Greg Barclay, the brand new ICC chairman, has declared the “unsustainable” world cricket calendar must be essentially examined and successfully rejected the suite of world occasions put to market by the governing physique’s chief govt Manu Sawhney earlier this 12 months.
In a robust preliminary assertion of intent, Barclay informed ESPNcricinfo that the proposed return of a Champions Trophy model occasion along with males’s and ladies’s ODI and T20I World Cups was not on his agenda, and likewise indicated that cricket needed to think about awarding main occasions to nations such because the USA so as to develop the sport past its established base.
After profitable a run-off with the incumbent Imran Khwaja over two rounds of voting, Barclay additionally mentioned he would stop as chairman of the Worldwide Rugby League so as to consider the various governance, technique and cricket growth points piling up for the ICC within the time of coronavirus.
“We haven’t really built the calendar of events. There’s a lot of conjecture around whether it should be eight events, seven events, six events or whatever. I honestly don’t have a preference,” Barclay mentioned. “What I want to ensure is that whatever we do end up with gives us optimum cricketing outcomes. I know a lot of the emphasis has appeared to be on commercial outcomes and this view that eight events will give the ICC more money.
“I do not suppose we have put sufficient thought into cricket and cricketing outcomes, significantly from the gamers’ viewpoint. The gamers cannot play all this cricket, simply from a well being, security and welfare viewpoint, it is simply not sustainable. So we have started working round that so we have our greatest athletes in positions the place they’re in a position to give their greatest for his or her nations in world occasions, and likewise make a residing out of the sport.
“So there is a heck of a lot to balance, and we’ve got to be really careful as to how we construct our annual calendar, so all these issues are taken into account. So it’s not just a case of building a world events program and saying ‘hey there it is, everything needs to fit’, we need to get it all together into a dynamic model so that we get optimum cricketing outcomes.”
Coming from New Zealand, Barclay advised he would supply empathetic management whereas additionally striving for strategic cohesion after some years of dysfunction on the ICC. “The first thing we need to do is get the ICC strategy very clear, so we understand what it is we’re trying to achieve, how that helps global cricket, how it supports members’ interests,” he mentioned. “We’re through a strategic planning exercise, but it’s been two or three years and we need to get that closed out so it is quite clear what we’re doing. Then we can make some decisions based on our strategy.
“That may be so simple as if now we have more cash, can we wish to make investments extra to develop the sport, and if we do this what does it appear like. Are we trying to develop cricket within the USA, what does that appear like. That may imply we have to settle for a few of our world occasions have to be hosted in locations like that, the place it may be showcased and used as a platform to develop the sport. However that can imply the income generated off that could be lower than what the members ideally would need. So lots of choices, nevertheless it must be pushed by a strategic method.”
The possibility of wresting global events away from India, England and Australia, the most concrete remaining legacy of the “huge three” governance resolutions in 2014, would be a major change in direction.
“A serious cause for doing that’s if we wish to develop the sport, whether or not it is in Asia or the Americas, however the USA being the logical place to begin,” Barclay said. “Possibly we have to take a look at internet hosting a world occasion, possibly a co-host between the West Indies and the USA. however we do have to have take a look at the outcomes we’re attempting to drive right here. These world occasions are an integral a part of determination making.
“The second thing is while from a revenue point of view we need to accept those countries have to be there or thereabouts in hosting a certain event, maybe the way that events are funded and the way revenue is dealt with can be done differently as well. So it doesn’t necessarily stand to reason that a country hosting an event keeps the amount of revenue they do. Maybe there’s different ways of approaching the commercial properties that emanate from an event. I just think we need to be open-minded, look strategically at what we want to do, and move forward to see what’s workable.”
“Maybe we need to look at hosting a world event, maybe a co-host between the West Indies and the USA. but we do need to have a good look at the outcomes we’re trying to drive here”
Noting the prolonged and sometimes chaotic course of by which he finally took the chair, Barclay mentioned it was honest to recommend the main variations in worldview round ICC occasions and bilateral sequence had performed an element. However he additionally acknowledged firmly that he was not within the job to work merely on the behest of cricket’s richest nations.
“I think it would be fair to say that there was a clash of agendas, which meant that it suited some directors not to get a decision,” Barclay mentioned. “To give it some context and be fair to them, we are trying to undertake a governance review at the moment, so a lot of them felt we should just leave things until such time as we had an outcome of that review process. The difficulty with that is we didn’t know how long that would take, and of course whatever recommendations came to the board from that process may not have been adopted. So it was fraught to leave it totally reliant on the outcome of the review.
“A whole lot of the media has touted the “big three” idea, however I do not subscribe to it in any respect. There isn’t any huge three to me, they’re simply members of the ICC. Certain they’re actually vital members, they assist drive lots of cricketing outcomes, and to have them as hosts of occasions or as cricketing opponents is vastly useful. However they’re particular person members of the ICC, in order that they’re simply as vital however no extra so than anybody else. I wasn’t on the ICC when the large three resolutions have been put in place, however whereas that modified the funding mannequin, there have been additionally some good issues that got here out of that just like the FTP, so members bought certainty round their enjoying preparations and certainty round their funding.
“While it was an inequitable split, New Zealand and other members were still better off than what we had been previously. But I think what was done under Shashank [Manohar] once he got there and they rolled back the resolutions and lessened the influence of those three countries was absolutely the right thing. Now there has been no concept of “huge three” for the last four years or so, and I know for a fact that England and Australia are very much of that view.
“They get the identical quantity of [ICC events] cash as everybody else and that is by no means actually been a difficulty. India are a barely totally different case, they’re an enormous cricketing pressure, we have to have them within the tent and with 1.three billion folks and the stuff they do round cricket, I feel we simply want to deal with a few of their points in a different way. There are lots of positives to come back out of what they do in addition to any perceived negatives.”