England and Wales Cricket Board Chairman Giles Clarke, pictured centre, answers questions about the recent International Cricket Council Board meeting in Dubai and the future of international cricket.
Question: Giles, what do you think about the criticism of the ICC proposals suggesting the 'big three' - India, Australia and England - have taken over at the expense of the other cricketing nations?
Answer: Let's be clear on the sequence of events. The ICC need to go to market this year with their broadcast and sponsorship rights for the period 2015-2023. The ICC president asked India, Australia and ourselves, as leading cricket nations, to come up with a proposal that will guarantee the participation of all nations in those events (because without that guarantee the rights would be seriously devalued) and at the same time benefit all countries. That is what we have done.
Q: But the suggestion is that only India and to a lesser degree England and Australia benefit and that it isn't good for cricket?
A: Again the perception is completely wrong. All countries earn more through this proposal. No one doubts that India's contribution to world cricket is extremely important and that should be recognised. However, it was interesting to see that both West Indies and New Zealand were quick to point out the advantages to them. West Indies said that they were expecting a rise of 100 per cent in income. No member would earn less and if our predictions are correct most will earn an awful lot more. How can that be bad for cricket?
Q: So how are the revenues being calculated?
A: There is a formula which takes into consideration contribution to ICC revenues, on-field performances in all three formats, history and development and market potential. At the moment it is important to remember that we have not sold any rights, but there is an understandable confidence that we will be able to attract more interest than in the last eight-year cycle.
Q: But aren’t the Associates and Affiliates are going to lose out substantially?
A: That again is not the case. The monies to Associates and Affiliates will not decrease and instead will rise - particularly for the top-performing Associate nations. So for Ireland and Scotland there will be a significant increase. And also there will be the chance for the Associates to play Test cricket.
Q: So Ireland and Scotland could play Test cricket?
A: Yes. For the first time in cricket history there will be meritocracy. So if Ireland or Scotland were to win the Intercontinental Cup, they will play off against the eighth-ranked nation. Victory in those games will provide them with the right to play Test cricket.
Q: People say that this is the end of the Future Tours Programme (FTP) and that we will only see Australia and India in the future. Is this right?
A: Firstly, the FTP will not only continue but will be extended to 2023. Secondly, England, Australia and India have given a commitment to play the other top-eight nations. So the cricket-lovers in England will see no difference in the nations that we play regularly other than the fact that others such as leading Associates may gain Test status.
Q: But the ICC won't control the FTP anymore?
A: The FTP was never controlled by the ICC. It was always a bi-lateral arrangement between two nations. The ICC simply recorded the series to be played and supplied the match officials. In the running of the matches between countries, nothing changes. By agreeing to an FTP, which runs to 2023, we have also given countries greater financial certainty to allow them to plan and run their affairs.
Q: What about the end of the World Test Championship, which was to be played in England in 2017? Does that not show a lack of commitment to Test cricket?
A: The World Test Championship was an interesting concept, but we must remember that Test match cricket has never been a knock-out format. There is often great merit in the hard fought draw in Test cricket - remember Cardiff 2009? Also it was very difficult to find a formula for a short, sharp competition that would appeal to cricket supporters and also broadcasters and sponsors. Countries that have 'finals' for their four-day competitions have found that they often fail to produce exciting cricket.
Q: But the commitment to Test cricket?
A: The ICC has agreed to establish a Test Match Fund of $12.5m per country over eight years - available to all except England, India and Australia - which will allow those countries which find Test cricket difficult to sustain economically the opportunity to continue to stage Test matches. This is vital for countries like West Indies and Sri Lanka, not to forget New Zealand. At the same time the ICC will increase the prize money for the Test rankings so not only is there an incentive to play Test cricket but also an incentive to do well in that format. I think everyone will agree that the Test rankings have grown in public recognition and stature over the last few years.
Q: Do India, England and Australia have power of veto at the ICC Board and are they immune from relegation?
A: No and no. There is no power of veto. As I have said, cricket is for the first time based on meritocracy.
Q: Why fix something that wasn't broken?
A: If anyone thinks that international cricket was working, well they are mistaken. Firstly, everyone was saying that there was a need for change at the ICC in terms of how it was run and the revenue share. That has been achieved. Secondly, if the status quo was so successful, why were so many countries in a perilous financial state? We hope that the new proposals provide the ICC with a new energy and direction and also countries with greater financial security.