Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

What about the ICC? Prima facie, Zimbabwe Cricket is financially and organisationally bankrupt, since every other public organisation in that country appears to be. The onus should be on ZC to demonstrate its viability, that its institutional capability (not simply its playing ability) still warrants a place at the top table. Does it have income other than the ICC’s handout? Can it mount adequate domestic competitions including at junior levels and home and away tours for the national team as well as lower level? These and similar questions need answers.

If ZC cannot answer satisfactorily, the ICC should act as any responsible regulator would and declare it bankrupt, that is, suspend its membership and institute a process to restore its health. The ICC should appoint a task team to develop a plan – backed by funds – to be implemented once Mugabe no longer has absolute power and the country begins to stabilize.

Cricket’s recovery in Zimbabwe will require externally supervised elections for a new national body. As I have argued, national sports authorities provide public goods and need to be accountable. To be effective, they must be credibly constituted in the eyes of ‘the public’. In 1991, the SA Cricket Union had to close and a new body, the United Cricket Board, established. Whether or not Peter Chingoka or other ZC officials are linked with Mugabe’s reign of destruction, the schisms in Zimbabwean society mean cricket will need a new, properly representative governing body.

These steps are way too far for the ICC at present (though by doing so it would at the same time enhance its own governance). Media reports suggest the BCCI will support the status quo, unless the Indian government forces it to do otherwise. If BCCI’s position is predicated on Zimbabwe’s ICC vote, it is short-sighted. Even the façade of Zimbabwe cricket will crumble soon, forcing India to cut them loose.

The Indian Government will not push BCCI: it won’t jeopardise its major ongoing initiative to build closer economic ties with African countries for the sake of Zimbabwe or cricket.

But I don’t expect that Mugabe will relinquish his hold on power anytime soon – just last week he said only God will remove him - so there will be further opportunity and need to press the ICC to intervene. I hope I’m proved wrong.

Interesting pieces Stephen.
My understanding is that South Africa will honor the Future Tours Program and so still play Zimbabwe at international level but not allow them to compete in their domestic league. In addition development programs will be halted.
This could leave England as the only country on record to call for all out sanctions. Any move against Zimbabwe has to have the support of the ICC or else it will only cause division. Zimbabwe was the only country outside of the Asian quartet to support Sharad Pawar's candidacy for ICC president, so we have to doubt Indian support for a ban.
On the question of the relationship of politics and sport, whilst agreeing that the two are inseparable, what criteria do you use to ban countries? I assume you would support Zimbabwe being banned from the Olympics? Who else should stay at home? Should the Olympics even be in China? You can see the difficulties this opens up unless all are in agreement.

This isn't about a threat from China or any western nation. It isn't an issue of racism. It's not an issue of the political system overstepping its authority, crossing over into sports. It is about a leader that went to the extreme to try and eliminate every last remnant of the old colonialism, to the ultimate detriment and demise of his own people. The damage he has brought upon his people, and the destruction of a promising cricket program are irreversible, and yet he shows no sign of giving up his program of oppression and violation of human rights. Zimbabwe is bankrupt and cannot hold on much longer. Cricket money is perpetuating Magabe's infamy. The international cricket family has an opportunity to make a difference by cutting off those funds. Don't let old predjudices, pseudo-anarchy, or good old fashioned greed, prevent us from doing that.

I find the arguments people make in support of Mugabe hilarious (this is what you are doing by advocating continued funding). In many cases it seems these are driven by either blind loyalty (patriotic) to their home board or by the (perceived) hypocrisy of the west. This to me is similar to the filibusters used by oil lobbyists and politicians who eschew a real issue like global warming.
India continues with its "politics and sports" argument at its own convenience, never mind their policy was completely different during every war with Pakistan. Honestly I don't think anyone is surprised by their stand or their (apparent) motives. Increasingly with issues such as this, the division over the FTP and the formation of two blocs, you begin to wonder whether the ICC has a purposeful existence. Stephen you're just plain wrong if you believe the BCCI will ever acknowledge that cricket in Zimbabwe is lifeless, all they need to look the other way is a puppet representative's vote.

