Tim May unloads on ICC

Departing May hits out at cricket's 'decay'

June 5, 2013 - 11:06AM
Jesse Hogan

Former Test off-spinner Tim May was never much of a batsman – a first-class average of 15 and strike-rate of 31 reflects that – but that has not stopped him going out swinging from his role as international cricketers' chief advocate.

May has resigned as chief executive of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations.
While May has served players for 16 years he said his decision was triggered not by weariness but by exasperation at the ICC, accusing it of being shackled by self interest and of constantly kowtowing to its most powerful member, India.

"The past couple of years have been pretty frustrating . . . realising you no longer have to follow all the scandal that seems to go with our game is quite a relief," May told Fairfax Media.

"There are many reasons I've become tired. I'm tired of travelling and I'm tired of being away from my family, but another part of being tired is it's just very, very frustrating to bang your head against a brick wall in terms of the governance of the ICC and the governance of a number of boards.

"It's clearly inadequate, it doesn't really comply with any commonly accepted structures of governance, and there's allegations of malpractice on and off the field at the moment.

"The game's in decay and a large part of that has to be attributable to the top management, the governors of our sports who seem to think they're above all rules that seem to apply to everyone else."

May is complimentary of the ICC's management, led by chief executive David Richardson, but believes it is severely shackled by the ICC's board, which is comprised of delegates from international teams' own boards.

The antipathy of some in cricket towards the outspoken 51-year-old was illustrated earlier this month when he was voted off the ICC's cricket committee, which makes recommendations as to how the game is run.

What made May's explusion unusual is that the ICC ignored the results of the first ballot of captains, which is believed to have strongly endorsed his re-election, and asked for a subsequent ballot, in which May was beaten by former India leg-spinner Laxman Sivaramakrishnan.

FICA formally request the matter be investigated by an independenently run ethics committee. The ICC has, apart from initially rejecting "unsupported allegations of impropiety in the voting process", not yet formally responded to the request. May argued that was symptomatic of the problems that have beset the ICC board.

"The reason FICA kicked up a fuss about it is not because Tim May didn't get elected and someone else did. It was just the process that it followed, captains of teams being put under significant pressure from their boards to vote in a particular way because they've also been put under significant pressure to ensure the vote went a particular way," he said.

"It's symptomatic of how cricket is run. One of the things (that reinforces that) . . . is what's come of it? FICA have put in a request for it to be referred to an investigation office, who is completely independent of the ICC, and here we are three weeks down the track and there's no definitive response from the ICC. In terms of being an organisation that works quickly, without fear or favour, they're failing."

In 2010 Australia and New Zealand used their rotational right to appoint the next ICC president to nominate former Australian prime minister John Howard. That move was derailed by a revolt from some Test-playing nations, including India. Australia and New Zealand susbequently relented, instead appointing New Zealander Alan Isaac as their representative.

Asked if the ICC board would have been better equipped to operate more decisively with an uncompromising leader such as Howard, May replied: "There'd be a lot of people who would say that."

"What you have in the ICC at the moment is a board of directors that, at the end of the day, are initimidated by the more powerful of some of those directors. You can work out which ones they are.

"They use various threats and intimidation . . . basically all around cricket programming, where India is everyone's biggest customer, and if India says 'If you don't vote for me on this particular issue well then your tour, from the India side, will either be cancelled or significantly downsized', that means millions and millions of dollars to those cricket boards. Unfortunately, that's the landscape they're making decisions in," May said.

"For player associations, where we don't have that sort of political pressures . . . it's pretty hard to get your head around why some of those decisions have been made, apart from the fact it's what India wants.
"The ICC directors are there to operate for the best interests of the global game, not India or their own individual country."

May said a key failing of the current ICC board was its refusal to fully implement the recommendations of a governance review by Lord Woolf and PricewaterhouseCoopers, which it commissioned almost two years ago and released publicly in February last year.

