — “There’s a bit of the whore in all of us, gentlemen, what’s your price?” In cricket, they used to tell bowlers to aim at the three stumps. Nowadays, admin men may see the three stumps of the wicket as rupees, dollars and pounds. Source: The Asian Age, Image: http://photobucket.com
|
