We commented two editions ago on the International Cricket Council's (ICC) decision to make the 2015 World Cup a closed tournament and discussed the potential commercial, and legal, ramifications of that decision. Commercially, the impact on the ability of Associate Nations to develop self sufficient governance and playing structures without the potential end goal of competing in a major global tournament was inevitably going to be considerable. Legally, the issue revolved around whether or not the ICC in preventing Associate Nations the opportunity to try and qualify was actionable. In view of the membership contract between the nations and the ICC, and the ICC's duty and apparent commitment to develop the game globally, the conclusion was that grounds for review existed because, as a decision, it appeared inequitable.
The Associate Nations, led by Cricket Ireland, have lobbied vigorously for the ICC to review the 2015 structure. That campaign has also been backed by a number of high profile and influential past and present players, and it has this week been announced that the ICC intend to revisit the issue at its next board meeting in June. It will be during this meeting the representations of the Associate and Affiliate Nations will be considered.
Comment
A hurdle for the ICC will be the broadcasting deal that has already been agreed for the next tournament; however, that is unlikely to be an insurmountable issue. The bigger issue is persuading the ten nations guaranteed entry into the tournament that it is in the interests of the game to dilute their share of the revenue pot further by opening up the competition. In many ways, it is an issue that governing bodies regularly face: how to balance the commercial revenue with its duty to the global game. Cricket, like rugby, is a sport that talks about ambitious plans for globalisation. It is talk that would inevitably strengthen any claim for review by a contracted member, because this decision swims against that apparent objective. Clearly, if cricket is serious about its development programme then it will be difficult to justify endorsing a closed World Cup.
Ideally, Ireland, or indeed any member nation, does not want to be taking legal action against their own international governing body. It is to be hoped therefore that a resolution can be reached, and the idea of a pre-tournament qualifier, with two teams to progress, seems to be a workable compromise.
The contents of this article are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