"It's not just me or player associations (exasperated with the ICC board), everyone knows how it operates. Numerous stakeholders put their hand up and say 'This governance structure has just got to change'.

The ICC commissioned their own investigation by an independent expert, Lord Woolf, into the governance structure, and he reminded the ICC their main priority is to act in the global interests of cricket, not the interests of the countries they represent. Therefore we need independent directors . . . but that's just gone by the wayside.

Nothing's happened at all, because people just don't want to change. They want to retain power," he said.

"I firmly believe that for cricket to be what it could be globally it needs a change of the governance structure. I'm not a specialist or an expert on that, but Lord Woolf is – and that's what he recommended."

May said he was hopeful the current spot-fixing-related turmoil that has gripped the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which has resulted in the resignation of its secretary and treasurer and saw powerful president N. Srinivasan reluctantly stepping aside, would have positive implications on cricket administration both in India and at the ICC.

"It may have the potential, but whether it will or not is a completely different thing," he said.

"Whilst the BCCI themselves may not be responsible for a lot of the stuff that's going on they are the governing body and the buck has got to stop somewhere. The present style of governance and governance structure hasn't been able to stop this, or rid corruption from the game.

"I think you'll find the general Indian public would expect there is some governance structure change through the BCCI. Hopefully if that does occur than will then transpire into a governance structure change for world cricket, at the ICC level."

Tributes to May for his role have been led by Australian captain Michael Clarke and his predecessor Ricky Ponting.

Clarke praised May for "taking on the tough issues on behalf of all players and doing so with amazing passion, strength and leadership", while Ponting described him as "a pioneer in every way and has led a major change in the way cricketers and administrators interact".

FICA said it will announce a new leadership structure within days.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/departing-may-hits-out-at-crickets-decay-20130605-2np7i.html#ixzz2VIj6RXzq

BanIndia.

"They use various threats and intimidation . . . basically all around cricket programming, where India is everyone's biggest customer, and if India says 'If you don't vote for me on this particular issue well then your tour, from the India side, will either be cancelled or significantly downsized', that means millions and millions of dollars to those cricket boards. Unfortunately, that's the landscape they're making decisions in," May said.


Boards should stand up to India and see if they are game enough to carry out the threat. With their cash-cow IPL now in turmoil and facing the threat of collapse, and tax departments seemingly constantly questioning their ways, can the BCCI really afford to be refusing to tour certain countries? Who needs the money more? At least England and Australia will always have the Ashes.

I suspect the BCCI's foundation of power is built on sand.

crash Craddock on radio this morning said that Tim had received less than a handful of calls from current oz players who he has represented so well for 8 years

You mean as a "bad luck mate" sort of call or calls in the course of his role as player rep?

as in bad luck calls...ungrateful nobs

Calls? Phurt. That's like, so 2008. I'm sure they all sent him grammatically awful messages on Twitter.....

Henry wrote:"They use various threats and intimidation . . . basically all around cricket programming, where India is everyone's biggest customer, and if India says 'If you don't vote for me on this particular issue well then your tour, from the India side, will either be cancelled or significantly downsized', that means millions and millions of dollars to those cricket boards. Unfortunately, that's the landscape they're making decisions in," May said.


Boards should stand up to India and see if they are game enough to carry out the threat. With their cash-cow IPL now in turmoil and facing the threat of collapse, and tax departments seemingly constantly questioning their ways, can the BCCI really afford to be refusing to tour certain countries? Who needs the money more? At least England and Australia will always have the Ashes.

I suspect the BCCI's foundation of power is built on sand.

the bcci itself is a shit-hole, but the financial power of the indian cricket team is very real and quite solid. the real foundation is close to a billion viewers, and even if that number falls dramatically due to extremely improbable reasons, it will still dominate world cricket revenue

so if its the bcci or the icb or whatever name any new board will be (and i honestly think there may be a chance, albeit small, of a new governing body for cricket in india) it will wield that power. we can only hope that some sensible people are in charge of it