zimcricketforums.com

Am I oversimplifying things? How hard would it be for the ICC to bypass cricket administrations and be paying international players directly in order that they stay in the game. This is regarding developing countries or others that are in crises like Zimbabwe.

It shocked me as to how much the ICC makes if this article is in the ballpark

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... -2015.html

Pay twenty guys on a contract list $80000 USD a year. This totals $1.6 million a year for a team like Zimbabwe to keep the players in the game and avert the issues we are having now which is an embarrassment. Zimbabwe cricketers need to be supported from the outside. Why does the ICC let this go on?

lange22 wrote:Am I oversimplifying things? How hard would it be for the ICC to bypass cricket administrations and be paying international players directly in order that they stay in the game. This is regarding developing countries or others that are in crises like Zimbabwe.

It shocked me as to how much the ICC makes if this article is in the ballpark

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... -2015.html

Pay twenty guys on a contract list $80000 USD a year. This totals $1.6 million a year for a team like Zimbabwe to keep the players in the game and avert the issues we are having now which is an embarrassment. Zimbabwe cricketers need to be supported from the outside. Why does the ICC let this go on?

While I can definitely see the merit in it (and as an alternative to de-funding members it would be far preferable, IMO) I can imagine the objections raised would relate to;

1. Boards value their autonomy, to actually make this step, side-stepping them to an extent, could be seen as the "thin edge of the wedge". While everyone might agree to it in the case of Zimbabwe in theory, the question some of the FMs might ask would be who is next, and also might it be extended to other areas of funding/costs. Given the BCCIs flexing of their muscles regarding a certain employee of another Test nation, one could understand a certain hesitancy to start of a process which could cede powers and administrative autonomy to an ICC largely dominated by a small number of players (and one in particular).

2. It's not the players who decide how ZC votes in the ICC, it's people who may have, ahem, 'personal' reasons to keep in with everyone which may become less tangible if a lot of the money went straight to the players without being 'administered' locally.

3. Assuming the players are selected locally still, if someone really took the p!ss, ICC would have to stand over paying large checks to lads who don't know one end of a bat from the other. Not good for them. A related point is that in order to be paying over this amount of money, you'd probably need some sort of local administrative presence, which might make ICC cumbersome (ZC presumably wouldn't be the only team funded this way after a while).

4. Graft may come in through the back-door. If there's 80k salary depending on selection, it mightn't be a surprise if players have to pay an 'administrative' fee to the selection committee to attend the 'trials' for selection...a hefty one possibly.... #justsayin'...

Reading all that you might think I'm 100% against it - I'm not and have pondered it before (hence seeing these objections myself) - it might be possible to quarantine these effects to where necessary if there was a special category of Membership - e.g. including Test nations not in 'good standing' administratively, and perhaps viable FM 'candidate countries' - speaking as an Irishman I think if it was part of a transitional process where there was the prospect of FM status at the end, funnelling some funds through a 'direct spend' channel would be fair enough if these were substantial additional funds made available. I''d presume willingness in Afghan cricket circles would be even greater. Although I suspect the ICC has no real concerns about CI in this area as they've shown themselves very canny with quite limited funds to date.

All a moot point though, unless ICC suddenly become more aware/bothered about cricket outside the top 8 (or 4?) countries....

I certainly believe it should at least be trialled. The money would still come from the funding the ICC provides ZC but a certain amount would be pooled separately for the ICC to pay players directly. It's not an ideal solution and I'm sure there would be objections from the ZC board but they have proven they can't be trusted to honor the player's contracts. The players deserve a level of certainty in their lives and have the ability to put food on the table otherwise they will continue to walk away from the game and for good reason.

The ICC would never go for this as it would be admitting that a board of a full member cannot be trusted, yet is still allowed to exist.

eugene wrote:The ICC would never go for this as it would be admitting that a board of a full member cannot be trusted, yet is still allowed to exist.

That's probably the main reason against, but in the case of ZC that appears pretty universally to be accepted as fact (endangering their FM status), that's why I argue you'd need a special category of Membership - e.g. including Test nations not in 'good standing' administratively, and perhaps viable FM 'candidate countries'. If the alternative is full suspension of a FM, this would appear a less nuclear option, and allow re-grouping (and cutting off of a supply of graft that is stopping better structures develop). There's clearly a very good Zimbabwe Cricket team that could be fielded if they had access to their best players (or most of them) and it isn't in ICC's interests to see a team of that quality out of the equation - there's too few decent International cricket teams for them to just allow one to disappear like that.

Exactly my point, what they are putting at risk here compared to the pissy amount of money involved. $1.6 million a year – you’re talking about the payroll of a small car dealership/garage or medium size restaurant perhaps

10 countries play test cricket in the world. How would it at any stage be in the interests of anyone involved in the game to have Zimbabwean cricket in the state it is currently?

I can understand that the decision makers would never do it – but how sad and stupid a situation it is, especially when thinking about the global competitiveness of sport.