Sri Lanka has lost the hosting rights for the inaugural ICC Women’s Champions Trophy, and the decision should leave one person in particular asking some uncomfortable questions: the Minister of Sports. As exclusively reported by the Sunday Times last week, the International Cricket Council (ICC) this week formally confirmed India as the host of the […]
Sri Lanka has lost the hosting rights for the inaugural ICC Women’s Champions Trophy, and the decision should leave one person in particular asking some uncomfortable questions: the Minister of Sports.
As exclusively reported by the Sunday Times last week, the International Cricket Council (ICC) this week formally confirmed India as the host of the six-team tournament in 2027 which was originally scheduled to be played in Colombo.
Originally destined as hosts of the inaugural Women’s
Originally destined as hosts of the inaugural Women’s Champion’s Trophy, now Sri Lanka will go in as one of the six competing sides
The tournament has gone. What remains is the question of why Sri Lanka’s cricket administration has been left waiting for a constitutional solution that has already been drafted.
The ICC’s position has not been a secret. Since the elected administration headed by Shammi Silva was forced out and replaced by a politically appointed committee, the world governing body has repeatedly expressed concern and called for a return to normalcy.
The ICC has wanted Sri Lanka Cricket
The ICC has wanted Sri Lanka Cricket to restore an elected administration through a process of governance reform. That process has been moving far too slowly.
There is an important distinction here. The Cricket Transformation Committee, headed by Eran Wickremaratne, cannot reasonably be blamed for failing to produce a framework. It made constitutional reform a priority, prepared a draft through a committee headed by President Counsel Dinal Phillips and handed it over to the Minister of Sports for the next stage.
And that is where the story becomes difficult for the Minister.
Once the draft was handed over, the responsibility shifted. The document has to go through the legal process, including translation and work by the Legal Draftsman, before it can be presented to the Cabinet and to the Parliament and passed as an Act. These are necessary procedures. Nobody is suggesting that they can simply be ignored.
But necessary procedure should not become an excuse for unnecessary delay.
The obvious question is: how long does the Minister intend to take?
Sri Lanka has now paid a price for that delay.
The loss of an ICC tournament is not
The loss of an ICC tournament is not merely a matter of prestige. Hosting an international event brings visitors, television exposure and business to the country. Hotels, airlines, transport operators, restaurants, suppliers and countless others stand to gain.
Sri Lanka Cricket itself also loses an opportunity to generate revenue and strengthen its international standing.
There are those who will argue that if sacrificing one tournament is the price of finally bringing a modern constitution to Sri Lanka Cricket, then it is a price worth paying.
That argument has merit.
Sri Lanka has spent too many years fighting
Sri Lanka has spent too many years fighting over who controls cricket and how its governing body should be elected. If the alternative to reform is another temporary arrangement that simply postpones the problem, then taking the harder route now may well be justified.
But reform does not pay the bills.
That is the part which appears to have received less attention.
Unlike India, Australia and England, Sri Lanka Cricket does not possess the same depth of commercial income. A substantial part of its financial strength comes through the ICC’s central revenue distribution. That money is not an unlimited tap which can simply be turned on regardless of what is happening inside the organisation.
The ICC has already tightened its oversight of SLC’s finances, with the board required to submit budgets in order to receive funding.
There is a rather uncomfortable contradiction here
So there is a rather uncomfortable contradiction here. Sri Lanka is being asked to wait for governance reform while the financial consequences of that uncertainty are already being felt.
How many more opportunities can the country afford to lose while the machinery of government moves at its own pace?
The Minister may argue that the constitutional process cannot be rushed. Fair enough. But there is a difference between rushing legislation and giving it priority. If the government can rush the 22 Amendment to the Constitution, they could do so to the SLC constitution.
If the Government genuinely believes that the new
If the Government genuinely believes that the new constitution is necessary, then the Ministry should be treating the remaining stages as a matter of urgency. The draft should move through the Legal Draftsman, translation and the other required procedures without sitting in administrative limbo.
A target of getting the legislation before Parliament within 30 days may be ambitious. But without a clear timetable, there is little reason for anyone to believe that the process will suddenly gather speed.
This is also about credibility.
The ICC will not be persuaded by another statement saying Sri Lanka is committed to reform. It will look at what has actually been done.
The country has already lost the Women’s Champions
The country has already lost the Women’s Champions Trophy. The question now is whether that loss becomes the price paid for genuine reform or simply another casualty of governmental delay like losing the U19 World Cup in 2024.
The Cricket Transformation Committee has done its part by preparing the framework placed before it. The ICC has made its position clear. Sri Lanka Cricket is waiting.
That leaves the Minister of Sports with little room for ambiguity.
Source: www.sundaytimes.lk
