top of page

The Big Three: Caught Out

Written by: Lynn Butler

Cricket has become corrupted by a huge political takeover involving ‘The Big Three’: the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA).

The International Cricket Council’s (ICC) plan to give control to these three powerhouses has come under huge scrutiny. India already has more influence in the ICC than the other cricketing boards - and with Australia and England coming along for the ride, the financial gain is outmuscling justice or integrity. Teams struggling with the ICC’s current weak consideration for the board have willingly followed the Big Three’s plan. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies have financial problems and depend on the ICC.

One of the ‘flawed’ laws under the proposal is the omission of the Future Tours Programme, which was intended to allow each test cricket-playing nation to tour away and at home in a four-year cycle. If this proposal is accepted, all the countries can decide against whom they want to play - with no obligation to play any of the others. This law will unsettle minor cricket nations such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, with teams such as India or England unlikely to book a series with either of the two nations.

Cricket South Africa (CSA) President Chris Nenzani said that they ‘did not sell out to India’ when they voted for the Big Three’s proposal. Pakistan and Sri Lanka were the only teams who didn’t vote for the proposal, but the Big Three needed eight votes and needed the South Africans. Pakistan’s cricket board said that South Africa ‘cheated’ them, yet they do not see the significance of South Africa’s doing otherwise.

Pakistan has struggled to acquire tours since their scandalous match-fixing dealings and poor form – and their security became an issue after terrorist attacks in 2009. Pakistan already felt the overpowering impact of the BCCI’s influence when they were ousted from the Indian Premier League (IPL) and Twenty20 Champions League (CL20). Pakistan and India’s rivalry began with the partition of British India in 1947 that lead to the independence of India and Pakistan. The conflict between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs left more than one million dead. The northern section of India, which is predominantly Muslim, became Pakistan. Despite the notorious rivalry between India and Pakistan (on and off the field), their epic contests bring the BCCI more money than any other clashes: this means that more money goes to Pakistan and India.

According to TV ratings firm Initiative, an India vs Pakistan match attracts up to an estimated three hundred million television viewers. Now with the proposal approved, the Pakistan cricket board has, according to IOL, eight years of series thanks to the Big Three. India have not played a full series with their neighbours since the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai and Pakistan have not hosted any international cricket since 2009, when six Sri Lankan cricketers were injured and two civilians lost their lives.

Many do not understand why South Africa approved the preposterous proposal but they do not comprehend the predicament we would have faced had we refused. India contributes to 80% of global revenues. That’s 20% to seven and even more cricket nations - including the founders of cricket - Australia and England.

According to NDTV Sports, India’s tour to New Zealand earlier this year raked in an estimated $35 million in broadcasting rights, making it the biggest money-spinner in any sport in New Zealand. This excludes Indian sport tourists – who always travel in opulence with the team – as well as merchandise, ticket prices and other expenditure. No other cricketing nation can bring as many followers as India. Using their overwhelming popularity, the BCCI are used to getting their way with the ICC and cricketing world.

CSA was in a sticky situation: they either had to save South African cricket or go against the biggest and meanest cricketing board and play only a handful of matches. Since appointing Haroon Lorgat as CEO of Cricket South Africa, the relationship between South Africa and India has been on thin ice. Lorgat, who is the former chief executive of the ICC, had numerous clashes with the BCCI, especially when they refused to take part in the World Test Championship, which was scheduled to begin in 2013. The BCCI had warned South Africa that if Lorgat was appointed, there would be consequences that would include South Africa losing lucrative agreements and preference in scheduling fixtures.

When Nenzani decided to vote with the other major cricketing counterparts, thanks to an additional commission from the Big Three, he showed that even though CSA voted for the money, they voted for South African cricket to thrive in the future. It’s hard to accept the fact that CSA went in for the money, but to face the harsh truth: they had too. Nonetheless, even if the Big Three’s proposal is unjust and unsupportive, we have to realise that the ICC’s firm stand against the BCCI resulted in the Indian master plan getting executed.

BCCI is the richest cricketing board and has the biggest cricketing audience. We cannot deny that even though it’s all about the game, money makes the game work. As sad as it may seem, cricket will deteriorate without India... and South Africans and the cricketing world will just have to abide by that. In the words of Nenzani: “Nothing in life is perfect.”

The BCCI decided to host the 2014 Indian Premier League in the United Arab Emirates over South Africa, which SA had successfully hosted in 2009. Cricket South Africa is reportedly in some debt after they launched the Centre of Excellence (COE) at the University of Pretoria Sports Complex in March this year. India tours South Africa once every four years, leaving a gap for revenue. During the start and end of the cricket season, domestic cricket receives poor attendance and exposure. South Africa can now arrange its tour schedule and establish a more lucrative and crowd-pleasing direction - thanks to the proposal… even though it may be unfair to the minnow cricketing nations.

In 2009, the BCCI threatened to pull out of their tour to Australia if the ICC did not remove 64-year-old umpire Steve Bucknor. The BCCI also control the broadcasters that come into India: commentators who criticise them are sacked and they are running an ‘extortion scam’ with regards to broadcasting rights. Sky TV in the United Kingdom paid for their rights to cover England's tour of India in 2012… but were hit with a bill for another $300 000 (R 2 748 210.00) for broadcast facilities. Unlike the rest of the cricketing world, the BCCI apparently could not ‘find’ broadcast boxes at its world-class cricket grounds, so English commentators Sir Ian Botham and David Gower did all their commentary ‘live’ from England. The BCCI are openly manipulating the cricketing world with the situations described above representing only a few examples.

What will South Africa do without India? Not a lot. An example: in the beginning of 2014, CSA announced the ‘Festival of Cricket’ at Sahara Park Newlands would replace the New Year’s Test match, which was cancelled by the BCCI. The tour was scheduled to include three Tests, seven ODIs and two T20 matches. However the BCCI cut it down to two Tests and three ODIs. This meant South Africa lost close to R1 million (if not more) on the shortened tour. Without the New Year’s Test, Capetonians had to be content with a three-day event that never brought it anything close to the estimated revenue that would’ve been generated if India had stuck to the original schedule.

bottom of page