How far removed are South Africa’s administrators from the most important people in the game, the fans, if they treat them as if they don’t exist?
TELFORD VICE | Cape Town
CSA’s new interim board has gone onto the front foot to promise a better game for all. The structure, named by government on Friday in the wake of the elected board members finally heeding multiple calls for their resignations, met on Monday even as further evidence that cricket’s suits are out of touch with their core constituency raged around the country.
With the pandemic having derailed the game globally, the start of the domestic season on Monday was CSA’s perfect opportunity to give cricketminded South Africans reasons to be cheerful. In the opening round of first-class fixtures, the Cobras are playing the Titans at Newlands, the Dolphins are up against the Lions at Kingsmead, and the Knights are at home to the Warriors in Bloemfontein.
The game’s problems in South Africa are many. But at least — after months of uncertainty during which the only story in town was chronic and deepening administrative ineptness on every front — there was cricket, lovely cricket. Four-day games are no longer broadcast live on television in South Africa and spectators couldn’t go and watch because of Covid-19 regulations, but the public would be significantly comforted by the fact that the players were back on the field. They would also have something else to think, talk and post about than CSA’s multiple failings. Whatever could go wrong …
Given the circumstances you might have thought CSA would have done all they could to ensure everyone and anyone who was interested in the matches knew how to access coverage, if only to drown the drip of negativity in four days of rare positive sunshine. Instead, they did the opposite. South Africans accustomed to logging on to live ball-by-ball scoring on a range of well-known online platforms — including Cricbuzz — found that the flow of information on most sites had slowed to a trickle of intermittent updates. The details were still available elsewhere, but at a level nowhere near as detailed as previously and not where many fans go for information.
Why? Because a new data contractor has been enlisted, which has taken live coverage of domestic cricket away from the usual online places. That is CSA’s right: it owns the content of the cricket played under its auspices, and fans should not expect something for nothing. Even or perhaps especially in these days of widespread economic strife. But to not shout that new reality from the rooftops to forewarn the public — and tell them where they could still get their fix, albeit at a lower quality — is an indictment. How far removed are South Africa’s administrators from the most important people in the game, the fans, if they treat them as if they don’t exist?
“The board specifically noted the dissatisfaction expressed by many journalists and cricket fans regarding the four-day matches, which had commenced, but were not being broadcast live,” a release on Tuesday said. CSA couldn’t get even that right. Earth to the suits: be less concerned with your deservedly dismal standing in the press and concentrate on improving your standing with the public, who are exponentially more important than the press. The press represent the fans. Do right by the fans and your standing in the press will improve. Apologies, readers, for the clunky repetition, but it seems we are dealing with people who have no clue of how these things work.
The release noted that the board met “to address a host of matters … but also to emphasise that its main objective is to restore public confidence in the game of cricket amongst all its stakeholders, particularly the players, media and the cricket-loving public”. You would be forgiven for surmising it’s not for nothing that the public are last on that list.
Having made that assumption, where might you lodge a complaint? Good luck figuring out who’s in charge given this kind of murky explanation, as per the release: “In terms of the current MOI [memorandum of incorporation], CSA’s members council is the highest decision-making authority in South African cricket. The board therefore accounts to the members council. However, the board clarified the lines of authority between itself, the members council, and executive management. The board is responsible for all operational matters within CSA, with the executive management reporting directly to the board and not the members council.” So, is the board in charge? Or the members council? Maybe DRS could tell us.
There was greater clarity on the board’s approach to dealing with the Fundudzi report. Its 468 pages detail CSA’s problems between 2016 and 2019 and which in August was used to fire Thabang Moroe as chief executive. The release said board members Zak Yacoob, Dawn Mbatha, Judith February and Caroline Mampuru had been “tasked … to assess the implications of the report and the action which needs to be taken” and to “discuss making the report public”. Note that all the members of the sub-committee do not come from cricket structures: a good thing. “We will do everything possible to ensure that those responsible for misdeeds and bringing the game and the organisation into disrepute are held to account,” February was quoted as saying.
According to the release, “The board is of the view that one of its members ought to represent South Africa at the ICC.” Another worthwhile idea.
Amid the missteps, then, there is the promise of improvement. But that’s all it is: a promise. The interim board should be under no illusion that, by stepping into this arena, it will be seen as nothing better than the problems it has come to confront until it finds and implements solutions. It should start by putting the public first.
First published by Cricbuzz.
Bulletproof Truth 