Cricket: Future of tours up in the air

How often will the Black Caps be able to face the likes of Australia and Mitchell Johnson in the future? Photo / Getty Images

New Zealand cricket's future is at the mercy of India, England and Australia. That is the summary of yesterday's revelations that the sport's heavyweight boards have met independently and presented a document to International Cricket Council members outlining a revamped calendar with the 2015-23 commercial rights coming up for negotiation.

None of the smaller ICC members have to vote for the changes but, if they want to increase their revenue streams and continue to get tours to and from the three nations which control the world's biggest cricket markets, a vote in favour becomes a fait accompli.

Realpolitik is the politics of power; stemming from that is a reluctance from those exposed to the power to bite the hand that feeds.

Compliance would signal an end to the Future Tours Programme, a system invented by New Zealanders Sir John Anderson and former NZC chief executive Chris Doig to bridge the gap between cricket's haves and have-nots in the 1990s. India is not an FTP signatory.

The proposal suggests returning to bilateral series organised through respective boards. The scheme holds to the tenet no one should be forced to host "uneconomic tours". The Herald on Sunday understands New Zealand's current touring status would remain similar to the current FTP with two home and away tours to India, England and Australia across the eight-year cycle.

That is something useful NZC can sell to sponsors and commercial partners. However, there is no guarantee bilateral tours can be enforced. Take, for example, the current Indian tour where NZC conceded a third test to meet the demands of the Indian board (BCCI).

Efforts to contact chief executive David White and board member Martin Snedden through NZC's communication department were unsuccessful.

An NZC spokesperson said they were unavailable for comment but issued the following statement from Snedden: "I can confirm that New Zealand will not be disadvantaged by any changes that are currently proposed. We will not be downgraded or lose our current status. Please respect that we are in the middle of a discussion on a number of wide-ranging topics and we are bound by a strict confidentiality provision. We will be very happy to chat once those discussions are concluded."

In an article on a topic dealing with FTP negotiations four years ago, Snedden spoke as a former NZC chief executive on his experiences dealing with the ICC board from 2001-07.

"The ICC [boardroom] table is a dog's breakfast normally. Self-interest rules, so it's difficult to get those who have power to understand why it's important to look after those who don't. New Zealand always fell into the latter category and you needed representatives of the bigger nations to champion the cause."

At the time, Snedden lamented that the ICC board was based on nationality rather than a structure which, like that of top companies, rewarded business, organisational and - in this case - cricket expertise.

"The ICC board's never going to willingly cede control to an independent group. You waste energy going down that route so instead you enlist the support of people you need to succeed within the existing structure. That's why it's important for NZC to nurture and keep Australia and England on side. They're most likely to back us when the chips are down," said Snedden.

"The Asian countries also lock together, despite regular internal friction. Then South Africa often aligns with the Asian block because of commercial realities.

"Sometimes the West Indies are a floater but they're financially strapped most of time, so therefore reluctant to upset India. You have to work out how to survive."

Snedden, then working on the Rugby World Cup, said careful diplomacy was required: "Last time I did the FTP, it took about three years of discussion and negotiation. I remember a consulting company spent a year working on a solution that made reasonable sense, then they got shot down in just one meeting because it didn't suit various countries. Compromise got us through most situations, which wasn't satisfactory. If common sense doesn't prevail, you're not going to come up with the best scenario for cricket."

New Zealander Alan Isaac, the president of the International Cricket Council until June, says dealing with power differences between members requires pragmatic negotiation.

"We had a working party strategising on what to do with the [commercial] rights but I felt the most positive way forward was to get them [India, Australia and England] to sort something that suited and work out whether everyone else agreed. Even India can be persuaded to change its mind on occasion, despite outside perceptions to the contrary.

"I encouraged them [India, Australia and England] to meet more [independently], but urged them to be responsible in the way they go about using that power to act in the best interests of the game. It's about trying to get things done. In practical terms, there is unlikely to be a lot of difference. Series will simply be undertaken on a bilateral basis rather than through the Future Tours Programme."

New Zealand Players' Association boss Heath Mills wonders why, if the proposal is "so good for everyone", information was not discussed with the board and stakeholders like his parent organisation FICA.

"Transparency is the issue. The current model might need tweaking but I would have expected collective decision-making, not three boards working in private. That feels like a regressive step. It might not be as bad as is being made out but key stakeholders haven't been able to ask questions. That's alarming."