After Associates Lit Up The T20 World Cup, Cricket’s Full Membership Should Be Under The Microscope

UAE, the only winless team in the first round of the T20 World Cup, appeared set for a surprise thrashing of Namibia who had gone off the boil since an opening upset over former champions Sri Lanka.

With Namibia lurching at 7 for 69, UAEUAE
could smell their first ever victory in this tournament much to the relief of the Netherlands who needed a UAE win to qualify for the Super 12 stage – or better known as the ‘main draw’.

But, of course, this momentous opening week – which inevitably was derided as merely a ‘qualifier’ due to this mishmash of a format which is thankfully being scrapped – meant nothing was a certainty. Adding to the list of nerve-janglers, Namibia fought back through David Wiese and Ruben Trumpelmann smashing 80 off 56 balls to ensure this clash of Associate heavyweights would go down to the wire.

Just when it appeared the African nation had conjured a remarkable heist, UAE held their nerve with superb death bowling to break Namibian hearts. The seven-run result meant all eight teams, including four Associate nations, in the first round had at least one victory to underline the improved competitiveness in global cricket.

There really hasn’t been much difference between Full Members, which included two-time champions West Indies and three-time finalist Sri Lanka, and the Associates – countries deemed beneath the top 12 nations afforded more funding from the sport’s governing body’s revenue sharing model and coveted positions on the all-important board.

While that may have surprised the wider audience, who mostly don’t follow the Associates bar major tournaments, it probably shouldn’t have been a shock. Granted the world rankings are generally quite hokey, they do prove these Associate teams are no mugs – in fact they are ranked between 13-18 which by any measure is pretty formidable. It simply diminishes the sport of cricket and its global aspirations to label them as ‘minnows’.

But those disparaging remarks are grounded in a sport built on elitism marked by its archaic Full Membership, which according to sources is unlikely to expand any time soon.

That’s despite, as obviously shown this week, all of these Associate countries – plus several more – deserving Full Membership. But being granted that status is incredibly difficult, particularly the need to register at least one win over a Full Member in a World Cup or World Cup Qualifying event and, even harder, four wins against Full Members in bilateral matches over an eight-year period.

It’s something UAE’s cricket officials, notably, have found frustrating believing they are hamstrung because Full Members are reluctant to play them in bilaterals. Other than that, they tick all the other boxes as probably the other top Associates surely do.

If that strict criteria isn’t eased then really the quaint tiered membership should be abolished, which has often been argued among the power brokers but never seriously pursued.

Maybe it’s just more hot air but amid the ICC’s long-winded governance review a “single tier of membership” proposal was put forward at the ICC’s Annual Conference in July.

The proposal advocated for a “weighted category-based voting structure based on ICC’s distribution model and performance in competition structures”, while funding would “emulate” the current Associate Member model based on performances on-and-off the field.

It makes a bit too much sense, meaning it will probably get stuck in quicksand once again, which is a shame because the improving Associates – buoyed by a shorter format fueling parity – deserve so much more.