In the summer of 1968, inadvertently, I was privy to what I now realise was one of the earliest meetings of what was then known as the Cricketers' Association. It took place in a pub in the centre of Worcester and of those there I recall only Jack Bannister, who was the association secretary for so many years, and the Surrey batsman Michael Edwards, who had taken me along with him. Back then, it seemed as if it was a subversive organisation meeting in secret. Perhaps it was.
But how things have grown from that day to this. The Professional Cricketers' Association, as it is now known, is a large organisation with far-reaching influence, commercial interests, benevolent fund, community activities and a whole lot more, including a leading part in drawing up the England central contract which Kevin Pietersen signed last year but from which he now wishes to distance himself.
It was the first organisation of its kind in the cricket world, and remains the largest. From it, other countries have developed their own, so that there are now thriving associations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and West Indies, each of them members of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, founded in 1998, given to further the interests of cricketers worldwide.
Each of these individual associations is an important body, giving the professional cricketers of their relevant countries a voice where once there was none. In the Caribbean, the West Indies association has come to be regarded as too militant at times, but it has nonetheless played a valuable role in keeping in check an insipid cricket board. Recently, the New Zealand association has expressed its concern over the resignation of the national coach John Wright, and that in Sri Lanka has battled to ensure that its national players have ultimately been paid the money they had been owed for a year.
Currently, the Australian Cricketers' Association is embroiled in discussions with Cricket Australia regarding the new Memorandum of Understanding which covers all cricket from international, through state and downwards. As it stands, there is a standoff between the board and the Australian team that has embarked on an ODI tour of England, but which, if there is no agreement by the time the old memorandum expires at the end of this month, could mean the slender possibility of the players going on strike.
There are, though, three omissions from the membership of Fica in the form of Zimbabwe, which given the tribulations that have afflicted cricket in that country is no surprise, and perhaps more pertinently, Pakistan and India, neither of whose cricket board, along with that of Zimbabwe, recognises Fica. In an interview last month, Tim May, the former Australian off-spinner who is Fica's CEO, had this to say about why a cricket board may not wish to recognise his organisation, or a national body representing the players' interests: "Well, not all the cricket boards recognise Fica for a couple of reasons, the first one being that Fica is a body of players' associations for full members and an associate members' players' association. So if there isn't such an association in a particular country – which there aren't in Pakistan, India and Zimbabwe – then those countries will automatically not recognise Fica. If there was a players' association in Pakistan, India and Zimbabwe, they still wouldn't acknowledge them because player representatives can [then] provide professional advice to the players – players will be more knowledgeable about their legal rights, rights that pertain to their image, and they will have a fair understanding about their worth in the marketplace.
"At the end of the day, what it means is that boards which have typically been able to deal one-on-one with players, which is a very easy exercise and as there is a chasm of power there in the favour of the board. Now if they do recognise players' associations, their chasm of power would be lessened and it would actually be far more equitable. So they don't want to recognise players' associations because they just want to continue enjoying this unhealthy and inequitable chasm of power that possess at the moment."
Whether this applies so much to India, where the players themselves appear to enjoy enormous individual power anyway, is a moot point. But given that the interview was for a Pakistan outlet, May had this further to say on when or if there should be a players' association in Pakistan, a country that is now attempting to rebuild its cricket structure. "I think the time came about 15 years ago to be honest," May said. "If ever there was a body of players that would benefit the most, and not just the players, it would be Pakistan cricket. A players' association binds the players together. Pakistan cricket for too long has consisted of different camps within the team, and this is an outsider's point of view.
"From my conversations with Pakistani players, [it is] also an insider's point of view. They need something which unifies the players and that's what a players' association is. It represents the common interest of the players, the players will rally behind the association, and it brings about unity and accountability amongst your own players. That's good for Pakistan cricket – Pakistan cricket doesn't need players fighting with the board all the time and the board thinking that they are totally unaccountable to the players – it just breeds a hot bed of tension and at the end of the day, this will transpire into non-optimal international performances which is not what you want at the end of the day.
"A players' association in Pakistan should have been there 10 or 15 years ago. There's probably a multitude of reasons, but it hasn't happened. Some people sitting on the outside who have experienced a players' association know its benefits. Everyone sort of shakes their head and we just don't understand why there isn't one in Pakistan."
