The Indian board would prefer competitions to be distributed, as before
The BCCI has once again expressed its displeasure at the ICC’s new bidding policy to find hosts for its global events in the 2023-20131 cycle. The residences are not new but were reiterated at a meeting for ICC members on Wednesday.
The meeting was not a formal meeting of the ICC Board, but one with relevant members with one point on the agenda – event hosting process from 2023. The BCCI was represented by the president current Sourav Ganguly, the first major meeting he has had since he was hospitalized twice recently after suffering a heart attack in January.
The decision to force members to apply to hold events was a unique departure from the decision on event venues in the previous eight-year cycle: all major events were men global divided up by the Three Greats of Australia, India and England between themselves. On the surface, it would seem that none of these three boards are particularly pleased.
In February last year the ICC emailed all members, Full, Associate and Affiliate, asking them to submit offers of interest for any of the 20 world championships – in men’s and women’s cricket – listed in circle 2023-31. To provoke interest, ICC chief executive Manu Sawhney went on a whistleblower tour visiting a number of countries but not India. The goal, Sawhney told nations, was for cricket to be a more global sport. Several members have expressed interest, including the PCB, who have previously said they would submit bids with the Emirates Cricket Board. However, none of BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia showed any interest.
Issues with the application process are part of a wider battle between the Big Three and the management of ICC, and some of the other Full Members; the BCCI, ECB and CA are also opposed to ICC’s plan for a further global event in the next round, which will ensure that one global tournament is played each year from 2023 to 2031.
The main complaint of BCCI, when the original decision approving the additional set of events, at the ICC Board meeting in October 2019, was that the Indian cricket board did not have an elected administration. That meeting, however, was attended by former BCCI secretary Amitabh Choudhury, who did not have permission from a Committee of Administrators appointed by the Supreme Court, which oversaw BCCI until October 2019.
Nevertheless, at the time BCCI chief executive Rahul Johri emailed the ICC saying that the final decision on a further incident in the 2023-31 cycle should be arrested until the accepted city elected administration. With regard to the number of events including additional world competition, Johri noted that it would have a “broad” impact on the bilateral calendar and should not be taken in a hurry.
The Ganguly administration has taken that complaint forward. Prior to Ganguly, BCCI treasurer Arun Dhumal is understood to have raised similar objections at a recent ICC main committee meeting. Although Ganguly was unavailable, a BCCI chief executive confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that India remained opposed to the ICC decision.
The root of BCCI’s complaint does not lie entirely in a potential expansion of the hosting market, although that is part of it. But there are also complaints that you will be asked to appeal. They would prefer events to be distributed, as before. According to official India, Australia and England should have made the pavilion events a priority. “Why should one apply ?,” the officer asked. “Why is there an application process when India, England and Australia haven’t even bought the offer document? Isn’t cricket like Olympics or football where 100 countries are looking for the interest? Out out of the top 10 countries there are only three that have the infrastructure and skills tools to host it.It must come with a rotation.You can not forget these three countries and think of hosting it there the smaller countries. “
At the negotiating table Ganguly has been more open to potential expansion, to explore both old and new markets. The BCCI, for example, would support the World Cup for men held in Africa, co-hosted by several countries including South Africa. It also supports a global T20 event in America. But he wants to make sure that some of the pavilion’s events will be held in old established markets like India.
The official also said that the Covid-19 pandemic has changed the wider economic landscape globally and that this would affect smaller countries claiming an event. The biggest challenges, the official said, would be paying hospitality to the ICC, creating the infrastructure and maintaining it. Even big countries like the US may struggle where cricket is still a minority sport despite the large diaspora.
Despite strong reservations from the BCCI, an ICC Board member said the differences were not inevitable. Another, loyal to the amendments, said the ECB had not purchased any tender document as well because it was said it was concerned with one precondition that sought full government support in maintaining global event. The ICC has not been satisfied with financial results from the three world events held in England: the 2017 Champions Cup and the ODI women’s World Cup and the 2019 men’s World Cup.
India’s own position as a guest is not possible directly, as a long-standing tax dispute between the board and the ICC remains to be resolved.
Discussions are expected to continue until the next ICC board meeting in March.
Nagraj Gollapudi is news editor at ESPNcricinfo