Cricket: No to Nairobi on principle

By RICHARD BOOCK

If the International Cricket Council wanted a quick lesson in governance, they received it yesterday from the smallest member nation on their books.

On a day when cricket's world body enhanced their reputation for backroom deals, politicking and horse-trading, New Zealand Cricket took the chance to demonstrate what leadership was all about.

Their decision against sending the World Cup team to Nairobi flew directly in the face of the ICC's stance, and will probably end in significant financial loss - not to mention an unsuccessful tournament.

For all that, at least the decision was treated as a matter of principle by NZC, who refused to be distracted from the issue of player safety, despite fierce lobbying from Kenyan and South African interests.

Having taken security advice from all sorts of experts, Government foreign offices and diplomats, NZC were entitled to feel unhappy about arrangements and understandably baulked at the ICC's go-ahead.

They seemed to have good reason as well, given the various travel warnings issued by the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, the US and England, the closure of the US embassy and the well-documented terror threats in the region.

And their decision not to send a team to Kenya was consistent, given their call to bring the side home from Pakistan after a bomb attack last year, and their subsequent rejection of a return trip.

NZC also showed their hand clearly during the week, when they made public a security report on Kenya which alluded to terrorist cells operating, Western targets being identified and the questionable capability of local law-enforcement authorities.

The ICC, in contrast, showed themselves to be a body without a spine, bending and cowering to politics and financial considerations, and eventually placing NZC and the New Zealand players in an intolerable position.

When all the dust had settled at ICC headquarters yesterday morning, their approval for Nairobi was not so much a triumph for player rights as television rights.

Far from being a sensible decision, it was almost certainly based on the television contract held by the Murdoch-owned company Global Cricket Corporation, which reportedly bought the tournament's rights for US$550 million ($1 billion) midway through 2000.

In the interim, however, the world rights market collapsed and GCC were able to on-sell only US$400 million to other broadcasters, and were anxious to recoup their losses.

Any transfer or cancellation of scheduled games could provide GCC with the legal means to withhold millions, on the grounds that World Cup organisers had failed to supply the tournament promised.

On top of that, the ICC were also under pressure from major hosts South Africa, to the extent that President Thabo Mbeki's Government personally intervened on behalf of Kenya and began the process of improving security.

Thankfully, this was all grist to the mill for NZC, who were able to push aside the politics and concentrate on the most critical element, which was the safety and security of the players.

Mindful that the team had been caught up in four terror attacks in the past decade, they knew the dangers well and were able to make a decision based on experience and common sense.

As for the ICC, well, they had plenty of experience - but very little common sense.