One-Tier Membership Amid Proposed Governance Reforms In Cricket Urged To Be Addressed

Some of the big ticket issues hogging the attention of cricket’s powerbrokers in recent years have seemingly been resolved.

The revenue distribution model for the 2024-27 cycle of events, where mighty India contentiously received the lion’s share of the International Cricket Council’s $3 billion media rights deal, was approved by the board at July’s Annual General Meeting.

Cricket is also bracing for Los Angeles Olympics inclusion, while no action will be taken on Afghanistan even though its women’s team is effectively banned from playing since the Taliban’s bloody takeover.

Of course, there is never a shortage of talking points around the table with the next ICC board meeting scheduled for November in India to coincide with the World Cup final.

It may seem dreary compared to those headline issues, but there are calls for a proposed governance overhaul to get rolling. For at least the last six years, it has been on the table but there appears little urgency for action.

“Governance has never been handled properly and that has been my problem about it,” said Sumod Damodar, who was on the Chief Executives’ Committee until July and had been pushing for reforms to be seriously pursued.

“I don’t know the reasons why it hasn’t happened. We’ve been speaking about it for years, it’s long overdue. A separate governance review of the Associate members is also very important.”

A “single tier of membership” proposal for the ICC was put forward at the AGM as part of constitutional discussions.

It involved scrapping seemingly archaic tiered membership headed by the 12 Full Members, who receive more funding and hold greater power through coveted spots on the 17-person ICC board.

A single tier of membership wouldn’t mimic FIFA’s contentious ‘One Country, One Vote’ rule, which critics believe small countries are granted outsized influence.

The proposal advocated for a “weighted category-based voting structure based on ICC’s distribution model and performance in competition structures”, while funding would “emulate” the current Associate Member model based on performances on-and-off the field.

Membership tiers would be replaced by “format status” for both men’s and women’s – Test, ODI or T20I, the short format where every member has status.

“We’ve heard that story for so many years and it sounds good and makes everyone happy,” Damodor said. “But how practical and feasible is it? It’s not going to happen in the next decade.”

Perhaps what has unsettled some in these powerful positions, with the board ruling with an iron fist, are the calls to revamp the ICC board mostly comprised of Full Members.

With just one female independent director (former PepsiCo
PEP
chief Indra Nooyi) and an independent chair (Greg Barclay), the power rests primarily with the 12 Full Members with Associates granted just three directors who are supposed to represent 96 members.

An overhaul has proven inevitably a thorny subject, with some former influential administrators left frustrated with where the power lies.

“I don’t think there should be more than 12 board members and at least seven of them should be independent directors,” former ICC chief and Pakistan Cricket Board boss Ehsan Mani once told me.

Former England Cricket Board chair Colin Graves agreed that a leaner board was required. “It needs a mixture of more independent people, probably five independents on a 10 person board,” he told me last year.

But, predictably, with no one wanting to relinquish their power, it appears this important issue will continue to drag along. It remains to be seen whether discussions will take place at the next board meeting.

Meanwhile, as I flagged recently, the ICC’s high performance programme is set for a revival after it ran for over 15 years before being scrapped late last decade.

The programme for top Associates included player development pathways and specialized administrative structures to help professionalize those deemed close to Full Member level.

The new high performance programme, in a point of difference, would involve some of the smaller Full Members, such as Ireland, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe, along with top Associates.

Discussions are set to take place at the next board meeting with more specific details to be revealed, including how much total funding has been allocated and the share for each country.