“We think Covid-19 protocols, as with player welfare provision generally, should be the subject of global, enforceable minimum standards.” – Tom Moffat, Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations CEO
TELFORD VICE | Cape Town
HOW to gauge the difference between the capacity of administrators in first world countries to run cricket during the pandemic compared to their counterparts in places where systems are less seamless and resources more scarce? Here’s one way, crude and limited though it is.
The ECB oversaw 10,000 tests for Covid-19 during the men’s and women’s English international summer, which ran from July 8 to September 30. During the 21 days from November 18, when the South Africa and England men’s squads and their support staff went into a bio-secure environment in Cape Town, until England’s tour was called off on Tuesday in the wake of the detection of the disease in the players’ midst, CSA dispensed around 600 tests. So the ECB tested at around four times the rate CSA did.
It’s true that CSA didn’t apply the bubble restrictions as tightly as the ECB, but it is also true that South Africa and most other countries don’t have the capacity to test as often as the United Kingdom. So, for many cricketers, including those who have reached international level, the Covid-19 playing field is about as level as the outfield at Lord’s.
“At the moment clearly there is a pressing need to resource bio-secure bubbles, testing facilities, etcetera, to ensure player and support staff welfare,” Tom Moffat, the chief executive of the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (FICA), told Cricbuzz. “We think those things, as with player welfare provision generally, should be the subject of global, enforceable minimum standards.
“The fact there are vastly different standards around the world means the level of player welfare provision simply reflects how a particular board or country prioritises it and the extent to which it can pay for, and resource, world class protections.
“The ICC is very good at imposing blanket global rules that apply to, and are enforceable on, players; codes of conduct, anti-doping, anti-corruption rules, for example. It continues to resist our calls for it to put enforceable measures in place that protect people, including players, in other vital areas.”
Cricket is shot through with contrasts because it is, like every other part of society, subject to global inequalities. The pandemic has brought those differences into stark relief — including at the level of the players, who are often cushioned from realities their compatriots confront regularly. When last, for instance, has a police escort ensured your bus glides through rush-hour traffic as if it is the only vehicle on the road? The virus pays no heed to sirens and flashing lights.
The failure of England’s tour — half the six matches have been postponed indefinitely — has cast doubts over the rest of South Africa’s home summer. Boards don’t want their players’ medical security compromised by insecure systems, not least because that could impact their future marketability. For instance, Sri Lanka are due in South Africa for two Tests, the first starting on December 26. But they are scheduled to host England in two Tests from January 14.
Given their team’s recent experience in South Africa, will the ECB trust that the Lankans won’t bring the virus home with them and thus endanger England’s players? Australia, who are due in South Africa for three Tests in February and March, are also concerned.
SLC was considering calling off their team’s tour or suggesting the matches be moved to Sri Lanka. The board is now understood to be satisfied that CSA will institute stricter anti-virus measures than it did during England’s tour, which was blighted by trips to golf courses and a group barbecue, apparently to appease players already suffering from bubble fatigue. CA’s latest position, it has been learnt, is that South Africa and Australia play their Tests in Perth. Once apartheid kept teams out of South Africa. Now Covid-19 might.
A more familiar disparity among cricket-playing countries is what their boards earn. None makes more than the BCCI, which under the current funding model claims USD405-million a year from the ICC. The ECB’s share is USD139-million, and the Australian, Pakistani, South African, West Indian, Sri Lankan, New Zealand and Bangladeshi boards USD128-million each. USD94-million goes to Zimbabwe, and USD40-million each to Ireland and Afghanistan. The ICC’s 92 associate members are paid USD160-million combined. So India makes more than 230 times what Argentina, Bulgaria or Zambia do.
The logic is that India generates more of cricket’s revenue than anyone else, hence it deserves the biggest slice of the cake. In 2019 the IPL alone was estimated to have a brand value of USD6.7-billion. That’s more than 500 times what Pakistan earns annually from the ICC. International cricket, as it is configured now, is not an exercise in democracy but in capitalism — ideologies that compete with each other more than they concur.
