Should ICC Voting structure be Changed

[jashan83]

Pre 1965 ICC consisted of only full members. Hence in voting structure each member had one vote but the original member had a veto power i.e Eng & Aus

Then in 1965 ICC changed it names. It started to add associates. Then each full member had 2 votes and each associate had 1 vote and again Eng and Aus had the right to veto

Slowly slowly the associates increased in number and had a considerable voting influence.

Then in 1995 I guess (Not sure of year) there was a clash for the president came. India along with Associate wanted Scindia the Indian candidate and had overall majority and Eng and Aus though in Minority wanted their own candidate and had the power of veto.

To break the deadlock Mr Scindia came out with a suggestion of complete overhaul. He came out with 3 type of Member:- Test, Associate and a new category Affiliates. The Board would consist of 10 members and no veto for Aus and Eng. There were 3 members of associate but they have an advisory role (Yes they cannot vote). All decisions are to be passed with 2/3rd majority (Presently 7 votes).

In 9 member for India to get 6 votes it was heavily dependent on all 3 i.e SA, Zim and WI to vote on its side.Hence it got BD included which reduced its dependence on on SA, ZIm & WI. 2 out of 3 are enough now. Having Ire would take this passing to 8 and again dependable on 3 again(Hence Kenya was avoided). Any addition India would want now is Afg or Nep.

Hence it is high time we go for a new ICC structure altogether. I studied the structure of IRB. They have a structure that keeps the interests of stronger teams but does not compromise the interests of all regions as well as lesser teams.

Taking a cue from there structure I think ICC structure should be as follows
Full Member 3 votes each(Total 30 Votes)
Ind, Pak, SL, BD, SA, ZIM, Aus, Eng, NZ, WI

Each region 1 vote each (total 5 votes)
ACC, AfCA, AmCA, ECC & ICC EAP

Top 10 Associate/Affiliate (ODI status and HPP members) 1 vote each (10 votes)
Presently would be Ire, Scot, Neth, Afg, Ken, Can, Nam, Ugan, UAE & Ber(Ugan and Bermuda are in risk of loosing it to HK & PNG)

Total 45 Votes. To pass a motion 30 votes (2/3rd Majority)


This would also encourage force the full members to work towards their regions. The 10 Associate are based on merit. This would definitely motivate say India to work on Afg, Nepal, HK, Malaysia, UAE, Oman etc to get as many teams in that level. Similarly Europe would work on European teams like Ire, Scot, Neth, Den, Italy etc and get them to the top 10. This will also bring some media attention to WCL to see who the new members will be. This would have also avoided the dreadful decisions like a Full Member Cup instead of a world cup.

 

[slugger]

The problem here.. is the architects of this current voting system still have power, the problem with "it" is it doesnt have "crickets" best interest at heart.. but is more so has the interest of a few selected boards. I can only see the status quo remain. Its not beneficail for those "boards" to vote irland test status, the whole system is open for abuse by the current boards with "power",

 

[silentstriker]

So you want the ten full members to vote to give themselves lesser power. Yea, that's gonna happen.

 

[jashan83]

The problem here.. is the architects of this current voting system still have power, the problem with "it" is it doesnt have "crickets" best interest at heart.. but is more so has the interest of a few selected boards. I can only see the status quo remain. Its not beneficail for those "boards" to vote irland test status, the whole system is open for abuse by the current boards with "power",

I totally agree with you. It was a misuse of power by vetoing a ICC Chief who had a majority that lead to the reform, because government got involved. I think similarly this may be a turning moment where the government of Ireland has given its support. It can be lead by a simple chain of reaction-Ireland govt talks to England govt, who talk to Aus and NZ govt and then these donor nations talk to India and Pak govt or something of that sort and whole dynamics changes. Some international committee sits and recommends. It is a chain reaction and I hope it is initiated for the good


I also tried to see how the present and the proposed voting balance would be

PRESENT
ASIAN(Ind, Pak, SL, BD):- 4/10=40%
WHITE(Aus, Eng,NZ):-3/10=30%
Bench hoppers(SA, Zim,WI):-3/10=30%

PROPOSED
Assuming 10 associates are Ire, Neth, Scot, Ken, Afg, Can, UAE, Nam, HK & PNG

ASIAN(Ind, Pak, SL, BD, Afg, HK, UAE, ACC):- 16/45= 36%
WHITE(Aus,Eng, NZ, Ire, Neth, Scot, PNG, EAP, ECC):-15/45= 33%
Bench Hoppers(SA, Zim, WI, Ken, Nam, Can, AfCA, AmCA)14/45=31%

The overall power structure remains the same or rather similar

Yes Full member lose power from 100% voting right to 78% (Assuming regional organization remain in strong control of full members which is so true)

 

[juro]

What chance of having an independent commission? A board filled with former players, umpires, um... groundskeepers..., who make decisions in the interest of international cricket instead of in the interest of individual countries' profits?

