Scotland's Josh Davey stays home to play for Somerset in the Blast rather than play for his country in T20 Photo: Harry Trump/Getty Images
The World Cup should showcase the best players each country has going against each other. This is not the case in cricket.
When England take on Scotland in the opening T20 World Cup match in Barbados on Tuesday, England will naturally be able to demand a full allocation of their players. This is a luxury that Scotland doesn't have. Josh Davey and Andy Umid were not available for selection; instead they will remain in their county of Somerset.
This is a microcosm of the paradox: counties must release their players to play for England. However, they do not have to be released to play for England's rivals.
While England will be all in on the Caribbean, developing countries will not. The Netherlands faced similar obstacles to Scotland. Both Colin Ackermann and Roelof van der Merwe, who will both be in the national team, will spend the tournament playing for Durham and Somerset in the T20 Blast.
In theory, this should never happen. The ICC requires all players to be released for international duty. In the case of a World Cup or qualifier, Article 3.2 of the ICC Event Sanctions and Player Release Regulations states: “The release of players wishing to play for an Associate Member’s national representative team is mandatory.” The next article states: “Any contractual arrangements agreed with the player must comply with these requirements.” This mandatory release provision mirrors similar rules in football and rugby.
Counties ignoring ICC requirements for Associate Partner players.
In the case of cricket, this provision is a chimera. Counties are simply ignoring the ICC requirement to ensure that their Associate players are cleared to play at global events.
If players insist that their counties release them, they will become less attractive, putting them at risk of losing their contracts. This is especially true for Van der Merwe, who has a white-ball-only contract at Somerset and will miss an extended period of the T20 Blast if he goes to the World Cup.
Roelof van der Merwe will play for Somerset against Kent in Canterbury on Friday, rather than the Netherlands against South Africa in New York the next day. Photo: Harry Trump/Getty Images
Associate teams are well aware of this reality. If they insisted that counties send all their players to the World Cup, many players would have to choose between playing international cricket and more lucrative contracts with counties. When Paul van Meekeren missed playing for the Netherlands in last year's ODI World Cup qualifiers to play for Gloucestershire, he told ESPNcricinfo that if the board had insisted he play: “I would have quit Dutch cricket.”
“Players choose districts because they provide greater financial security compared to a contract with an associated nation,” explains one leading agent. “You can't make a choice for that security and then want the other benefits of international cricket.”
For countries with fewer resources, this reality is nothing new. During the West Indies' tour of England in 1933, their star Leary Constantine played in only one of the three Tests: his Lancashire League team did not allow him to play in the other two. “Nelson had key matches and he wouldn’t let me go; I should have gone fast enough if I could,” wrote Konstantin.
Last year, Scotland and the Netherlands entered the ODI World Cup qualifiers with depleted teams, resulting in the Dutch beating the West Indies to clinch a place in the tournament. India is even more remarkable. In 2022, when England toured the Netherlands, the hosts were missing half their full squad. At least one member of the England management at the time was unhappy with the actions of the counties, which made the games less competitive by not releasing players.
“We need enough money to give our players permanent contracts and then we can send them to the district or provincial teams, but we are responsible for that,” the Netherlands coach noted in 2018. “The team they play for very often uses the whole selection process or contract negotiations as a threat.”
These were the words of Ryan Campbell, who is now Durham head coach. He then expressed regret that the counties would not release their players from the Netherlands. He will now benefit from playing Ackermann in the T20 World Cup; When he joined Durham, Ackermann made it clear that he would be available throughout the summer. But Durham sent Michael Jones to Scotland and Bas de Lied to the Netherlands.
Durham released Bas de Lid to participate in the tournament. but saved Colin Ackerman for the blast. Photo: MARTIN KEEP/AFP via Getty Images
None of this is the fault of individuals: cricketers are trying to maintain professional county contracts and coaches are trying to win games. But it reflects how even in a 20-team World Cup that is supposed to show the global depth of the game, the associated nations may not be at full strength. The problem is compounded when global events coincide with the English summer.
The real culprit, however, is the International Cricket Council's revenue distribution model. According to the ICC allocation model for 2024-2027, India will receive £180 million per year from the global governance model, representing 38.5 percent of total revenues; England will receive around £31 million. All 94 associate members combined receive just £53 million. Even as leading partners, Scotland and the Netherlands receive around £3 million a year from the ICC, which makes up the majority of their total income, and is spent on their men's and women's programs, as well as the grassroots and international game.
< p >As long as this inequality persists, one flawed feature of the World Cup will remain: the teams that are deprived of players will be the ones that can least afford it.
Recent Comments