Sunday, 22 December 2013

A case of Parachuted funding for relegated Associates

On 14th April 2011, Uganda played a match against PNG and lost it by 1 run. What was critical about this match was that a win or tie would have made Uganda stay in Division 2 but this loss relegated them to Division 3 of World Cricket League. But this was not the critical part. The critical aspect was due to relegation into Div 3 Uganda no longer was part of ICC High Performance Program. Due to this there was a major cut in the funding for Uganda by the ICC. This first major effect was that the board was no longer able to give central contracts and the players lost out

A loss of ODI status can mean the players losing their central contracts for Kenya

Uganda are not the only case. Seeing the present level of performance Canada, Kenya might be on the verge of losing their ODI status and in return a major cut in funding. The cut is funding can be as high as 80% giving a sudden shock to the boards

Funding related to performance is not a unique feature in cricket. Infact most of the games also follow the performance related funding. In soccer the teams in premier division get more funding than those is the second division. Performance related funding pushes the team to reach higher performance level and for the teams at a higher level it pushes them to stay there and not relegate not to lose funding. This helps the game to increase the level of performance

However in most of the sports there is always a parachuted funding for teams which are relegated to lower levels. Parachuted funding means that there would not be drastic and sudden cuts, rather the cuts would be gradual. This is important so that it does not have a shock effect, rather allows team to settle down in a gradual manner. This in anyway does not mean the team will be sitting comfortably but there is a loss of funding.

So a Parachuted Funding would mean that Kenya if they lose ODI status this time the funding will not drop from 500,000$ to 100,000$ in straight one year, rather it might go to 350,000$ in first year, 215,000$ in Second year and then to 100,000$. This will mean that all the hard work put at ground level will not be washed away in 1 year and the board might strive for alternate resources but never allowing the team and board to be in comfort zone.

In a rapidly changing times for ICC, hopefully they will notice this very important requirement and act on it and not bring a case where a loss of 1 run means whole team losing their jobs.

No comments:

Post a Comment