Dear Editor,
In a recent article ‘Double standards hurt West Indies chance to rebuild’ written by Colin Benjamin and published in ESPN Sports Media Ltd, the writer posed the following question:
“Why is the WICB, one of the weakest boards in the world financially, trying to deny its best players from earning money from one of the few viable sources in the convoluted global cricket climate, which it and its fellow global administrations haven`t managed to stabilize?”
That question must baffle ordinary cricket fans, who simply love the game, and really want to see West Indies teams do well. Mr Benjamin is, obviously, no less baffled than the rest of us, but he has done us a tremendous service by asking the most important question. One can get a clue as to what might be the right answer by perusing the comments made by people who are, presumably fans, and sufficiently interested to respond.
Most of the commentators were less interested in the evidence of double standards proffered by the writer than in what they understood to be his selection preferences. In fact the article provided some commentators with an ideal opportunity to display their regional biases.
It is, however, a question that must be answered truthfully, if there is to be any hope for a revival of the game in the region.
One would have thought that in a region from which, because of its limited size and physical resources, people from all walks of life seem to be constantly trying to migrate to bigger countries where there are so many more opportunities for career enhancement, the fans would be especially sympathetic to players who play abroad for short periods for the kinds of remuneration that few could rationally resist. That is, however, clearly, not the case. It seems that the better the players do abroad financially the more resentful of them the fans are. As an example, those who leave to play county cricket in England for modest remuneration are much more acceptable than those who play in leagues like the IPL where two big contracts may provide the wherewithal to a player to move from the ‘ghetto’ to middle or upper middle income housing. The WICB directors are aware of those sentiments, that are likely shared by them.
What Mr Benjamin attempted to demonstrate and, in fact, demonstrated, is that the board can, and does exercise more or less flexibility in the enforcement of its selection rules. It, however, is unprincipled and therefore arbitrary in the exercise of its discretion. Such arbitrariness is demonstrated frequently in its refusal generally to explain its actions, and occasionally by providing clearly false explanations.
The tentative answer offered here to Mr Benjamin`s crucial question, I respectfully submit, has some merit. It does not, however, solve the problem. Hopefully those with power and more influence than I have, will ask such difficult questions as how can the board persuade such distinguished selectors to do their bidding?
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
