Cricket and the art of compromise

Another meeting on Zimbabwe, and another cop-out, with every interested party expressing their satisfaction at the manner in which things panned out. For the Indian cricket board, the issue had nothing to do with the deplorable state of the game in Zimbabwe, or the fact that its administrators have allegedly siphoned off most of the money given by the ICC for the development of the game.

For India, it came down to Zimbabwe being the fifth vote. Financial considerations mean that the Asian bloc will invariably vote as one, but with South Africa now having broken off cricketing ties with Zimbabwe, it was imperative that India retain its power base at the ICC. And if that means supporting a board whose links to Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF party are not even in doubt, then so be it.

The BCCI's decision to support Zimbabwe on the issue of full membership will barely create a ripple in India, where most cricket fans are more concerned with the final of the Asia Cup and the upcoming tour of Sri Lanka. Zimbabwe simply isn't a cause célèbre in this part of the world, with each country having enough problems of its own to deal with. There's also the fact that Mugabe was once an ally in the Non Aligned Movement. With coverage of Africa so threadbare, most simply don't know or care that the former freedom fighter is now a tyrant desperate to cling to power by any means.

The west's hypocrisy hasn't helped. Why pick on Mugabe alone when issues like Tibet and Darfur remain unsolved? And what of Guantanamo Bay? Would Andy Burnham recommend that British golfers boycott the Ryder Cup in protest against human-rights violations there, transgressions that have been noted even by the US Supreme Court?

Ultimately though, this is about a country that has been driven to destitution by a dictator, and a cricket team that was once so competitive at the highest level. Zimbabwe's cricket, like the country itself, is a basket case, and it will remain that way as long as the world's governments only look at their selfish interests. Cricket had an opportunity to show the way for those that hold the political reins. It fluffed it.

But should we be surprised? After all, the ICC banned Apartheid South Africa only six years after the International Olympic Council and FIFA had given expression to the international community's disgust. Perhaps they should seriously start thinking about changing the organisation's symbol to the ostrich with its head in the sand.

Comments

[Som]

I'm ready to go by the reports and have no doubt whatsover that ZCU is a cesspool of corruption. But the reason being cited to slam the door on Zimbabwe is not corruption but Mugabe's atrocities. And that to me is exceeding brief on ICC's part.

And once you ban the cricketers from playing, how you ensure that the current crop is not lost? Why punish cricketers for Chingoka's fault?

My humble Pray is why toy with the future- assuming they have one-of the players? I have to repeat what I lamented in my blog. I have a number of fears in case you decide to ban Zimbabwe. I'm afraid it might force Brendon Taylor become Brendon the tailor; can anyone guarantee that Mluleki Nkala, Kadoma's poster boy, would not return to his Ndebele tribe? Maybe 'Psych', who scalped Tendulkar with only his second ball in international cricket, would be spending the rest of his life washing toilets at Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo International Airport to feed his 13 siblings. Who takes that responsibility? Why make cricketers collateral damage of an ill-conceived war?

[Chandra]

I am curious, has the FIFA or the IOC banned Zimbabwe?

[Dileep]

The ICC has a report that extensively details the extent of the ZCU's corruption. Details of it were leaked months ago, but no one's been allowed to see it, not even the British government when they made a request. Why is the ICC so keen to hide it and therefore protect the guilty? What more proof do you need before action is taken?

[Som]

Since when ICC became the tool to settle political score? Nobody in his senses can defend Mugabe and Co. Chingoka too probably gobbled the money meant for cricketers. But from ICC point of view, that's a simple case of corruption in one of its Full Members. Does not allowing them play curb corruption? And you want us to believe that corruption is not rampant in some other boards?

If anyone expected ICC to punish Zimbabwe for Mugabe's atrocities there, I think he has grossly over-estimated the cricket governing body. And if ICC itself assumes so, I would say they are far exceeding the brief. They are simply not the body to discuss the issue. And there is no reason to believe that scrupulous angels sit in ICC's HQ, while morons occupy the seat at IOC and other governing bodies.

And to be honest, I don't see any problem with compromise either. Fortunately things don't go as arm-chair critics would have liked them. The whole world is sustained on compromise. Had we left the world to strong-headed, never-budging individuals, we would not have lived to see this day.
yes, the cop-out perfectly suits cricket. England does not risk hosting the T20 World Cup anymore, nor would they need to pay the $2 million fine for denying visa to the Zimbabweans. On the other hand, Zimbabwean cricketers were not made to pay for some other people's fault.
Now ICC need to look into the corruption part in ZCU, while Mugabe issue need to be taken up at relevant level, maybe UN?

[Amith]

Well, if the ICC banned S.Africa years after the International Olympic Council, why rush this time? Zimbabwe has not been banned by the Olympic Council. They are going to participate in the Beijing Olympic games after all. I am serious. Why is there a drive to ban Zimbabwe at all?

The ECB would like them banned because they were instructed by their national government. Why should the BCCI follow suit when the Govt of India has not advised breaking diplomatic or sporting relations with Zimbabwe?

Are a bunch of cricket writers now pretending to be experts on international diplomacy?

[Venkat]

"Perhaps they should seriously start thinking about changing the organisation's symbol to the ostrich with its head in the sand."

that was a good one!