Boards also make money from the sale of the broadcast rights for bilateral series. But that equation is skewed in favour of the more powerful organisations, which grow in influence and stature because they are able to demand higher rights fees. In 2018 Star agreed to pay the BCCI USD944-million over five years for India’s domestic broadcast and digital rights, with the latter applying worldwide. Last month the same company concluded a four-year deal with CSA for the linear and digital rights for the broadcast in Asia, the Middle East and north Africa of all of South Africa’s matches, and for India’s tours to South Africa. All that for the bargain price, relatively, of USD100.6-million.
A hole in the bilateral bucket is that only home boards earn broadcast revenue. So, if CSA agreed to playing the Lankans in Sri Lanka and the Australians in Perth, they should lose that money. But, in this case, SLC and CA are believed to be willing to allow CSA to keep the rights fees. Similarly, the fact that CSA confirmed on Wednesday that the Proteas would visit Pakistan in January and February for the first time since 2007 for two Tests and three T20Is may not be unrelated to the Pakistanis not having expressed worry about travelling to South Africa in April to play six-white ball games. If the visitors’ boards shared in the revenue from bilateral series such politicking could be avoided, and the potential for dodgy dealmaking removed.
“There is no doubt that the existing models in terms of revenue distribution from both ICC events and relating to bilateral international cricket are not perfect, and we know that in the current system, with the current structure of the game, it creates an almost insurmountable gap between the haves and have-nots,” Moffat said. “The idea of visiting boards taking a cut of the broadcast rights in bilateral international cricket has been flagged and may be one way to look at an equalisation measure.”
But the sweep of change would need to be broader than that if cricket is to be made a fairer game for all. “In our view any discussion also needs to focus on accountability and transparency, which are a product of governance,” Moffat said. “All of the major full member boards have received hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade or so, including through ICC distributions, and in many cases we question how that money has actually been spent.
“From a player perspective we would like to see more revenue in the game targeted and tagged towards areas in genuine need, including to assist smaller and mid-tier countries professionalise and remain competitive in both the men’s and women’s game.
“We are interested in a strong and healthy global game and also ensuring that players get remunerated properly relative to the money that they generate for the game at ICC level and for the boards, many of whom clearly aren’t spending that money particularly efficiently. Players collectively receive 2.6% of ICC revenue as player prizemoney in ICC events, for example, which is a pretty trivial amount relative to the amount of money those players are helping to generate for the entire game through their performances in those events. The rest of the money is largely carved up by the boards amongst themselves.
“In some of the FICA countries there are revenue-sharing arrangements which ensure that there is at least some level of transparency on the amounts that are going through to players collectively. But in many other countries we know that is not the case, and that players are not getting a fair share of the revenue they help to generate.”
Some of those players might wonder why they don’t see certain others as often as some of their ostensible peers in other countries. In the past five years India have played 17 matches against South Africa in bilateral rubbers. In the same period Australia have taken on the Indians 45 times.
“We believe many of the game’s economic inequities can also be assisted by good scheduling and a balanced FTP and competition structures,” Moffat said. “Clear and top down, more symmetrical scheduling, would not only lead to good competition structures and more understandable points systems, it would also actually help with the revenue situation.
“At the moment the situation where bigger countries play more against themselves than others in an asymmetrical, competitor driven global schedule, exacerbates the imbalance in the way money is distributed around the world. On top of this, countries who make the most from bilateral scheduling also get the largest share of ICC event driven revenues.
“More equitable scheduling can also help to create pathways to the top and revenue-generating opportunities for the smaller cricket countries who could capitalise more financially if bigger countries played them more. For players from those smaller cricket countries, and almost all countries from a women’s player perspective, the frustration is palpable and we are really sympathetic to that because a lot of them have demonstrated they can compete with and beat the best in the world, yet they can’t get regular fixtures.”
From cash to Covid, cricket’s fault lines are many and varied. The virus is the newest of them, and it has the same main effect as the others — it separates rich from poor. Because 10,000 tests can’t all be wrong, but too many of 600 might be.
First published by Cricbuzz.
Bulletproof Truth 