Long-term development is in direct conflict with short-term gains

Cutting number of teams at the World Cup to suit big broadcasters is short-sighted move motivated by money

THE year 2010 was a difficult one for the International Cricket Council (ICC). Twelve months dogged by controversy, from spot-fixing allegations against three Pakistan cricketers to the blocking of the nomination of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard for the Presidency and the recent decision to limit the 2015 World Cup to just 10 sides.

And, on the back of the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team, the regulatory issues of the IPL, the reintroduction of Zimbabwe to test cricket and the farcical Stanford affair all mean the power brokers in Dubai have certainly not had their problems to seek.

The latest conundrum - the introduction of a new 'context' for the world game - has put the ICC in a complex situation that has placed the long-term development of the game in direct conflict with short and medium-term commercial gains. By reducing the 2015 World Cup to ten teams with a round-robin format the ICC has ensured that India, Australia and England will all play a minimum of nine games. The comfort this will give to the ICC's broadcast partners and its most powerful members has been achieved at the potential cost of the best associate nations, such as Scotland, competing on the world stage.

The 2007 event undoubtedly had many problems, including small crowds, expensive tickets, and the untimely death of Bob Woolmer. These were, however, of a much lower significance to the ICC than the early exit of Pakistan and especially India. It is simply unpalatable to the ICC that the game's commercial powerhouse can exit its flagship competition early, and they have moved swiftly to rectify this. A reduction from 16 teams to 14 for the forthcoming World Cup was, in many ways, understandable but the further reduction to a mere 10 is a major step in the wrong direction. The ICC must be applauded for its global development programme over the last ten years, and since 2005, it has invested significant sums in the top six associate countries through its High Performance Programme. Due to this support, the likelihood of the top Associates beating the lower-ranked full members is increasing each year. The gap between these associate countries and the lower-ranked full members such as Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, New Zealand and the West Indies is narrowing.

The spectators who watched Holland beat an appalling Bangladesh side in Glasgow last summer, saw Ireland run Australia mighty close and watched Scotland compete with the bat against England will have clearly seen the progress made.The gap to the very top sides is still there but the less formidable full members are clearly looking over their shoulders.

We will wait and see what qualification process is established for the 2015 World Cup but it seems the best that the 95 ICC countries outwith the top ten can hope for is a dogfight for one place with the lowest-ranked full member.

The decision to expand the World T20 to 16 teams will give associate and affiliate nations a chance to compete on the world stage and this, on the face of it, has to be welcomed. However, it is a buy off for the 50-over World Cup decision, and is seen as a carrot for the 93 per cent of ICC members who have seen the possibility of 50-over World Cup participation disappear.

The huge investment made by the ICC in the developing cricketing world has only been made possible by their commercial successes in selling sponsorship and television rights, a fact readily acknowledged by the developing nations. However, a balance between the commercial necessities of international sport and its long-term development has to be maintained. But it could be argued that it is not clear who is actually running the world game at present. The ICC would like you to think it is Sharad Powar, its Board and Haroon Lorgat. The reality may well be that the real power is actually held by the chief executives of ESPN Star Sports, SuperSport, Ten Sports, Nimbus, Sky Sports and Channel Nine. It is these companies which bankroll the ICC and its members.

Cricket seems to be going against the development model adopted by other sports such as football and rugby, who have both expanded their World Cups. The International Rugby Board has in place a similar performance programme to the ICC and next year's event in New Zealand will have 20 teams. The likelihood is that Georgia, Russia, Tonga, Japan or Namibia will not beat the hosts, Australia or France but they may give the likes of Samoa, Italy and Canada a fright. World Cups are not just about deciding the best team, they are a showcase for the game's development around the globe - unfortunately cricket seems to have forgotten this.

Of course there is an exception to every rule and the anomaly in the ICC's stance is their desire to explore the "emerging markets" of China and the USA. At a time of apparent negativity for developing nations the ICC is prioritising expansion in these countries. Again, the issue of commercial gain versus sustainable development has been raised. Are the scales tilted towards the Dollar and Yuan?