'It's time we culled meaningless games'

Cricket is looking at a scenario in the near future where the international calendar will be dominated by five or even six Twenty20 leagues plus Tests and ODIs, leading to a situation of non-stop cricket for the players. From the players' perspective, what are your thoughts on this?
Simply, something must give or players will be forced to choose between representing their country and playing in franchise-type Twenty20 events. A healthy balance of optimising commercial revenues and player workload needs to be set by the ICC and its members in order for international cricket to retain its attractiveness to players.

The more Twenty20 events that are programmed in any calendar year, the easier it will be for players to turn their back on international cricket. A lot of players will be able to play for, say, five months of the year playing solely T20 cricket, and earn ten times the amount they otherwise would have received from playing for their country. Players will be fresher mentally and physically and most probably will have extended longevity. They will be able to spend more time with the family and have more time to devote to building skills for their cricket afterlife.

Administrators need to realise this and not just add events carelessly to a clustered calendar, but instead come to the realisation that something must give - there needs to be a reduction of international cricket for the game to retain its best talent and for that best talent to be performing at their optimal. There is no use in trying to stop the emergence of T20 events - it is the most suitable and attractive form of the game for attracting new markets and demographics to the game. The public love it; broadcasters love it; players enjoy it.

The ICC's current Future Tours Programme (FTP) lapses in 2012. What is the ideal way forward to strike a meaningful balance between all three formats of the game?
Something needs to move aside. I suggest that it should be the meaningless number of ODIs that some countries play. This does not mean that we believe ODI cricket is 'dead'. It's just that there is presently a surplus of matches that are played that have no context whatsoever and are purely played for commercial considerations. It's time we culled these.

With regard to the FTP post-2012, I think we all need to do everything we can to protect Test cricket and give it some context, at the same time realizing that there is a need to cater for the phenomenon of Twenty20.

There was a model that went before the ICC, put together by Boston Consulting Group that allowed for a Test Championship - it gave Test cricket context. FICA firmly supports the introduction of a Test championship. Unfortunately, the ICC rejected this.

FICA additionally supports the introduction of 'windows' in the international calendar for domestic events such as IPL that utilise international players. Cricket needs to avoid a calendar where players are having to choose between international cricket and Twenty20 events.

The trend that we observe, through our surveys of players, is that more and more players state that they have less an attachment to international cricket with the emergence of competitions such as IPL. More and more cricketers are frustrated with the clustered international calendar and the time that is being spent away from wives, families and friends. Administrators need our top players playing international cricket - its time that they constructed a FTP that attracts players rather than dis-incentivises them.

Is it fair that the players are forced to make this choice: Twenty20 versus international cricket or cash versus country, as it is being portrayed?
It certainly isn't fair that players are portrayed as taking cash before country. This is their job - they are only able to ply their trade for a finite time, and they are looking to set themselves and their families up for the future. Because of the clustered calendars, there is not much time for players to learn another skill set for latter life, so players look to provide for their future by taking employment that pays well and offers the best life balance -- no different from you and I in the work force.

As I have said before, if we provide windows for these events and the rest of the calendar contains a sensible amount of international cricket - players will not be lost to the international scene and we won't have to worry about these cries of cash over country.

With cricket in such a state of flux due to the Twenty20 boom, shouldn't FICA be playing a more important role within the ICC, possibly as a member of its executive board?
FICA would certainly like to be playing a more important role in the governance of the game, and we believe that it is important that the composition and structure of the ICC's executive board is reviewed. FICA have been staunch critics of the governance structure of the ICC for a long time. It's full of conflict of interests and doesn't contain a healthy balance of skills to address the key areas of both sport and commercial issues. Rarely are decisions made in the interests of the game as a whole. They are typically made on 'party lines' and what is best for that particular directors' constituency.

In addition to having a 'players' perspective' on the ICC Board, we believe that other directors who are not affiliated with any Board should be included in a revamped structure. This will allow independent rationale to be introduced to board decision-making.

Speaking of challenges, the BCCI is emerging as one of the most powerful governing bodies in world cricket, but it has consistently adopted an unfriendly attitude to players' associations. What is your response to the Indian board's stance on players' associations, especially because India now virtually drives over 70% of world cricket revenues?
BCCI is the most powerful governing body in the world of cricket. It has steadfastly refused to recognise and deal directly with player associations. The bottomline on whether there will be recognition of player associations in India rests firmly with the players. Whether it has to do with the creation and recognition of an Indian players association or an IPL players' association, the fact is that if all players have the courage to stick together and stand up for their principles, then they will create the 'power quotient' to stand up to the BCCI. The BCCI and IPL cannot operate without players.

What is the option left for FICA if it continues to be ignored by national governing bodies?
The easiest decision would be to walk away and do nothing. Fortunately, the people within FICA and the players themselves have absolutely no intention of walking away and are determined to ensure that cricketers throughout the world are represented properly and that their rights are preserved. The history of sport the world over is littered with tales of player representative bodies striving for recognition. In the end, the strong succeed in achieving that recognition. We believe that our existence makes for a stronger sport and encourages youth to our sport, knowing that their interests will at all times be professionally represented.

The security of cricketers is becoming an increasingly important issue. Are you satisfied with the steps that are being taken in this regard by the ICC and other national governing bodies?
The ICC has recently established a task force to review cricket's processes and system of security assessment and deployment. FICA has been invited to provide input into this committee.

The creation of the task force is an important step, but its real worth will be determined by the quality of its output. It's too early to tell what direction that the recommendation of this taskforce will be - but it needs to work quickly and decisively - as the threat of terrorism is, as we have recently found out, a very real and current issue.

As we all are aware, the World Cup is being held in the subcontinent in 2011. There are still significant security considerations with this event, despite matches being moved from Pakistan. These matters need to be evaluated now. It is important that the ICC moves quickly to assess security and safety considerations. Otherwise, cricket will find itself in a situation similar to its handling of the 2008 Champions Trophy in Pakistan, where embarrassingly for the ICC, the event was postponed without any contigency plans in existence.

What are the other challenges that confront cricketers across the world at a time when the game seems to be headed towards a tumultuous future?
Other issues of importance relate to the burdens of WADA's (World Anti Doping Agency) whereabouts requirements for players (the ICC has recently updated its doping policy to incorporate this mandatory requirement of WADA), the ever-present threat of corruption, particularly with the emergence of Twenty20 cricket, continues in the background.

The ICC Anti Doping Policy now includes, as per a mandatory instruction from WADA, a requirement for players named in an 'International Registered Testing Pool' to provide whereabouts information. This requirement requires players to inform ICC 90 days in advance (each quarter) a location and time that they will be available each day in that quarter for testing. If the player is not in the location at the time specified - the player will have a strike recorded against his name. Three strikes and the player will have breached the Code and can face a two-year suspension from the game.

Obviously, there are concerns on a privacy level and also concerns on a practical level - the administration responsibility is extreme and the whole system, whilst designed to catch the drug cheat, has a high inherent risk of catching athletes that just aren't administratively inclined. This is not a cricket specific issue - it is a concern for a number of other sports - particularly team sport such as football, etc.

Corruption is more of a generic concern - certainly nothing identifiable - but the game of Twenty20 has been acknowledged as being higher risk in terms of possibility of corruption. Cricket needs to be on top of this and to continue its education of players in a vigilant manner - cricket can't afford to become complacent.

By the way, I don't think the future is necessarily tumultuous. The game is certainly in a state of flux, but I think that it's an exciting future for the game as a whole. It just needs some measured independent thinking to be applied to the decision making process.