After 1996, cricket became a big business :
Competent personnel should administer cricket:
Voting structure in SL cricket problematic:
Sri Lanka’s early exit from the preliminary round of the T20 World Cup has deeply concerned cricket fans nationwide. The team, which triumphed in the T20 World Cup in 2014, managed only one victory against the Netherlands in this tournament. They suffered losses to South Africa and Bangladesh, and their match against Nepal was cancelled due to rain.
As the Sri Lankan team, led by Wanindu Hasaranga, returned home empty-handed, a new Cricket Constitution Bill prepared by a six-member committee chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge K.T. Chitrasiri, was presented to President Ranil Wickremesinghe. This committee was formed based on recommendations from a Cabinet sub-committee set up to address the national cricket team’s recent setbacks and administrative issues.
Last year, the Cabinet sub-committee, chaired by Foreign Minister Ali Sabri and including Power and Energy Minister Kanchana Wijesekara, Labour and Foreign Employment Minister Manusha Nanayakkara, and Public Security Minister Tiran Alas, submitted a 46-page report with 40 recommendations to the Cabinet. Following this, retired Supreme Court Judge K.T. Chitrasiri was appointed in February to draft a new constitution for Sri Lanka Cricket.
In a discussion with the Sunday Observer, Foreign Minister Ali Sabri shared his views on the current decline in Sri Lankan cricket, the recommendations of the Cabinet sub-committee, and the Cricket Reform Committee report.
Q: The Sri Lankan cricket team was thrown out in the preliminary round of this year’s T20 World Cup, while even teams such as Afghanistan and America advanced to the Super Eight round. What is your opinion?
A: Today, cricket has fallen like never before in our cricket history. I am talking about Afghanistan’s victory in the Twenty20 World Cup, and I see it as a reflection of the condition of our cricket before 1996. Afghanistan focused solely on the game and the country, much like the cricket administration in our country at that time. Some individuals genuinely loved the game and dedicated their time and money to cricket: Ana Punchihewa, Raja Mahendran, Daham Wimalasena, N.M. Perera, and Gamini Dissanayake. They worked with great enthusiasm, seeking no personal favours or privileges.
However, after 1996, cricket became a big business. An influx of money came in, with sponsorships and television broadcasting rights. This shift led to a situation where, instead of a passion for cricket, the desire to gain benefits and fame from it took over. A few individuals, with no real fame, are now in control. Often, their decisions do not reflect the wisdom expected. That is why we say our cricket administration needs a complete overhaul.
Q: The Cricket Reforms Committee was appointed according to the report given by the Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the President to look into the cricket crisis. What has been your committee’s experience looking into the decline in cricket?
A: Before calling the Cricket Reforms Committee report, we gained significant experience while collecting facts for the report we completed. We have identified major weaknesses in cricket administration. Competent individuals should administer cricket, and this has two parts. One is the administration of the cricket institute, and the other is the technical aspect of cricket, which can be managed by cricket players and coaches.
However, managing an organisation is akin to managing a company. How will it be audited? How will the procurement process be conducted? How will information be obtained? It requires talented individuals. For instance, a person who worked in a big company has been appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Therefore, we believe a significant change in administration is necessary, and we have stated this in our report.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Sri Lankan cricket industry identified by the Cabinet sub-committee?
A: We discussed with the cricket players, and one key issue they highlighted is the low quality of our pitches. They said that the ball ‘cuts’ well on these pitches, but when they go to international tournaments such as the 2023 ODI World Cup, they struggle from the very first ball because the pitches differ.
This is a significant problem. Despite this, our cricket administration is investing about one and a half to two billion rupees in the Dambulla stadium to install lights for day-night matches, which haven’t been played there in many years. This investment seems misplaced. Recently, I heard that Rs. 52 million worth of live screens were purchased and given to those who didn’t request them. This reflects a lack of transparency in spending, which, if not addressed, could lead to a further decline in our cricket standards.
Moreover, the voting structure in Sri Lanka Cricket is problematic. Despite having a population of 22 million, there are 147 votes in the cricket office election compared to countries such as India, Australia, and England, which have far fewer votes. This discrepancy allows resources to be used primarily to win these votes rather than for cricket development. This system discourages talented individuals from participating.
For example, Muralidaran said that while he could win votes from the Colombo district, he wouldn’t receive any from the cricket board. This indicates that a separate group is maintaining power, which must change. Significant investment is needed in infrastructure, new pitches, and technical knowledge. Supporting young players transitioning from school is also crucial to ensure they stay in the sport.
Q: What are the proposals made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee to develop Sri Lanka Cricket?
A: In my report, I noted that both coaches and players point out each other’s shortcomings, leading to a lack of harmony. Conversely, our women’s cricket team, which is very united and respectful towards coach Rumesh Ratnayake, is performing well. This unity and respect contribute to their success. The local cricket structure needs change, as combining the ‘A’ and ‘B’ sections in tournaments has lowered the standard.
We recommend revisiting the report by Aravinda de Silva, Muttiah Muralitharan, Kumar Sangakkara, and Mahela Jayawardene on developing cricket. Their insights are valuable, especially as they coach IPL teams. We suggested gathering a group to review and implement this report. Changes should ensure that cricket administration isn’t dominated by a few individuals who exploit resources for personal gain.
Q: What are the recommendations made in addition to the suggestions?
A: Our recommendations include several points, highlighting three Auditor General reports since 2018. These reports state that $100,000 being transferred from Sri Lanka Cricket to an American account, which needs investigation. We also proposed drafting a new constitution through the Cricket Reforms Committee, which should be enacted into law via Parliament. This would limit the number of votes in the cricket body and restrict the cricket committee to 18 members, selected from different fields and sports clubs. These members should include former cricketers, ensuring a balance. A CEO should manage day-to-day operations, selected based on talent through advertisements, similar to practices in Australia and India. Implementing these measures would provide a solid foundation for our cricket administration.
Q: How long will it take to implement the reports of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Cricket Reforms Committee?
A: This falls under the Minister of Sports, responsible for implementation. Given that the committee included the Attorney General’s and Legislation Department members, it shouldn’t take long. If we work collaboratively, the new law could be passed within three weeks to two months after it is gazetted. We can provide a report and recommendations to the Sports Secretary, but the implementation must be monitored.
Q: Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) is an organisation dealing with the International Cricket Council (ICC). Are they saying that it is not a Government-owned institution?
A: That notion is incorrect. Cricket is a public institution, not a private company created by private investment. It is a Government institution since government schools and their children played cricket, which led to ICC membership. Therefore, cricket belongs to the people of Sri Lanka and should be accountable to them. The current administration has misused resources as personal property, which must be rectified. Cricket’s success should be measured by its inspiration and pride to Sri Lanka, not just the cricket board’s budget or the number of tournaments held.
Q: Will the International Cricket Council influence the Government’s intervention in the cricket body?
A: This process cannot be hindered by fear of ICC intervention. The Lodha Committee of India and South Africa, where Government decisions impacted cricket administration, show that such changes are possible. The Prime Minister of Pakistan appoints the Cricket President, but we suggest a clear, independent selection process. A selection committee of independent individuals should choose candidates for the cricket body, ensuring balance and integrity. The selected CEO would handle day-to-day administration, while the committee focuses on policy decisions. This structure, akin to a company’s management, would address the current issues in Sri Lanka Cricket’s administration.
