Here is the economic reality of the world in which Associate Members have no choice but to exist. Last November, just before England’s ODI series with Pakistan in the UAE, an opportunity arose for them to play a game against Hong Kong.
If you follow the affairs of members beyond the Test-playing world, you probably know that the two sides did not eventually play a full international because of the costs of doing so – somebody would have to stump up around US$100,000 (Dh367,000) for it to be a game with official status.
Nobody did so they played, to consternation in some quarters, a 13-a-side friendly.
What you may not have heard was that on the same tour, the Emirates Cricket Board (call them the smaller ECB in this case) came across a similar situation. When the tour itinerary was first announced, they explored the possibility of turning a warm-up game with England into an ODI.
The England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) said no, but left open the possibility of a Twenty20 international.
Except when it came to exploring that possibility further, the smaller ECB were told that they too would have to pay a significant amount of money to make it an international game.
That cost, it is believed, would have contributed to the match fees of England’s players in that match – as it would have been an extra international played on the tour beyond the original itinerary, payment would have to be extra.
Paul Radley: UAE with a throwback setup; Bangladesh right to be angry
Read more: Touring nations should play UAE, urges captain Amjad Javed
The UAE had not qualified for the World Twenty20 and as such, did not have access to the US$250,000 participation fee and the extra funding likely to have come with it.
Their board decided, understandably, that the money required was better spent elsewhere. The two sides played a friendly Twenty20 instead.
Consider the warped nature of this equation, of this reality. One of the richest boards in the game has no qualms in expecting one of its smallest to pay a significant amount of money (towards the Full Members’ players no less) to play an international game.
Neither is this a new development, as officials in the International Cricket Council (ICC) will point out, and nor are these one-off instances. A number of the top Associate sides have had to face this.
The only thing more disturbing than that reality is the resignation to it, of everyone involved. Yes it is not ideal, everyone seems to say (including Associate boards), but at least they are getting a game of some kind.
If you are inclined to see cricket as a sport that is held hostage by its biggest members, then you will also recognise in this signs of Stockholm syndrome.
All of this is to put into some kind of context the first few days of the World Twenty20, the Group Stage as the ICC likes to call it. Nobody else likes to call it that, least of all Preston Mommsen, the Scotland captain who called it for exactly what it was after an 11-run defeat to Zimbabwe in Nagpur.
Dileep Premachandran: ‘Cosy cabal’ within ICC will be cricket’s ruin as World Twenty20 vision for qualifiers is lacking
“You say if this was a qualifying event?" he responded to a query about handling pressure at a qualifying tournament and at a global event. “This is a qualifying event, there’s no two ways about it."
To be brutally accurate, it is another qualifying event after the first that allowed them the privilege of being part of this one. And, as if to taunt them further, it is one that has been significantly distorted by rain.
Mommsen has become a figurehead of this first week, a passionate and articulate man steering his side to a much-awaited first-ever win at a world event.
All he wants, he has reminded us, is a bit more cricket, especially for Associates beyond Ireland and Afghanistan.
He has played one ODI in the past 12 months. His country has played two matches against Full Members outside of world tournaments since May 2013.
How, he rightly asks, will he or his side, ever improve? How can they ever be expected to win a second game at a world tournament?
This discontent is acquiring its’ own cycle and rhythm now. It resurfaces at every World Cup or World Twenty20, before disappearing into the ether between these tournaments, the ether in which the status quo is that described at the start of this column.
The ICC’s answer has been to pretend the discontent does not exist, increasing the gap between World Twenty20s and reducing the number of teams in the World Cup, essentially reducing the chances of any Associate appearing in it.
England is not alone as a cruel big brother and they have, over the years and in different ways, helped Associate sides.
The ICC is now also in discussions about an ODI fund which will operate in a similar way to the Test cricket fund. It will provide partial funding to ease the economic burden of bilateral matches between Associate Members and Full Members.
Unless that challenge is met though, the lament of Mommsen will go, not unheard, but unheeded.
