Pakistan determined to oppose Big Three takeover

The proposal would also give the so-called 'Big Three' a bigger share of the ICC's revenue pot.


Reuters January 20, 2014
A draft proposal, to be discussed at the ICC executive board meeting in Dubai on January 28-29, recommends handing over more control to the Australian, English and Indian boards in the boardroom and on the field. PHOTO: REUTERS/FILE

KARACHI: The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) will oppose any structural overhaul of world cricket's administration that will effectively hand power over to India, England and Australia, it said on Monday.

A draft proposal, to be discussed at the International Cricket Council's (ICC) executive board meeting in Dubai on January 28-29, recommends handing over more control to the Australian, English and Indian boards in the boardroom and on the field. The proposal would also give the so-called 'Big Three' a bigger share of the ICC's revenue pot.

"Chairman Zaka Ashraf has been told Pakistan should not support any such changes as it would divide the cricket world and effectively give all veto powers to India, Australia and England," a member of the PCB's governing board who declined to be named told Reuters. "The draft proposal was discussed in detail at the last governing board meeting in Lahore on Saturday and a lot of apprehension was expressed over the direction world cricket is taking."

The ICC plans have recommendations including scrapping the world test championship in 2017, reviving the now defunct Champions Trophy and having promotion and relegation in a new two-tier test system. "Our legal experts are studying it and we will prepare our stance accordingly," said a PCB official.

COMMENTS (7)

Noddy isn't Abassi | 10 years ago | Reply

@M: You are wrong. The proposal needs 7 votes out of 10 in order to pass as per the ICC constitution.

Zawar | 10 years ago | Reply

It is a good stand from Pakistan.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