Throughout its history the ICC has been bedeviled with allegations of unsavory practices and rulings. The feeling was that, invariably, the actions and rulings of the ICC, more often than not, tended to support the power brokers of world cricket. Until recently, the power brokers were England and Australia – and this reality fueled the perception of racial overtones to actions of the ICC.  Stripped of political correctness (I have never been a fan of PC, you know) what the critics were alleging, in not so many words, was that the decisions of the white-controlled ICC were disproportionately unfavourable to the non-white teams and nations. Others disagreed. They felt that organizations, by their very nature, have a predisposition to be corrupted, and that the ICC is no different. They argued that the practices of the ICC had less to do with skin colour and more of who pays the piper. They point to some of the controversial rulings of the ICC at a time when the late Sir Clyde Walcott, a West Indian, was at the helm. They also cited rulings from match referees, in particular, Clive Lloyd that was unfavourably disposed to the Asian teams. But critics of the white-controlled theory quickly countered that these non-whites were merely mouth pieces of the white-controlled ICC.  

In the last few years, the economic epicentre of cricket swung progressively towards Asia, and today the Indian cricket board, the BCCI, occupies the seat of power. The changing of the guards has witnessed some interesting actions and rulings. A few months ago during the now infamous Australia-India series, the BCCI advised the Indian team to remain in Adelaide and await the verdict of ICC-appointed Judge Hansen rather than continue with the original tour arrangement and proceed to Melbourne. A cloud of uncertainty seemed to settle over the future of the tour. The BCCI quickly dismissed such talk “as nonsense” and explained that the decision to stay behind was merely a show of support for their teammate. There is a thin line between righteous indignation and strong-arming – did the BCCI cross that line?

Following closely on the heels of the rulings Down Under, came the inauguration of the BCCI supported IPL. The statements and actions of some officers of the BCCI; as well as some of the rulings of the IPL i.e., the media restrictions and, more recently, the attempts to dictate to players for whom they can and cannot play, smack of arrogance borne of the nouveau riche. 

This week the ICC is meeting in Dubai and two issues are dominating the proceedings –the 2006 Oval test between England and Pakistan and the seemingly never ending Zimbabwe atrocity. Support for Mugabe’s government is growing in the subcontinent with India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan slated to support him. The Asians contend that the ICC should only be concerned with the issue of cricket and not meddle in politics. For many years, the very same position of the Malcolm Speed, white-controlled ICC!  Anyone who contends that sports and politics are mutually exclusive is either a child or an astute businessman. Corruption is big business you know.

In the 2006 Oval test, the umpires correctly ruled to award the game to England following Pakistan’s refusal to take the field after tea. Today, two years later, the Asia dominated ICC is set to change that result to a draw. The ICC has indeed come full circle, but one constant remains: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

This article first appeared on caribbeancricket.com

© shamsamaroo