They can tear you apart with a thousand incisive cuts or systematically grind you down to a fine powder. They have a bottomless well of talent with multiple world class options in every position. Winning is not only expected but demanded, both from within the camp and throughout their legions of loyal supporters that have turned them into a commercial behemoth.
No, not India, who eased past New Zealand to claim the Champions Trophy this weekend. We’re talking about Ricky Ponting’s Australia. Actually, it’s Clive Lloyd’s West Indians. Or should that be Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls, Richie McCaw’s All Blacks, or the Americans under Christie Rampone, Carli Lloyd and Megan Rapinoe?
India’s influence extends beyond the international game. Teams in five domestic leagues, including all six in the SA20 in South Africa, are little more than satellite projects of Indian Premier League franchises. As Moseki added, “India is too important in the cricket ecosystem for all members, including the ICC itself. India will continue being an important touring team for all countries. To try to divorce yourself from India is not realistic for any country.”
Does this give India the right to call the shots in cricket? Can anyone do anything besides “cry more”, as zealous Indian fans have suggested on social media, when a team that do not need any help winning trophies get to play all their tournament matches in one stadium while the rest of the competition is forced to zigzag across Asia?
Empires don’t tend to treat rebels with leniency and any board that stands up to India alone would probably find themselves alienated and destitute. But what if every other board, including England and Australia, collectively drew a line in the sand? Could the rest of the cricket world prove Moseki wrong and survive without the most powerful entity in the sport?
after newsletter promotion
Leaders of European nations are contemplating a similar dilemma as they make plans to shore up the continent’s security without the support of Donald Trump’s US. This column won’t weigh in on matters that are far more serious than the fate of a leather ball, but as prime ministers, presidents and generals met in Brussels last week to assess Europe’s battlefield capabilities, it’s worth playing with a parallel hypothetical.
As of last year, under the ICC’s revamped revenue-distribution model, the BCCI now takes home nearly 40% of the governing body’s net surplus earnings, amounting to roughly $230m annually. But that’s still less than all the other boards, including 96 associate nations, added together. And even though England’s share of 6.89% is a long way back in second place, if cricket were to act as a democracy rather than the plutocracy that it is, real change could be possible. India could be told to play fair or play on their own. Who knows, maybe they’d even reconsider the way funds are distributed to those in need rather than doling out crumbs only when they visit foreign lands.
Admittedly this is a pipe dream. And why should India give up what they’ve created? For most of cricket’s history they lived under English and Australian influence. Now they’re calling the shots. Market forces are in their favour. They win tournaments without Jasprit Bumrah. Their batters are artists. Their spinners are warlocks. We should be in love with them. It’s a pity we’re not.
