There is no big three to me, they’re just members of the ICC: Greg Barclay
When asked about the concept of the Big Three, Barclay opined that he doesn't support this as for him all the members of ICC are equal.
Updated - Nov 25, 2020 3:45 pm
New Zealand Cricket (NZC) head Greg Barclay has been appointed as the new independent chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC) to succeed India’s Shashank Manohar. Greg comfortably defeated Imran Khwaja to get elected for the prestigious post. It is learned that apart from New Zealand, Greg had strong backing from cricket-loving nations including India, Australia and England as he supports the idea of more bilateral series than the World competitions.
Having more bilateral series is the need of the hour for the three nations to recover the losses incurred due to the coronavirus outbreak. The newly elected ICC chairman was involved in an interaction with ESPNcricinfo where he discussed a range of topics and gave an insight into his views on the future of the International board.
India, Australia and England generate a lot of revenue from the game of cricket owing to the passion people have for the game in these countries. Thus, the three nations are touted as the “Big Three” of cricket.
When asked about the concept of the Big Three, Barclay opined that he doesn’t support this as for him all the members of ICC are equal. Greg admitted that the three nations help in generating a lot of cricketing outcomes and are important for the sustainability of the game but in the end, they are individual members of the organization and can’t be treated as something special.
“Without a doubt. A lot of the media has touted the “Big Three” concept, but I don’t subscribe to it at all. There is no big three to me, they’re just members of the ICC. Sure they’re really important members, they help drive a lot of cricketing outcomes, and to have them as hosts of events or as cricketing opponents is hugely beneficial.”
“But they are individual members of the ICC, so they’re just as important but no more so than anyone else. I wasn’t at the ICC when the big three resolutions were put in place, but while that changed the funding model, there were also some good things that came out of that like the FTP, so members got certainty around their playing arrangements and certainty around their funding,” Greg told ESPNcricinfo
India are a slightly different case: Greg Barclay
Further speaking about the distribution of revenue among the country boards, Barclay reckoned that England and Australia receive the same amount of ICC money as any other nation and they don’t seem to have any issue regarding the same. However, Greg stated that India is a different case as they are a huge cricketing force and ICC needs to deal with them with a different approach.
“While it was an inequitable split, New Zealand and other members were still better off than what we had been previously. But I think what was done under Shashank once he got there and they rolled back the resolutions and lessened the influence of those three countries was absolutely the right thing. Now there has been no concept of “Big Three” for the last four years or so, and I know for a fact that England and Australia are very much of that view. They get the same amount of [ICC events] money as everyone else and that’s never really been an issue.”
“India are a slightly different case, they’re a huge cricketing force, we need to have them in the tent and with 1.3 billion people and the stuff they do around cricket, I think we just need to address some of their issues differently. There are a lot of positives to come out of what they do as well as any perceived negatives.” the newly-appointed ICC chairman concluded.