Photo Credit: ICC
Greg Barclay, the outgoing ICC chair, stepped down on December 1 after four years in the role, describing international cricket as “a mess” and warning of future challenges as he handed over to Jay Shah. In an interview with The Telegraph, Barclay, who served two two-year terms beginning in 2020, criticized the congested calendar and the rise of self-interest among members, which he blamed for the current state of the game.
“I reckon, gee, I’m at the apex of the game and I can’t tell you who’s playing around the world,” Barclay admitted, citing the proliferation of franchise T20 leagues in the USA, UAE, and South Africa as factors further cramming the schedule.
“So we’ve lost perspective. It’s not great for the game at all. It’s a mess. The calendar is incredibly congested, and self-interest is such that it’s almost impossible to untangle all of that, because no one’s going to give up their content.”
Barclay expressed hope that Shah would use India’s influence to navigate these issues, saying, “I think he’s got a great opportunity to use what he’s got in his background to help India take the game to another level, but without making it sort of under the yoke of India as well.”
He acknowledged India’s significant contributions to cricket but cautioned that its dominance could distort global outcomes. “Jay has the ability to bring India into the international fold even more. There are a number of things that India could do to help unite and grow the game, including commercially helping to pool offshore rights, using their teams to give opportunity to smaller Full Members and emerging countries, using their clout to open new territories and markets, collaborating closely with the ICC to help benefit members, as examples.”
Barclay also warned of a potential financial correction in future media rights deals, which could impact ICC revenues. The current deal, worth over $3 billion and largely driven by the Indian market, has provided unprecedented funds for Full Members. However, Barclay described the agreement as “way in excess” of actual valuations. “At some point, it is going to correct,” he said. “Is it going to be a sharp, severe correction? Or is it going to be a long, slow one? Or maybe there’s going to be an alternative broadcaster that comes to the market? But people have been saying that for 10 years now.New Zealand cricket had a deal with Amazon, but it didn’t work, so I don’t think they’re going to be the white knight that everybody is anticipating. I just think what we’ve got in front of us is what we’ve got.
“I know that when we did our current deal it was way in excess of what the valuations we got before we went to market. We got £2.4 billion just out of India. The next biggest one is UK Sky. They did an eight-year deal, which was £237 million, so that’s 10% of the India deal for double the length of time. So if we go back to what the original projection was of £800 million it more than halves ICC revenue. It could even be less than that. There’s no discernible replacement for that at the moment.”
Reflecting on Afghanistan’s Full Membership, Barclay defended the ICC’s decision not to sanction the board despite the Taliban’s ban on women’s cricket. “It is not the Afghanistan board’s fault. They used to have women’s cricket. I think our approach has been right,” he said.
“It would be easy to kick Afghanistan out, but their board haven’t done anything wrong. They’re just working under a decree and a series of laws that says this is what you have to do. I don’t think it would make a jot of difference to the ruling party there to kick them out.
“Maybe I’m a little naïve, but I think cricket is such a force for good there, and it brings a lot of joy to a lot of people. It is better to leave it there and hope that it can foster a bit of a change.”
Barclay criticized boards like Cricket Australia for canceling bilateral series against Afghanistan while still competing against them in ICC events, stating, “If you really want to make a political statement, don’t play them in a World Cup. Sure, it might cost you a semi-final place, but principles are principles. It’s not about having half a principle.”
Barclay raised concerns about the sustainability of Test cricket for financially struggling nations like West Indies, Ireland, and Zimbabwe. He questioned whether Ireland and Zimbabwe should continue playing Test cricket given the financial losses they incur and suggested the West Indies might eventually split into individual island nations. “You look at the West Indies, I love what they’ve done for the game, but is the West Indies in its current form sustainable?” he asked.
“The thing is, can they [West Indies] afford to [continue to play Test cricket]? They barely can make their books balance now. What they’ve achieved in cricket is phenomenal when you think that they are a group of disparate islands that don’t really have anything in common, other than cricket, and yet they’ve held themselves together for that period of time as the West Indies.
“But I think one thing that will kind of highlight all that will be with the Olympics and other multi-sport events. They played cricket in the Asian Games last year in China, you’ve got the African Games, [where] cricket featured for the first time. They’re looking at the Pan American Games. So when you’ve got all these multi-sport events, what happens then to the Windies? The Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, Barbados turned up as the participant for the region. Is that a little glimpse of what the future looks like? I don’t know.”
In addition to questioning whether maintaining Test status was beneficial for West Indies, Barclay also raised concerns about whether it was in Ireland’s best interest, one of the nations added to the Full Member list in 2018. Cricket Ireland canceled a bilateral series against Australia earlier this year, citing the high costs as a factor in the decision.
“There’s some structural change that probably needs to be contemplated,” said Barclay. “Some countries are trying to play Test cricket that maybe shouldn’t. Why are Ireland playing Test cricket? Whatever money they’ve got surely they should be investing into grassroots to try and grow their numbers. The only way to get kids to play the game is in short form. They’re not going to turn up and play red ball all day Saturday, all day Sunday. That’s not going to happen. Every time they’re playing a Test, they lose an enormous amount of money. Again, why would you do that? It makes no sense. Why is Zimbabwe playing Test cricket? They lose money on the broadcast deal, so it makes no sense at all.”
One structural change Barclay suggested was a fundamental overhaul of the ICC’s structure. The organization currently has 12 Full Members— the 12 men’s Test-playing nations— and over 90 Associate members, with most of the power and funds concentrated among the Full Members. Barclay proposed eliminating Full Membership altogether and distributing revenue based solely on performance.
“The West Indies would say why do we go from full member to 14 associates [if we split into island nations]? But that is about really getting the governance thing right. Cricket is almost unique. You’ve got this group of full members, and you’ve got the rest. Surely just dispense with that and go, OK, someone’s number one, and somebody’s number 120. And you can move up and down, get ranked on performance, on and off the field. The higher up you go, the more money you get, the more exposure you get. And if you’re not performing, then you go down.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Stay ahead of the latest cricket industry trends by subscribing to our free cricexec “daily briefing” newsletter.
Name of Author: Cricexec Staff