Having read the article I think it is "okay" but not "great" because in my opinion it loses sight of the cricket and is far more focused on politics with cricket as an auxilliary issues to support a political stance. The idea that somehow doing something through cricket will help to oust Mugabe should also hold true for Myanmar and China (and I've yet to see any of the supporters for the mixing of sport and politics call for either Myanmar's cricket team or China's cricket team to be banned by all members even after China's crackdown in Tibet and the Myanmar junta's crackdown of protests and criminal neglect of the typhoon victims....). Reading the comments, I think I see an a point of contention: people are lumping together INTER-state politics and domestic politics. All sports have to be subject to inter-state politics, because if 2 countries are at war or one issues a travel ban against another then it is only natural that all activities, including sport, will be affected. On the...

...(continuing)...on the other hand, in most countries you are not even required to be a registered voter to get on a sports team so you could have players who have never voted in their life on the team mixed with players who may well have been career politicians at some point (or who plan to have a future career in politics) - in the latter case it certainly doesn't sound like sport and politics "mix", in so much as one would say that theatre or the cinema (another part of society that provides "public goods") is necessarily "shot through with politics" (I disagree with the notion that sport is shot through with politics). Now when other countries take the domestic politics of a country that has not permeated all the levels of sport and all the sports team (can anyone provide any proof that only Zanu-PF supporters can play in Zimbabwe's team either officially or unofficially?) and turn it into an inter-state dispute, then they have mixed politics and sports rather messingly (hence...

...the current situation). With South Africa, politics had already been heavily mixed in the sport, such that by LAW only white South Africans could represent South Africa in an extension of domestic politics. With Myanmar, the Myanmar cricket team is not affiliated with the junta as far as I know and as far as I know, nobody is required to be linked to the junta to play cricket. Likewise, with China (again as far as I am aware) nobody is required to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party to play cricket. If I am incorrect with either of these examples, then someone please point it out, but with Zimbabwe can anyone point to any law where only Zanu-PF supporters can play sports? And if so then sports must be dead in Zim because Zanu-PF can't have much real support unless the world media is lying. Now ZC is corrupt & linked to Mugabe, but banning people who aren't linked to Mugabe (teams) isn't going to help, the focus should be on the top ZC officials and to come up with ways to....

Wake up and smell the proverbial coffee. How did China and Myanmar get into this debate? China is an affiliate and I don't think Myanmar is even recognized by the ICC. Their cricket squads consist of senor citizen British ex-pats and an array of retirees from the subcontinent, so there is nothing to lose. What do they get from the ICC, $1000 per year? China's government doesn't need it and the paramilitary government of Myanmar just doesn't care. Zimbabwe gets a small fortune and, considering Mugabe has wiped out his nation's food supply, he and his cronies are in dire need of that money to continue down the road to self-destruction. Why is every blogger on CricInfo hellbent on blaming everyone and everything, but Mugabe? Myanmar? Get real!

Why does this question even have to be about politics? ZC is bankrupt through its own corruption, does not keep any reliable records of matches or its own activities, refuses to pick anything resembling its best team and has had independent auditors highlight serious financial problems. My local club is more competently run.

An ICC expulsion of ZC could, and should, be legitimately based on the actions of the board without bringing Mugabe into it at all.

No, this article is not about China. I quoted China as an example of the folly of looking to the current Indian leadership for any moral or even self-interested acts (beyond money). Mammon is king as I said.

As to the character who wanted to drag in the western hemisphere, I present as prime evidence of the knee-jerk and ineffectual nature of Indian opposition. What the western countries do in Iraq is none of my business. When their actions affect the price of oil, which impacts my country's economy, it is my business. Right criticism for the wrong reasons. No wonder, these weep-about-the-Arab-world and ignore-their-enmity-to-us characters cannot connect with the middle of the road Indian voter who has the power to change things. China's hostility to India is decades-old and continues regardless of India's other relations (was true when we were chummy with USSR and is true today). Ivory tower characters like this fellow only insult the basic decency and patriotism of our countrymen.