An association, and membership of Fica, can only help the renaissance of Pakistan cricket.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jun/14/guardian-world-cricket-forum-pakistan?newsfeed=true
But how things have grown from that day to this. The Professional Cricketers' Association, as it is now known, is a large organisation with far-reaching influence, commercial interests, benevolent fund, community activities and a whole lot more, including a leading part in drawing up the England central contract which Kevin Pietersen signed last year but from which he now wishes to distance himself.
It was the first organisation of its kind in the cricket world, and remains the largest. From it, other countries have developed their own, so that there are now thriving associations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and West Indies, each of them members of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, founded in 1998, given to further the interests of cricketers worldwide.
Each of these individual associations is an important body, giving the professional cricketers of their relevant countries a voice where once there was none. In the Caribbean, the West Indies association has come to be regarded as too militant at times, but it has nonetheless played a valuable role in keeping in check an insipid cricket board. Recently, the New Zealand association has expressed its concern over the resignation of the national coach John Wright, and that in Sri Lanka has battled to ensure that its national players have ultimately been paid the money they had been owed for a year.
Currently, the Australian Cricketers' Association is embroiled in discussions with Cricket Australia regarding the new Memorandum of Understanding which covers all cricket from international, through state and downwards. As it stands, there is a standoff between the board and the Australian team that has embarked on an ODI tour of England, but which, if there is no agreement by the time the old memorandum expires at the end of this month, could mean the slender possibility of the players going on strike.
There are, though, three omissions from the membership of Fica in the form of Zimbabwe, which given the tribulations that have afflicted cricket in that country is no surprise, and perhaps more pertinently, Pakistan and India, neither of whose cricket board, along with that of Zimbabwe, recognises Fica. In an interview last month, Tim May, the former Australian off-spinner who is Fica's CEO, had this to say about why a cricket board may not wish to recognise his organisation, or a national body representing the players' interests: "Well, not all the cricket boards recognise Fica for a couple of reasons, the first one being that Fica is a body of players' associations for full members and an associate members' players' association. So if there isn't such an association in a particular country – which there aren't in Pakistan, India and Zimbabwe – then those countries will automatically not recognise Fica. If there was a players' association in Pakistan, India and Zimbabwe, they still wouldn't acknowledge them because player representatives can [then] provide professional advice to the players – players will be more knowledgeable about their legal rights, rights that pertain to their image, and they will have a fair understanding about their worth in the marketplace.
"At the end of the day, what it means is that boards which have typically been able to deal one-on-one with players, which is a very easy exercise and as there is a chasm of power there in the favour of the board. Now if they do recognise players' associations, their chasm of power would be lessened and it would actually be far more equitable. So they don't want to recognise players' associations because they just want to continue enjoying this unhealthy and inequitable chasm of power that possess at the moment."
Whether this applies so much to India, where the players themselves appear to enjoy enormous individual power anyway, is a moot point. But given that the interview was for a Pakistan outlet, May had this further to say on when or if there should be a players' association in Pakistan, a country that is now attempting to rebuild its cricket structure. "I think the time came about 15 years ago to be honest," May said. "If ever there was a body of players that would benefit the most, and not just the players, it would be Pakistan cricket. A players' association binds the players together. Pakistan cricket for too long has consisted of different camps within the team, and this is an outsider's point of view.
"From my conversations with Pakistani players, [it is] also an insider's point of view. They need something which unifies the players and that's what a players' association is. It represents the common interest of the players, the players will rally behind the association, and it brings about unity and accountability amongst your own players. That's good for Pakistan cricket – Pakistan cricket doesn't need players fighting with the board all the time and the board thinking that they are totally unaccountable to the players – it just breeds a hot bed of tension and at the end of the day, this will transpire into non-optimal international performances which is not what you want at the end of the day.
"A players' association in Pakistan should have been there 10 or 15 years ago. There's probably a multitude of reasons, but it hasn't happened. Some people sitting on the outside who have experienced a players' association know its benefits. Everyone sort of shakes their head and we just don't understand why there isn't one in Pakistan."
An association, and membership of Fica, can only help the renaissance of Pakistan cricket.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jun/14/guardian-world-cricket-forum-pakistan?newsfeed=true