 

[silentstriker]

What chance of having an independent commission? A board filled with former players, umpires, um... groundskeepers..., who make decisions in the interest of international cricket instead of in the interest of individual countries' profits?

Zero. Again, are you going to tell the two boards who generate 90% of revenue, or the one board that generates 70% of revenue, that they are no longer in charge of their chequebooks - that this supposedly independent commission will now be allowed to make decisions that may cost them and their stakeholders money?

Even if a BCCI president was drunk enough to agree to such a commission, he'd be voted out of office the next day by the state associations and the agreement would end.

 

[Andre]

There is no way in the world that Zimbabwe should have had full voting rights on the ICC considering they haven't played a Test match for 6 years. Highlights what a joke the ICC is to have imposed no sanctions on them and allow them to 'voluntarily withdraw' from Test cricket.

A weak decision from an embarrassing body. The fact that the Zimbabwean vote is twice that of Ireland and equal to that of India highlights what a disgrace the system is.

 

[jashan83]

Zero. Again, are you going to tell the two boards who generate 90% of revenue, or the one board that generates 70% of revenue, that they are no longer in charge of their chequebooks - that this supposedly independent commission will now be allowed to make decisions that may cost them and their stakeholders money?

Even if a BCCI president was drunk enough to agree to such a commission, he'd be voted out of office the next day by the state associations and the agreement would end.

Yes presently CA, ECB and BCCI have all teamed up to prepare for death of cricket (And not just BCCI). But it takes government pressure to force such things, that is the way it happened in the past and that is the way it may happen in the future

 

[Borges]

The FIFA Congress - football's parliament
According to the statutes, the FIFA Congress is the organisation's supreme body. Numerous articles dictate which items are to be discussed and which decisions are to be passed at this forum. As the legislative body of world football - football's parliament, in other words - the Congress bears a particular responsibility for developing the game, the nature of which has been subject to increasingly rapid change over the past few years. Each member has one vote at the Congress.

What about something like this? Far, far, too democratic for the liking of most cricket webbers, I presume.

Any change in the voting structure would worthwhile if and only if it results in the BCCI, the ECB and CA (with the support of their respective lackeys) being unable to push through whatever they feel like. Currently, the only time voting in the ICC is even remotely interesting is when these three fall out with one another - as in 'The Curious Case Of The Odious Howard'.

 

[marc71178]

By all means do this, then watch world cricket collapse when broadcasters pull out and the game dies.

 

[Cevno]

Actually BCCI wanted to change the voting a while back In Dalmiya times ,to give affiliate boards more voting power too.

But it was the CA And ECB who blocked it ,fearing that the affiliates would incline with the BCCI and other asian boads on the voting.
Some boards were very reluctant to grant full voting rights to Bangladesh too but had to bulge.

 

[Borges]

By all means do this, then watch world cricket collapse when broadcasters pull out and the game dies.

Dunno, I'm not so sure of that. IMHO, globalization is a much better option for the long term future of cricket, even if it involves a temporary economic sacrifice. The threat of imminent economic disaster was also the scare crow which was raised over and over again in the past to try and deny universal suffrage.

At the present, according to estimates, about 70-75 percent of the world funding for cricket comes from the Indian market. Relying on this particular goose to lay golden eggs day after day for ever after is fraught with danger. The overwhelming majority of this current Indian cricket following population (which people hope will fund cricket all over the world for ever), is extremely fickle. As long as India is doing very well at the international level, things would be fine. When that era ends, as it must for every great team, I fear that much of this cricket support will dissipate; most of these people will just move to support some other sport in which India happens to be doing better at that time.

As I see it, cricket has a grim long term future if it misses the opportunity to globalize the game; an opportunity that currently exists, and may not remain for ever.