A "groundswell of outrage is rising" against the move by Australia, England and India to "take control of world cricket, boost their incomes and dictate terms to the smaller nations, but the weaker nations appear too timid to speak up," according to Peter Lalor of THE AUSTRALIAN. Cricket South Africa "spoke out against the moves." Cricket's int'l players association (FICA), whose "former representative Tim May was thrown off" an Int'l Cricket Commission committee after "moves by the Indian board, also condemned the proposals." Australian players representative Paul Marsh "condemned the move, calling it unconstitutional and calling on the seven full members" of the Int'l Cricket Council not involved to "vote down the proposals at the next ICC meeting" (THE AUSTRALIAN, 1/23). In Sydney, Chris Barrett reported fears that "India could break away" from the ICC are behind Cricket Australia's support for a "controversial plan to shake up the world governing body." A "redistribution of ICC finances is central to the proposed reforms." A key element of the plan is for a "new four-man executive committee in which CA, the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the England and Wales Cricket Board would all be guaranteed a place with the other position selected by them each year." Sources said that Australia is "acting in a bid to keep India 'in the tent.'" They "say there is a genuine threat that India," which through its broadcast deals generates at least 70% of the game's revenue, could "quit the ICC if the present distribution model is not changed -- a development that could bring the international game to its knees." One "nightmare scenario that has been discussed in Australian cricket circles would be a significantly expanded Indian Premier League where the competition's franchises could try and poach the world's best players out of Test and other international cricket with huge offers" (SMH, 1/22). The AP reported Marsh also "raised concerns about the proposal's recommendation that revenues be distributed to ICC members." Marsh: "The result of this will be the countries that need ICC income most will receive the least while the 'big three' will get the lion's share even though they are already financially healthy because of the value of the rights to their bilateral series. The role of ICC events should be to assist in levelling the financial playing field by distributing the proceeds from these events fairly, rather than further widening the gap between the rich and poor" (AP, 1/22).
