Who’s afraid of the Asian bloc?

India Today, Champions Trophy Collectors Edition, October 2006

In the course of the this year’s Lord’s annual lecture on the ‘Spirit of Cricket’, Martin Crowe gave vent to what he clearly considered home truths about the state of the global game. “Let’s face it – Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are being kept on the international stage for political reasons. Talking of politics, why were so few questions raised about the way the Asian subcontinent has taken a stranglehold on world cricket?”

It’s hard to say which was more far-fetched, the description of Asian influence on the game as a “stranglehold” or the notion that it’s a subject people are reluctant to discuss. The issue of growing Asian power is frequently raised in the British and Australian cricket media, often with suspicion and foreboding. It also remains commonplace to claim, as Crowe did, that to speak of it is to breach a political taboo. Thus, naming the purportedly unnameable is made to seem an act of heroic resistance, rather than merely a thoughtless echo of prejudice and resentment.

Apprehensions about the Asian clout were first voiced back in 1993, when the Asian countries trumped the English bid to stage the 1996 World Cup. “Unfair play!” cried sections of the British press, complaining that the Asians had prevailed only because they had “bribed” associate members with a better financial offer than the English were prepared to make. This summer witnessed a replay, when the Asians outbid Australia and New Zealand for the 2011 World Cup. The Asian proposals were submitted late, which led to mutterings in the Australian media about bending the rules. But whether it was the promise to assist the cash-strapped West Indies by under-writing an ODI series or the guaranteed minimum appearance fee of $US 14 million the fact is that the vote reflected the very market forces by which the cricket boards of Australia, England and New Zealand usually set such great store.

MCC administration of the ICC only came to an end in 1993, and the ICC is still completing its evolution into a modern international governing body. Many in the old Anglo-Australian bloc resent the eclipse of their once unquestioned pre-eminence, and the dispersal of power has been accompanied by the plaintive whine of lost privilege. In this context, allegations about chucking and ball-tampering have acquired salience far beyond the issues involved. Rulings against South Asian players by white umpires and referees are viewed (sometimes unfairly) as racist; while, on the other side, complaints about these rulings are denounced as “playing the race card” and any attempt to redress them as “political correctness gone mad”.

What Michael Holding recently called “first world hypocrisy” is written all over the Old Commonwealth paranoia about the Asian bloc. First world power is seen as natural and neutral; Asian power is somehow suspect and sinister. Crowe and others complains about the “politics” in international cricket, but without “politics” there would be no international cricket. The ICC was founded as the Imperial Cricket Conference in 1909 partly to facilitate the integration of South Africa into the empire following the Boer War. Since then, every decision to grant a country Test status has been “political”, and usually disputed. For historical and economic reasons, cricket has no system of promotion and relegation to Test status. Maybe one should be established. But in its absence, the inclusion or exclusion of any country will continue to be, as it has always been, a matter of “politics” – i.e. subject to economic, democratic and diplomatic pressures.

Those who complain about Asian power are engaged in a futile protest against the weight of numbers. The combined population of the four south Asian Test-playing nations is 1,428 million – ten times the combined population of the other six Test nations, and nearly 17 times the 85 million in Australia, Britain and New Zealand. Cricket in those countries competes with football and rugby, whereas it is unrivaled as the premiere spectator sport across south Asia. A conservative estimate would place at least 95 per cent of world cricket’s fans in south Asia. Reason enough, one would think, for considerable south Asian clout in the game’s global governance.

However, in cricket, as in the UN or the IMF, demography alone is not the measure of power. Despite the exponential superiority in population, the combined south Asian GDP is only 1.7 times as great as the combined Anglo-Australian-New Zealand GDP. Per capita GDP in the Old Commonwealth countries is ten times what it is in South Asia. That economic reality is reflected in the comparative value of the television deals struck in India and Britain.

The ECB’s four year deal with Sky is said to be worth $410 million; the BCCI’s four year deal with Nimbus – for virtually uncontested access to a market twenty times the size – is put at $612 million. Future BCCI revenues are estimated to be about $300 million per year; in 2005, ECB income was $144 million, just under half of the BCCI, yet operating in a much smaller market, against much stiffer competition.

Nonetheless, even in the economic arena, south Asia clearly holds the edge, and given current growth rates, the advantage is likely to increase. That’s why they were able to outbid Australia and New Zealand for the World Cup. But winning World Cup bids is not the same as directing the ICC, whose management personnel, though now based in Dubai, remain Australian and British. Perhaps more significantly the cricket boards of the Old Commonwealth countries are better organised, more stable, and more focused than their south Asian counterparts.

That’s a significant shortfall and it cannot be wished away by pointing to ever-swelling coffers. Asian cricket elites boast too much about their money and their global ambitions and deliver too little to spectators, grass-roots cricketers and the general public. The test for the Asian boards is not merely raking in the cash, but spending it wisely and accounting for that spending publicly. Out-maneuvering the Australians or the English at the ICC, or grabbing headlines with record-breaking sponsorships, is no substitute.

Relations among the cricket boards of south Asia have always been more cordial than among their respective governments. India is clearly the dominant force, and the others have been willing to go along because they benefited. But it cannot be assumed that the Asian bloc is permanently welded together.

More significant than possible divisions between the Asian countries is the chasm running through them all. Poverty remains endemic and inequality has run riot. Inevitably, these factors shape the region’s number one popular pastime. A seat at an ODI, or a fair chance to make a living as a cricketer, or just access to a decent pitch, all remain out of reach to a vast segment of the population. Addressing these issues should be the priority for cricket boards (in the west as well as in Asia), not “growing the game” in North America or China.

Speaking as a cricket fan living in England, I’d like to see the Asian bloc exercising real leadership, thinking beyond bank balances and short-term national prestige, and pushing for the kind of reforms – not least in officiating and scheduling – the game urgently needs. How about a trans-continental fans’ bloc for democracy, equality and transparency in world cricket?