Give West Indies cricket what it is owed

The West Indies’ comprehensive loss to the Cricket Australia XI is, in isolation, not too concerning.

Many past touring teams have been humbled by state teams, Lilac Hill Invitational XIs and in 1994-95 the Australian Cricket Academy thrashed the senior England team twice in consecutive days.

What is concerning is that leading West Indies players have virtually no incentive to turn out in Test cricket.

Their Test team exists merely as a quaint convention with poor Rajendra Chandrika – no centuries and a first-class average in the mid-20s – thrust into opening the batting on debut against Australia in June and duly recording a pair.

That there are still super-talented cricketers in the West Indies is not in doubt. It can’t be held against the likes of Dwayne Bravo, Kieron Pollard, Andre Russell, Dwayne Smith and even Chris Gayle that they have either retired from first-class cricket completely or are virtually never available due to worldwide Twenty20 commitments.

Sunil Narine, too, has performed amazing feats in the short formats although questions over his action have recently cast doubts on his career. When there is comparatively so little money in West Indies cricket, why would they bother playing a long format that effectively costs them money?

In addition, other factors including politics, stress and a lack of support have resulted in a raft of other quality players such as Adrian Barath, Kieran Powell and Ramnaresh Sarwan being lost to the game.

Each of the ‘Big Three’ boards of Australia, India and England turn over hundreds of millions of dollars annually and are comfortably profitable while the West Indies Cricket Board have annual earnings of less than US$30 million and continue to incur crippling financial losses.

However, West Indies cricket was absolutely crucial in the commercialisation of the game worldwide, particularly in Australia through the World Series Cricket period and beyond. The Big Three have actually built their strong position in no small part due to West Indies cricket, for two decades the game’s biggest drawcard.

Even last year the ridiculous situation occurred in India where the West Indies, on the verge of bankruptcy, pulled out of a tour over disputes involving relatively modest player payments. At the same time, the very matches taking place were generating tens of millions of dollars for the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

West Indies cricket has not been receiving its fair share of the spoils just because the population of the region is relatively small and regardless of their team’s on-field performance and popularity worldwide.

Ultimately as cricket fans, the lack of financial support shown to the Windies means we all lose because there are less competitive opponents to play against.

Recently the International Cricket Council (ICC) proposed additional distributions to Test nations outside the big three, but at only a little over $US1 million annually per team it will likely make very little difference.

There are no easy solutions but ultimately the ICC needs to be completely restructured to become a much more dynamic body, capable of actively implementing change as was proposed in the Woolf report from 2012:

As the game has developed, the increase in the scale and complexity over the past decade have emphasised the need for clarity of the role of the ICC. For example, one critical issue is whether or not the individuals on the Board of the ICC should be seen as doing no more than be the representatives of their respective Member Boards.

Such a role might just be possible if the ICC was limited to supporting cricket in the countries in which it is played. Then the ICC would be little more than acting as a service company for the various Boards of Members.

In this first scenario, the Member Boards would be using the ICC as a ‘club for Members’, with new Full Members being admitted at the discretion of the existing Full Members.

A second scenario is quite different. The role of the ICC is more far reaching. Its role would be to act in the best interests of cricket generally and promote, lead and develop the international game. It would be held accountable to all its 105 Members, not just the existing 10 Full Members.

In the past, the first scenario might have been appropriate but that is no longer the case. If cricket is to be a truly international game, it is essential that a body exists that is responsible for, and in charge of, the global game. The ICC has reached a point in its development where only the second scenario can be appropriate.

Therefore it is critical that the ICC acknowledges that it is the body to lead the global game and Member Boards and the Members of the ICC accept that is the position.

Instead of this proposal being accepted and the ICC working for the benefit of cricket independent of any particular member interests, the ‘Big Three’ now sit on an Executive Committee having given themselves more power. There is nothing to prevent them continuing to exploit the rest.

Interesting suggestions like the ICC taking direct action or responsibility for competitive player payments to ensure strong international teams for teams such as the West Indies will likely never happen.

Financial inequality is increasingly impacting on-field performance, resulting in a much poorer game for us spectators at the international level.