‘I deserve a bonus’
Cricket South Africa’s chief executive gave himself a R1,7-million bonus for the successful running of the IPL and the ICC Champions Trophy
Neil Manthorp
In the national climate of unfettered greed among the corporate elite, Gerald Majola’s unilateral decision to award himself more than R1,7-million in bonuses for presiding over the successful running of the Indian Premier League (IPL) and International Cricket Council (ICC) Champions Trophy doesn’t look good. It sticks in the throat like a stray bone in an otherwise fine seafood meal.
But the bonus was normal practice in the circumstances of major tournaments and the cough that most followers of the game have developed since news of Cricket South Africa’s (CSA’s) chief executive’s windfall has been caused more by resentment, or envy, than any certain knowledge of malpractice.
Ali Bacher helped himself to a R5-million bonus after the 2003 World Cup and awarded tournament director Ian Smith R1-million; other staff were also awarded bonuses. Steve Elworthy collected an event bonus for directing the inaugural ICC T20 tournament in 2007. His bonus for subsequently immigrating to the United Kingdom and overseeing the successful 2009 version of the tournament on behalf of the England and Wales Cricket Board was even greater.
So why all the moral outrage? Most cricket followers would find such amounts of money life-changing, but does that mean their (or our) resentment is justified? No. And nobody would ever have drawn our attention to it had there been an honest disclosure from Majola about the money he was distributing — and pocketing.
Bacher didn’t hold a press conference to announce his remarkable pile of feather-nesting. Indeed, some might say he kept it pretty quiet. But it was there for all microscope-wielding chartered accountants to see and he disclosed it to every member of his finance committee.
Majola, it seems, did not, which would never have come to our attention had not some members of the CSA remuneration committee felt strongly enough about this “irregularity” to bring it to public light. As chief executive, Majola has every right to determine who among his staff gets what of the bonus pie, but deciding on your own bonus is very clearly against “best practice”. And did he have the right to negotiate the size of the pie with the IPL, especially while so many of his constituents were complaining about their demeaning treatment by the IPL’s heavy-handed administrators? Some are claiming it represented a clear and serious conflict of interest.
Nobody talking
As usual, nobody is talking. CSA officials are under a blanket gagging order and the now-resigned chief operating officer, Don McIntosh, kept his comments to a minimum: “Judge Pius Langa has been appointed to investigate CSA’s financial affairs, so I wouldn’t want to prejudice his task by talking in any detail,” he told the Mail & Guardian.
“But I would like to say that I had different views to my chief executive officer about the way certain things were being run for at least six months and signalled my intention to resign a long time before I actually did. It had nothing to do with my bonus as tournament director, which was perfectly normal practice. I have made it clear that I will cooperate as fully as I can with Judge Langa’s investigation.”
The chairperson of the remuneration committee, former FirstRand director Paul Harris, is widely believed to have drawn attention to the undisclosed bonus payments by refusing to sign off the annual accounts — which he had to do as a director of CSA.
“I haven’t talked ‘out of school’ in all of the six years I have been an independent director and I’m not going to start now just because I am about to be removed from the board,” Harris told the M&G.
With nobody talking — at least officially — it becomes necessary to piece the jigsaw together using off-the-record testimony. Fortunately, and unsurprisingly, the gagging order at the CSA isn’t working. People hate being told to shut up.
“There’s no doubt that Gerald will have to answer some difficult questions about the bonuses, but non-declaration is a slap-on-the-wrist offence,” said a CSA administrator. “It’s the other stuff that will be more difficult to explain — the expenses relating to travel and accommodation with his family. Was it really a business trip? What work did he do here and there?”
The M&G was able to confirm from a source close to Langa that the terms of reference for the investigation are threefold: event bonus payments, company perks (such as vehicle usage) and chief executive’s expenses.
Finally, in an era of openness and transparency, what possessed the CSA to hold this weekend’s AGM behind closed doors? It is an extraordinary decision and one that is hard not to relate to the financial mess.
Unfortunately, however it is resolved, it is highly unlikely to be the last mess. Large sporting bodies such as the CSA desperately need independent-minded people on their boards to ensure best practice and good governance. The CSA is supposed to have two independent directors, but one, Gary Naidoo, is a director of sponsor Sahara, which is closer to the CSA than its underwear. The other, Harris, has now been sidelined.
The floor will no doubt be swept clean away from public eyes this time, but it could be a battle to keep the dust away for long.