/ 10 March 2004

England could face $2-million cricket fine

England could be fined up to $2-million or suspended from the International Cricket Council (ICC) if their scheduled tour to Zimbabwe doesn’t proceed.

ICC president Ehsan Mani told reporters on Wednesday after a two-day meeting of the council’s board in Auckland that the Future Tours Programme Agreement gives the sport’s international ruling body stringent powers to deal with nations that fail to make scheduled tours.

”These powers … also provide specific conditions under which a country can withdraw from a tour without punishment, including safety and security concerns or where a country’s government provides clear direction not to tour,” Mani said.

However, Mani said the board’s affirmation of those powers was not specifically aimed at England, which has yet to decide whether its October tour to Zimbabwe will proceed.

”The board has reaffirmed its policy that countries should not be drawn into making political decisions when assessing their future tour commitments,” Mani said.

”I want to make absolutely clear, the penalty of $2-million and the possibility of suspension is not England-specific.

”This has been on the cards for a long time. The draft paper has been with the board for over a year and now we have decided to adopt this particular protocol.”

Mani said the ICC was forced to accept the right of governments to use sporting sanctions as a tool of foreign policy.

”It isn’t something that is particularly welcome, but the reality is that, from time to time, it does happen,” he said. ”If a government takes this action, the decision will be accepted by the ICC and there will be no impact on the individual board.”

The England Cricket Board (ECB) has yet to decide whether statements by government ministers amount to a directive that the scheduled tour be cancelled.

ECB chairperson David Morgan said his board had no specific safety or security concerns about the tour to Zimbabwe, which is mired in political turmoil.

But he suggested statements from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Sports Minister Richard Caborn could be interpreted as a directive to withdraw. If so, the withdrawal could take place without ICC penalties, he said.

”It has been very clear from the members of the board that it’s their wish that we should put cricket first and make that tour if at all possible,” Morgan said. ”Having said that we have had three statements from the government: one from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary; one in the house from Chris Mullen from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and more recently from Richard Caborn.

”Overnight I have had legal advice that suggests the combination of those three statements may constitute a force majeure.”

A force majeure is a form of outside compulsion that allows a party to avoid fulfilling a contract.

”I do want to emphasise that I take away from this meeting the clear desire from the members and my fellow directors that if at all possible England should tour Zimbabwe,” Morgan said.

Morgan said no time limit had been set for a decision on the Zimbabwe tour.

”We will be reviewing the tour on an ongoing basis but I’m not expecting to take a decision in March because many of our directors are in the West Indies,” he said. ”We want to make a right decision and will take the time that is needed to make a right decision.”

The ICC also decided in Auckland that New Zealand should receive $2-million in World Cup revenues withheld when it refused to play in Kenya because of safety concerns.

The council will withhold an undisclosed amount from all nations that took part in the 2003 World Cup while it faces compensation claims from the Global Cricket Corporation. The corporation is claiming $50-million for loss of earnings from the South African tournament due to boycotts of certain matches.

ICC chief executive David Speed said some countries had had more money withheld than others.

”What we have decided is to give back that extra money, so that all countries are now having the same amount of money withheld,” Speed said.

”The reason money is still being withheld is that there is a claim against us and we need to have something in the bank if the claim succeeds.” — Sapa-AP