South Africa, Zimbabwe lends support to Shashank Manohar’s ICC revamp plan

Shashank Manohar feels the current model is making rich boards richer and poor poorer. (Source: PTI)

SUPPORT is growing for Shashank Manohar’s opposition to the new world order of the ICC, which he ironically heads, with Cricket South Africa (CSA) the most powerful full-member board outside the Big Three advocating the BCCI president’s strong criticism. Admitting his confidence in Manohar for ‘making the ICC a better place’, CSA chief executive, Haroon Lorgat insisted that the other seven full members, including his own, will completely back any amendment that will restore parity in the sport’s governing body.

“I am confident that all seven full members that were hugely prejudiced by the previous dispensation will enthusiastically support Mr Manohar. It will require changes to the ICC constitution which I believe will be easy to adopt as the majority of members will support the changes mooted by Mr Manohar,” Lorgat told The Indian Express via an email interaction.

Lorgat was proven right. For, as the day progressed other boards like Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) and Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) also lauded the incumbent ICC chairman’s anti-Big Three sentiments. And it might well be a sign that the controversial position paper document that paved the way for the mini-big bang in the ICC could be in for a serious rethink.

Reacting to Manohar’s scathing remarks against BCCI, Cricket Australia and the England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) ‘bullying’ the ICC and his brazen disapproval of the constitutional revamp that the three boards orchestrated to monopolize power last year, Lorgat expressed ‘enormous delight’.

“It is indeed refreshing to have read these comments and knowing the man I am confident that he will change the ICC structures to make it a better place so that all ICC members and international cricket can flourish,” he said.

Only last week, Lorgat during a visit to Bangalore, had expressed his hope that the revenue-sharing model will be reviewed under Manohar. As it turns out, his wish has in some ways been fulfilled with the incumbent ICC chairman questioning the fairness of the present revenue-sharing model that ensures BCCI get 22 per cent of the share while boards outside the Big Three have to be content with pittance like 1.2 per cent in the case of CSA. Manohar had explained that one of the main reasons India does generate money is because they have good teams providing fierce competition, which keeps the broadcasters and sponsors happy. He had also believed that it was making the rich boards richer and the poor poorer.

“It has always been my view that we must co-exist and we need to support each other if we wish to grow and sustain the game worldwide. Having more competitive teams can only be good for the game,” said Lorgat.
ZC chairman Tavengwa Mukhulani, who heads an embattled board which is one of the lesser fortunate cricket bodies in terms of finances, too accepted that for cricket to survive, the revenue needed to be shared more equally.

“We are not blessed like other countries. Our guys basically feel threatened when it comes to future of cricket and it is very important observation by Mr Manohar. We all play a role in defining the product which is cricket and we all feel we are important members of ICC,” said Mukhulani.

Meanwhile, Lorgat also was in complete agreement with Manohar when it came to his comment about there being a conflict of interest in the case of a ICC chairman being a representative of a particular home board. The BCCI boss had felt that the man in-charge will be obliged to put the interests of the board that has promoted him rather than the global body.

“We agree totally with Mr Manohar’s viewpoint on avoiding any conflicts of interest. At the time we had argued strongly for the ICC chairman not to be attached to any board but regrettably we were not able to convince the powers. At Cricket South Africa we have a model that does not allow the CSA president (or chairman) to be part of any member board,” said Lorgat.

Manohar had also come down strongly on the present scenario where all major positions of power in the ICC are occupied by representatives of one of the Big Three nations.

“We expect that all members in the ICC are carrying an equal voice regardless of their strength on the field of play or at what level our cricket is at. Smaller nations will always look up much more towards the developed ones for assistance in general development. We have always stood by the views of the ICC chief, and Mr Manohar has made points that all boards should take notice of,” said Mukhulani.

It’s not surprising that Lorgat would jump out in support of Manohar’s recommendations. The veteran CSA administrator wasn’t always on the same page with the BCCI, especially during N Srinivasan’s reign. In fact, the 2013 Indian tour to South Africa was held at an impasse when the CSA elected Lorgat as their chief executive despite the BCCI warning them with dire consequences if that were to happen. Even though he has repeatedly insisted on not knowing why the previous BCCI regime was unhappy with him, there are those who relate to him shifting the India-England match out of Eden Gardens, as the then ICC chief executive because he felt the stadium wasn’t ready to host a high-profile 2011 World Cup encounter. There is also his insistence on making the DRS a universally accepted system, which the Indian board never agreed with, and a corporate governance review that he had set in place.

Eventually it was only after Lorgat, who was accused of having announced the schedule without the BCCI’s nod based on being in touch with a rival faction within the Indian board, agreed to step aside from the negotiations with the BCCI that India finally toured South Africa for a hugely curtailed tour — playing two Tests and three ODIs instead of a full-fledged schedule which had them playing three Tests, seven ODIs and three T20s.

But Lorgat seems to have taken to the regime change in the BCCI, and with Manohar making the right noises, both as BCCI president and ICC chairman, he hopes that it will lead to a change of guard in the offices of cricket’s ultimate governing body.

REVENUE SHARING MODEL

In the Big Three Era: Presently, based on the position paper agreement, BCCI gets 22 per cent of the ICC’s gross revenue while the other two members of the Big Three, ECB and Cricket Australia get 4.5 per cent and 2.9 per cent respectively. Cricket South Africa gets 1.3 per cent, while boards like West Indies have to be content with less than 1 per cent of the revenue.

What Manohar wants: All 10 full-member boards (Test playing nations) will then go back to receiving 7.5 per cent of the ICC’s surplus (revenues minus costs) from global events while the other 25 per cent will be divided among the Associate and Affiliate teams.

ICC CHAIRMANSHIP

In the Big Three Era: It was anyway a post created by the Big Three settlement, giving the chairman all executive powers. The chairman will have to be representative from either India, England or Australia, which will be decided on a rotation basis and will get two-year terms. Presently Manohar is the ICC chairman as the representative of the BCCI.

What Manohar wants: That the chairman be decided on the basis of his calibre and not because he hails from a particular country. Also that the monopoly of the Big Three be abolished. He also cites a conflict of interest if the chairman continues to be a representative of his home board and thus calls for him to someone who’s independent of an affiliation with any cricket board and be solely dedicated to the ICC