One of the officials of ZC has said that Zimbabwe is still playing at the FIFA World Cup qualifiers, so it is odd that cricket should be special. It is an interesting point, and that puts a different spin to the whole English boycott business - it presents the picture of a nation seeking to use sport and politics by turns as justifications for each other to take action against SA. That is bad enough. What is worse, though, is how this article begins. By talking about the "removal of Mugabe" Gelb presents an uncomfortably political posture which pretty much negates the rest of the article. As for the Indian Govt and the BCCI, they are merely convenient conduits for a specious argument - an argument which forgets that Zimbabwe isn't - as yet - a target of UN imposed or other international sanctions except the sanctimonious ones from the UK and its dominion states, with the Republic of SA being a healthy exception.

(continuing from anonymous post - accidentally posted without the name)...punish and do something about the top ZC officials (which should also affect Mugabe indirectly) while maintaining support for the lowest levels of the sport (the players themselves and clubs). That would be difficult, but no one said it would be easy. Perhaps the ICC could suspend ZC’s top officials from taking part in ICC meetings and suspend direct payments to ZC while trying to channel Zimbabwe’s ICC funds directly to the lower levels in the country itself and allowing Zimbabwe teams to still compete. If the top officials then bar Zimbabwean teams from trying to compete and Zimbabwean clubs and teams from accepting Zimbabwe’s full membership funding then the Zim clubs/players may well try and change the ZC leadership. It may not work of course, but it was an idea on the fly and I’m sure if as much time was spent thinking about how to punish the corrupt officials....

....and still support grass-roots Zimbabwean cricket as is now spent simply criticizing and opposing everything to do with Zimbabwe (which is what banning teams amounts to) then a decent plan might come up. However simply banning everyone from the top down is to incorrectly (and lazily) lump everyone in cricket in Zimbabwe together.

Jason asked how China and Myanmar got into this - well China is an affiliate and receives funding. On the principle that Zimbabwe's criket funding should be ENTIRELY withheld then so should funding for China's cricket team no matter how small the amount for the same reason that the Chinese government recently cracked down on its own citizens (in Tibet). If the argument is that Zimbabwe's funding should be reduced, then it is a pretty pointless argument because whether Mugabe steals a small fortune or a few thousand dollars of ICC funding from ZC it amounts to the same thing - he gets money "to continue down the road of self-destruction". Likewise with...

…Myanmar, whatever funding is given should be withheld based on the principle that stopping Zimbabwe’s funding is going to actually do anything about Mugabe. And by the way Jason, Myanmar IS recognized by the ICC because the Myanmar Cricket Federation is an affiliate of the ICC and plays in official regional tournaments. For the MCF to have become an affiliate by the way it had to have been recognized by the relevant government (i.e. junta) ministry as the official governing body of cricket in the country, so the MCF is not simply British ex-pats and subcontinent retirees – and both Myanmar and China are set to benefit from an increase in ICC funding for associates and affiliates...

...Any argument for withholding funding for cricket activities in order to punish a dictator looks pretty hypocritical if the same argument is not logically applied to other countries with repressive/restrictive governments such as China, Myanmar and while we are at it others such as Cuba, Iran and Saudi Arabia (all members of the ICC who have received some funding and are set to benefit from a funding increase). If such well known dictatorships as these can not even be considered for similar treatment it means either the persons harping on about punishing Mugabe through the ICC (like that is really going to get him out of power) are either ignorant of/don’t care about those other 5 dictatorships or there is some ulterior motive for focusing on Zimbabwe alone.

Gerard makes the excellent point that ZC's incompetence should be enough for ICC action and Mugabe doesn't need to figure in the arguments at all.

Fact 1:

Human rights, justice and peace are supposed to come first. Then sports. Mugabe has literally killed his opposition, shut down the newspapers and has destroyed the country's economy. South Africa was banned from so many things under apartheid, including international cricket. Zimbabwe should obviously be banned too.

Fact 2:

The ICC is a gutless "organization", with vote-driven policies and procedures. It may have banned the USA for a while. But when it comes to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, they dont bother about the wellbeing of cricket in those countries. It apparently doesnt give a dam that politicians head the selection committee, etc.

FIFA has recently banned the Greece and Iraq football teams from international competition for political interference. Shortly after the bans, both governments removed the laws that forced the Greek F.A. and the Iraqi F.A. to have a politician appointed as their head. FIFA then un-banned Greece and Iraq from international games.