Rebuff to Howard exposes ICC race rift

OPINION: World cricket's split along racial lines reared its ugly head again in the block opposition to the appointment of Australian John Howard as the nominee for the presidency of the International Cricket Council.

Only the "white" nations, Australia and New Zealand, who nominated Howard, plus England, supported the former prime minister; six others – India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and West Indies were united against – and Zimbabwe might as well have by abstaining.

The fragile alliance of the test-playing countries who form the ICC's power base has taken another hammering with the latest outcome from the annual meeting in Singapore this week.

However, because of the inequitable financial balance, whereby India generates 75 per cent of the game's revenue, Australasia and England can hardly pack up their bat and ball and go home. The other seven nations could quite happily play in the sandpit among themselves.

Whatever the merits of Howard's candidacy, and there are some questionable aspects, the fact that he was the joint nomination from Australasia should have been respected by the African-Asian block, just as Australasia has had some reservations about other appointments but accepted them for the game's greater good.

That is not to say if there is an entirely unsuitable candidate that he should not be challenged, but Howard does bring 11 years of leadership of Australia into the role and would have been the most accomplished president to have held the post.

The joint bid also deserves the courtesy of being told exactly why their candidate was unsatisfactory.

It smacks of the majority fearing for their futures and that some uncomfortable questions may have been asked.

In New Zealand, Howard was not the candidate of first choice from NZC, which put forward the eminently capable businessman Sir John Anderson, who has extensive experience in cricket administration.

That supposedly was Howard's chief weakness, despite his love of the game, although, as a savvy politician, that should have been comfortably overcome.

Commendably, after the decision was made to choose Howard on the casting vote of an Australian subcommittee chairman, NZC did not publicly cry foul and quibble, acting in a statesmanlike manner.

Whether this opens the door for Anderson is debatable. Howard says he is going nowhere, which is rather unhelpful, only making the highly embarrassing situation worse.

The two boards can either agree to nominate Anderson or play games like the rest and refuse to choose anyone else, countering there was nothing wrong with their original choice.

Whatever, the split around the ICC board table, which had recently showed signs of healing, now again appears to have cracks of seismic proportions.

- © Fairfax NZ News