FICA slams ‘Big Three’ ICC proposal

FICA slams ‘Big Three’ ICC proposal


Paul Marsh, Australian Cricketers' Association arch executive, 2013

The world’s cricketers have uttered their clever antithesis to a proposed revamp of a ICC’s structure, dogmatic that it would usually offer to strengthen India, England and Australia while weakening a rest of a cricketing nations.

The Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (FICA), that represents actor associations in 7 of a ICC’s 10 full member countries, has announced itself “extremely concerned” with a leaked proposal, that would place a ICC mostly in a control of a ostensible “Big Three” nations. The FICA chairman, Paul Marsh, pronounced players had a genuine fear a offer would leave countries outward a Big Three to “wither on a vine”.

“There are a innumerable of issues with this proposal,” Marsh said. “First and foremost, as house directors of a ICC, a Chairmen of a BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB owe fiduciary duties to a ICC that embody putting a interests of a ICC brazen of those of their particular boards, a avocation to sojourn constant to a ICC and equivocate conflicts of interests and to act in good faith to foster a success of a ICC. We severely doubt either all of these duties have been met.

“The proposals relating to scheduling are disturbing. The soundness to a play outward a ‘Big Three’ that they are guaranteed to acquire some-more in a subsequent rights cycle than they have in a stream one ignores a fact they are roughly certain to remove some-more income from a re-shaped Future Tours Programme (FTP) than they will benefit from ICC distributions, when a ‘Big Three’ fundamentally collect and select who, when and where they will play.

“Of stress is a territory that offers a pledge from Cricket Australia and a ECB to play 3 Tests and 5 ODIs per cycle to any of a tip 8 members, nonetheless there is no discuss of any such pledge from a BCCI. Each of a member countries, including Australia and England, rest heavily on Indian tours for sustainability of a diversion in their country. What possibility do a infancy of members have of presence if a BCCI decides not to debate their countries on during slightest a semi-regular basis?

“The outcome of this is that a opening between a ‘Big Three’ and a rest will get bigger and bigger, that will criticise a competitiveness of destiny ICC events and therefore a value of rights in destiny cycles. This will impact everybody and it can't presumably be in a interests of general cricket nor of a health and sustainability of a universe diversion of that a ICC is ostensible to be a custodian.”

Boards of ICC members outward a Big Three have voiced incompatible views on a proposal, with Cricket South Africa arguing a thought is “fundamentally flawed” and “in crack of a ICC constitution”, while New Zealand Cricket said it was wrong to burst to a end that a offer would be bad for cricket. However, FICA has lifted concerns about a intensity augmenting financial aria that could impact countries already struggling to make income from a game.

“We also have poignant regard with a idea that distributions from ICC events should be formed on blurb contribution,” Marsh said. “The outcome of this will be a countries that need ICC income many will accept a least, while a ‘Big Three’ will get a lion’s share even yet they are already financially healthy since of a value of a rights to their shared series.

“The purpose of ICC events should be to support in levelling a financial personification margin by distributing a deduction from these events fairly, rather than serve widening a opening between a abounding and poor. Whilst these are an wholly foreseeable blurb outcomes, for a cricket fan a larger regard is a augmenting cove in peculiarity between a ‘Big Three’ and a rest. The hint of foe is foe and those in control of a ICC should be doing all they can to foster and yield a turn personification field. This offer will grasp a finish opposite.

“Ironically a offer espouses a principal of meritocracy. The joining of shield from Test relegation for BCCI, ECB and CA to an evidence that this is required ‘solely to strengthen ICC income’ is seemingly wrong, given a fact no Test-based ICC events underline in a brazen meditative and therefore all revenues generated from Test cricket are kept by a play hosting a particular series.”

Article source: