What does surprise me is some of the support the BCCI is getting outside of its own boundaries for flexing its elbow well beyond an acceptable fifteen degrees. There is a bigger picture to the BCCI exercising its muscles and reshaping its itineraries beyond analysing the merit of the tours and competitions the Indians have excluded themselves from. I sense that when Michael Atherton speaks of the “big beast” he understands these all too well.

Allowing a single cricket board, any board, to selectively brush aside aspects of its schedule that it has deemed unsuitable, for whatever reason, hugely undermines the already shaky status of a governing body apparently uncertain of its own capabilities and jurisdiction.

A process was followed to initiate the Future Tours Program. A process that all the Test playing nations quite literally signed up to. A process culminating in a written agreement that contained defined dispute resolution guidelines that seem to be have been ignored or at the least not enforced by the ICC.

When Atherton speaks of Malcolm Speed needing support, he understands the implications of member nations directing outcomes and the risks to the global game this dynamic represents. He also understands the inherent weakness in the ICC in standing its ground in the face of powerful opposition.

India’s actions have demonstrated that they are capable of usurping to protect and serve their own interests and it is ultimately remiss of the ICC to have allowed this to happen. The longer term consequences of the tail wagging the dog may yet prove to be more significant.

The Future Tours Program was clearly misguided though, and hardly in the best interest of cricket. So given the pig-headed nature of the ICC and their reluctance to admit that they stuffed up, the BCCI is quite right to over-rule the ICC.

We don't need the ICC to do anything more then run the World Cup every four years. Cricket ran quite well for 120 years with each member board being basically independent, and the way I see it, the introduction of an 'executive' ICC with an actual say in the running of the game has been a step backwards. Cricket simply does not need it.

If you ask me, the BCCI fairly reeks of arrogance. There are many examples; scheduling and scrapping tours on their own authority, at first refusing a Bangladesh tour and then paying only for their basic meals, even their decision to lobby for the World Cup 2011 ahead of Australia and New Zealand makes a bold statement about their priorities. (this isn't even as important as dealing with terrorism or liberating Iraq, either.)

Bottom line:India are part of a global cricket community, and it's high time they started acting like it.

fair enough.
I think the problem here lies with the *way* the Indian Board has decided to go ahead with their new plans, and the dont-care-two hoots attitude they have thrown in everyone else's faces. there's no doubt in my mind that they have behaved a bit pompously and distastefully.

Yet one cannot genuinely defend the FTP as being one that took into account the important seasons/fixtures of all members. Given its standing (economic) in the game, why should the Indian Board stand and let only a couple of of countries have a smooth domestic schedule the way they want it?

(my initial thoughts back on me blog)
http://sporty-a.blogspot.com/2006/01/of-inevitability-and-power.html

If India is considered as the big beast of cricket, then the ICC should be considered as the poorest organizations in world sport organizations. For Atherton to say “acting as superpowers” could be potentially true. But to which perspective are you going to look at this morally or economically?

Over the years we have the seen the new emergence of cricket where a young talent appears and takes over the media and the news. Gone are the days of the so called “Gentleman days” and now replaced with the “Sahara”, “Reebok”, “Gray Nichols”. We see more cricketers taking spotlight in advertisements than making any runs on the cricket field. Media and advertising has become the integral part of selling games. In one of the games I saw an ad after every over and that is in average about over 100 ads over a period of a game. Is this a bad thing? Not really but just a transition of business tactics. We see other organizations such as FIBA and American sport organizations such as MLB, NBA and so forth have become conglomerate tycoons in this. They have progressed to become rich organizations and ICC looks like a spec of hair compared to these organizations.

Gone are the Victorian days of the cricket and descended into the Sheik’s pet project land. ICC decision to move from the Mecca of cricket to a place where they play in the kinder garden league of the ICC might become the pinnacle of perhaps the organization’s downfall. This is where the moral issue comes in. In every sport there is a dominant presence in specific areas that attracts the rest of the world. For instance, football=Europe, baseball=Americas. This was how it placed out due to the fact that sport was bona fide in those areas. Even though globalization is taking effect these areas are still the dominant places to play for a professional and for the viewers to watch the sport. Would you rather watch the MLS or the English premiere? But over the years we have seen the ups and downs of English cricket.

It has transitioned from the crown of the jewel to its prince and princess. The sub continent and beyond have taken over the entire market. There are more viewers of cricket around the world than in the Mecca of cricket. But it is not only England. USA lost its hands to get into the market of cricket after they were banned. ICC decision for that is a good one because if you see the West Indies they are in the turmoil and they are limping on a stick to survive. Africa’s political problems allow itself to be very fragile whether progress could occur. What is the best bet for the media and cricket to move on to: Sub Continent and beyond to Australia and NZ.

The sub-continent is starting to flourish as the next economic hub. Ind-Aus rivalry brought more fans than the blunder of the ICC’s Aus-ROW. Therefore if you see from these countries point of view establishing a new league makes a perfect economic portfolio. India and Australia would not only establish more cricket, but also will build other economic transitions. This will include media, trade and more economic integration. Let’s put this into a theoretical experiment.

The combination of Australia and India could bring a lot of prospective for ventures from both sides. In cricket perspective, the Ranji and the Pura could combine and the pay out could be huge. We already have seen players such as Bret Lee who flourished from the MRF academy, imagine on a large scale. This will encourage overseas education. Mostly the fact that the younger population is getting involved in this sport education will be a key form of growth of the person. IT will prosper more and trade could be better. It will be all a spider web of ideas that could work for both countries. This would also enable other countries to join the league. Pakistan and Sri Lanka will also thrive from this where they leagues could flourish as well. Countries such as USA will be keen to enter the market if it involves a larger scale of revenue. Look at football how it has become a growing sport in America. This could also help the growing countries such as Bangladesh and Africa because it could become unified integral cricket dominance where profits would rise. This could as bring the reemergence of countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong back into the cricket world.

Atherton should have not expressed ICC as the UN but rather the League of Nations. We cannot look at this as a moral issue of a cat and mouse deal. It is pure economics. If ICC decided to move from England to Dubai due the tax relief and economic progress, then it should accept this idea and try it. Otherwise I feel ICC will decline and a new organization will be born. We have seen this in smaller effects such as in the American leagues like the NBA. The old ABA and CBA combined to become the NBA but CBA was the dominant before ABA came into the picture. Then CBA went on the downfall.

Cricket will be always cricket. There will be the next Tendulkar, Botham, Richards, Bradman. But the economics of cricket will transition and question will remain whether ICC will be able to integrate itself or dissolve?

The question lurking in the back of mind about the viability of the FTP is why then did all of the Test states sign the agreement in the first place?

akr: in essence you've touched on what was behind my post.

Ashwin: your comment contains some insightful predictions and some sound points. However, I am not calling into question the validity of the economics behind the BCCI's move. I don't even know that I would call it a morality issue either.

To me it's about power and politics. Two games that the BCCI plays very well and the ICC are naive and inept at.

Power and politics - is that something new. Ather's moans and groans seem a relic of wishing to go back to the good old days of the Raj. Why should the FTP reolve round Australia's and England's fixtures and commitments.

How and why was the ICC Champion's trophy cemented in October - for whose convenience. With different cricketing seasons around the globe - someone is bound to be inconvenienced. Why should it be India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka every time?

Yes - Lalit Modi's statement regarding Bangladesh was crude. But if that is the reality then that's what it is. I don't see England rushing in to fill the gap and offering Bangladesh a tour every two years.

What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. England has ruled the roost (or is it roast) and it's time for them to vacate their perch. Hail to the new world order.

I'd rather hail an independent governing body with a set of objectives for the overall nourishment of the game and the clout to enforce them rather than see paradigm shifts of power.

The "Authorities" vis-a-vis Cricket, i.e, those "in charge of the game and the direction the game takes worldwide" have been Lame Ducks ever since the late Kerry Packer took them on and won, I disagree with Ather's comment that India started flexing their muscles soon after they won the WC in 83; clearly, the precedent was laid down by Packer's WSC and once that mountain was moved, then it was open season on the owners of the Country Estate.
India would be naive and remiss to not take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself with regards to throwing its weight around as any good lawyer will tell you. I mean, what can the ICC do better than the venerable M.C.C?

I don't get it: how is the ICC any different from any other governing body in any line of business/service in any area in any country. Such establishments are always slow, inefficient and detatched. Expecting ICC's senior management to lose sleep over the health of the game is naive at best. Those people are chartered accountants and marekting geniuses and finance exectives. They are not cricket enthusiasts like me and you: they're just pushing the papers and balancing the books.