International cricket's 'glass ceiling' - a backward remnant of a colonial past?

This is an article I have written with a view to it being included on the v2 Journal website. I have posted it here as well so that the cricketing issues discussed can be considered.


An independent review into the workings of the International Cricket Council led by Lord Woolf this week observed that “The ICC acts as if it is a member’s club… its interest in enhancing the global development of the game is secondary”. A quick look at the ten Full Members of the ICC – those with Test status, a seat on the executive board, exponentially greater levels of funding and automatic qualification for global events – would reveal that the stated aim held by cricket’s governing body to develop the game globally has not been achieved. All of the Full Members remain former British colonies while in rugby union, another sport which spread through the Empire, France, Italy and Argentina all compete on the global stage. Woolf believes that the number of Full Members needs to be expanded to remedy this but the ICC are sure to be reluctant to implement such drastic changes and stifle the power of the existing oligarchy.

The metaphor of the aspirations of ambitious Associate nations such as Ireland and Afghanistan being blocked by a ‘glass ceiling’ is apt. Despite being positioned only narrowly behind Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in the ICC’s One-Day International Rankings, and having secured the scalps of Pakistan, England and Bangladesh (twice) at global events, Ireland are forced to look in at sides of seemingly equal ability to them fighting it out with the best teams in the world in all forms of the game. This situation is made ever more farcical as the respective cricket boards of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are reluctant to play leading Associates in potentially hard-fought series of ODIs and first-class matches for fear of their own Full Member status being undermined were they to be defeated. Meanwhile, above this ‘glass ceiling’ Zimbabwe were allowed to retain their vote at the ICC’s top table – a vote used by Peter Chingoka, an associate of Robert Mugabe refused entry to Britain and Australia – during a period in which they did not play a single Test for six years for a whole variety of reasons.

Ireland and their determined Chief Executive Warren Deutrom are leading the charge in campaigning for well-performing Associates such as themselves to be awarded Test status. He has already succeeded in reversing an “outrageous” ICC decision to restrict the 2015 World Cup to just the Full Members and, by setting out a roadmap, has now outlined how he feels that Ireland can play Test cricket by 2020. A full say in the governance of world cricket, and Test status in particular, could revolutionise cricket for the Associate members. The possibility of playing at the highest level would surely act as an incentive for facilities, playing standards and domestic competitions to be improved and would provide supporters a much stronger context in which to follow their team. And in Afghanistan, where the country itself is very rarely represented on the world stage in a positive light, an international side competing against established opponents, would surely achieve a passionate following and demonstrate that there is more to the country than war and corruption. As it stands no set requirements are in place for how Full Member status can be achieved. However, it would surely be fair to instigate a system where any country able to develop a semi-professional first-class structure and compete at a reasonable level against the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be able to play Test cricket.

Some have in fact suggested that the ICC should go even further than this and abolish any distinction between Full Member and Associate status. Commentators such as the late Peter Roebuck believe that this is an artificial idea maintained to protect the governing “tight little cartel of colonial and ex-colonial countries” and that cricket should follow football’s lead in affording teams as divergent in ability as Spain and the Faroe Islands the opportunity to participate in full international matches. They therefore suggest that if there were demand for a Test Match between, say, France and Germany, then it should be allowed to take place and hold the same statistical validity as one between England and South Africa.

However, this idea is fraught with danger. Test Matches are called Test Matches for a reason – as the name suggests, they are supposed to be the toughest test of a team’s ability available. Were Test cricket opened up to a world of lesser teams it can be argued that the special status of what we know as Tests would be diluted and that 135 years of history would immediately become irrelevant – how would we take to Sir Don Bradman’s average being surpassed by somebody who never played against any side in the world’s top 10 or an average seamer taking 500 wickets against weak teams and on dodgy surfaces.

A lot of people would retort in response that the protection of statistics is in no way an appropriate reason to deny the world’s cricketers equal opportunity. But for me this is the crux of the reason why teams are separated in status in the first place – if we recognise that the standard is considerably higher in a match between England and Australia that one between Kenya and Canada then surely the official status of such matches should be different. This leads me to conclude that the current listing of four day Intercontinental Cup matches as first-class fixtures is correct.

Besides, it is also true that cricket’s fan base is located largely within the ten Full Members – only a small minority of the Associates can really claim that cricket has a national following and so, even were Test status provided, it is unlikely that large crowds would be attracted or the sport’s influence extended far beyond ex-pat communities. The level of support which the game receives in to some extent Zimbabwe and particularly Bangladesh would discredit any idea that teams should be relegated from Test-playing status for poor performance – after millions of Taka have been spent on regularly full all-seater stadiums in impoverished Dhaka and Chittagong how would the fans react to potentially having to play only against the likes of Canada and Scotland?

Facilities and infrastructure for continued success are also an important consideration when deciding whether a team should have access to the top level. In my opinion a first-class structure, however big or small, should remain a requirement for any teams wishing to play Test cricket as otherwise a gulf will emerge between the standards of those exposed at the highest level and the standards of the following generation. At the moment a first-class structure would only seem a realistic aspiration in Ireland and potentially Scotland, however, where more money, facilities and players are available. I would say that this is a direct result of the ICC’s pot of funding being spread too thinly – 75% of all funds are distributed to just ten of the 105 member nations. With such a small proportion of funding in comparison to arguably less needy nations, how can Afghanistan be expected to build international grounds and set up a more competitive domestic structure?

So, what do I propose is the solution to the problem? I subscribe to Woolf and Roebuck’s assertions that the ICC is currently a “member’s club” and a “cartel” but recognise that in order to preserve existing distinctions in standards in the game some form of status division is a necessary evil – football may afford equal status to all teams but Australia’s 31-0 victory over American Samoa suggests that this is flawed. I would, however, have no hesitation in immediately awarding Full Member status to the likes of Ireland and allowing them access to equal funding and voting rights as the established elite and would hope that this funding would enable them to ensure that acceptable structures and facilities are in place for at least four new nations to play Test cricket by 2020 and another four in the eight years after that. Those unable to make use of their opportunities by the prescribed date could be replaced as Full Members entirely on merit, removing the ‘glass ceiling’ that exists between Test-playing and non-Test playing sides. Of course, these new Test sides would not be obliged to take on potential opponents at the very top of the tree immediately but all would be able to aspire to such a position in a way they currently cannot.

It is certainly clear that the ICC’s current chasm between the privileges afforded to the top ten nations and those provided to the overwhelming majority is backward, unacceptable and flies in the face of globalising the game. An expansion beyond cricket’s colonial past would hopefully ensure the future of a game which, when limited to so few centres, could soon become endangered whilst providing millions more with a game which is so much more than just a sport.

Agree that it would devalue Test cricket to open it up to any country wanting to play. I think the solution is a level between first class and test - International First Class. Games played between any countries could be recognised as such with games between test countries counting as both Tests & International First Class (the classifying & declassifying of Test countries could be done every few years). Thus, Ireland v Denmark would count as International First Class, Denmark v Australia would count as International First Class, Australia v Pakistan would could as both Test and International First Class. Test countries could field a development team against IFC teams & still be classified as IFC. Only disadvantage I see is that there'd be a whole bunch more bogus Tendulkar milestones to pretend to care about.

Any country can play any other in a match lasting as long as they want it to, so what exactly is the problem of the so called 'closed shop' for countries with Test match status?