Siva election controversy: Why is the ICC being so defensive?

Late last night, an email from the International Cricket Council dropped into our inbox. The subject line – ‘ICC disappointed at FICA confrontational approach’ – was interesting, to say the least. This press release was in response to an earlier Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations press release by FICA Executive Chairman Paul Marsh, which alleged that there has been ‘no action for six weeks’ on the FICA complaint about the vote for players representatives on the ICC Cricket Committee. Now the ICC is looking at FICA’s statement as a breach of trust – perhaps because it was sent while they were all sleeping. [caption id=“attachment_913101” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The ICC is angry with FICA for wanting an independent investigation into Siva’s election. Getty[/caption] “ICC are angry and disappointed that Mr Marsh chose to notify ICC of this change of direction only at 1.31am UK time on Thursday and then issued their misleading statement at 4.30am on the same day – when all Board members and executives, in London for ICC Annual conference, were asleep,” said the ICC statement. The statement further added that it was mutually agreed with the FICA representative during a meeting on Tuesday 25 June 2013 that major progress had been made to resolve any perceived deficiencies in the ICC Cricket Committee election system. “Sadly, within no more than 48 hours of those constructive talks - without reverting to the ICC -FICA’s executive chairman chose to issue an emotive press release, which we believe was a breach of trust of the processes and protocols agreed at the London discussions,” said the ICC mentioned in the statement. “We also believe that this confrontational approach is not in the best interests of the game or the players worldwide, who perform so admirably in all formats.” Now, in their press release, Marsh had announced that the FICA Board held a meeting in London last week at which a decision was made to refer the controversial Captains’ vote for the player representatives on the ICC Cricket Committee to the ICC Ethics Officer for independent investigation. FICA also drafted a ‘Statement of Unity’ that was been signed by all players from the six FICA countries (Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies) that participated in the 2013 ICC Champions Trophy. For those who came in late, a report in Australia’s The Daily Telegraph had said that the Indian board’s president N Srinivasan used power tactics to get Laxman Sivaramakrishnan on the ICC Cricket Committee by “threatening countries to ensure that the majority of Test captains voted against Tim May.” The report also revealed that the BCCI threatened to cancel its tours to the countries that didn’t vote against May. At some level, FICA’s statement meant that they did not trust the ICC to resolve the issue with integrity and it also showed that they feared the BCCI would scuttle things again. The ICC’s response, on the other hand, seems to tell us that they knew what was going on and perhaps there is some merit in what FICA is claiming; it seems to tell us that they let the BCCI unethically force the issue. All FICA has done is refer the controversial Captains’ vote for the player representatives on the ICC Cricket Committee to the ICC Ethics Officer for independent investigation. It doesn’t seem that wrong… it doesn’t seem like a breach of trust… an independent probe can only help matters as it will ensure there is no bias and it will perhaps earn the ICC some credibility too. Lack of ethics in cricket is not new. Earlier, the English and Aussies would use their clout to make things go their way. Now, the BCCI does the same. In a sense, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Regimes come and go, power centres change but the corruption remains a constant ally of those in power. But does it have to remain that way? That is the only question that the ICC should truly be worried about.