Decent hearted cricket fans around the world are deeply disappointed that the ICC 2011 Cricket World Cup will be contested by only 14 nations instead of 16 as previously promised.

Sickeningly but not surprisingly, the ICC Chief Executives Committee have voted to cut two associate nations from the 2011 World Cup that will be co-hosted by India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Cricket is the only sport in the world that is openly discouraging countries from competing at it’s premier international event.

Soccer, baseball, rugby union, rugby league, basketball, field hockey and even ice hockey are expanding rapidly. It is the policy of these sporting organizations to showcase it’s newest members and to embrace the cultural diversity that different countries can bring to a major sporting event.

Meanwhile, cricket shoos away new countries like flies at a barbecue.

Fans shouldn’t be surprised by the decision of the ICC Chief Executives Committee.

As the title suggests, this committee is made of the 10 CEO’s from the full members. These individuals are employed by their own cricket boards, namely Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and The West Indies.

Understandably, the Chief Executive Officers have only one mandate; Look after the interests of the company that pays them and turn a tidy profit for that employer.

So why are they empowered to make decisions on behalf of the game as a whole? Why are these men allowed to have any say in matters that directly involve countries other than their own? These CEO’s can compromise the financial stability of the remaining 91 ICC members with a mere show of hands.

It is at the very least, an extremely unorthodox business practice. At worst it is a blatant conflict of interest and one that can no longer be tolerated if the ICC is to be seen as a fair, ethical and relevant sporting body.

The ICC can talk all they like about globalization, cultural diversity and the spirit of cricket but these well intentioned terms are as meaningless as a politician’s pre-election promises if the mandate is forgotten when the moment of truth arrives.

The associate and affiliate members of the ICC deserve far better.

Still, the associates and the fans weren’t the only ones fooled. The International Olympic Committee recently voted to approve the sport of cricket as an IOC member.

IOC Director of Sport Christophe Dubi recently spoke on the ICC’s website about this decision. He stated that cricket had made an effort to become more universally accepted and that this initiative was influential in the IOC’s acceptance of cricket.

What would he make of this latest development? Cricket has taken a step back by 10 years. The 2011 World Cup could actually end up being contested only by Commonwealth countries, just as it was at the first championship in 1975.

Perhaps Mr Dubi wasn’t given the entire story. Maybe the ICC should have told the IOC about this when it was first proposed several months ago.

So where to now?

The recommendation to remove two associate teams from the next World Cup goes to the ICC Executive Board, who will make a final decision on this matter in March.

The ICC Executive Board is (Surprise, surprise) made up of 10 representatives from the full members plus President Ray Mali, CEO Ex-officio Malcolm Speed and President elect David Morgan. A severely outnumbered associate voice will be represented by HRH Tunku Imran, Stanley Perlman and Samir Inamdar.

Can full members representatives Giles Clarke (England), Major General Sina lbn Jamali (Bangladesh), Creagh O’Connor (Australia), Peter Chingoka (Zimbabwe), Julian Hunte (West Indies), Sharad Pawar (India), John Anderson (New Zealand), Nasim Ashraf (Pakistan), Arjuna Rantunga (Sri Lanka) and Norman Arendse (South Africa) be trusted to make the best decision for cricket or will their own self interests prevail?

Associate and Affiliate players both senior and junior dream of the day they will represent their country at a World Cup. Coaches, volunteers and administrators in 91 non-test nations work with few accolades in the hope that they might contribute towards a World Cup mission for their players. Some nations will pin their future financial hopes on qualifying for a World Cup. The increased marketing and sponsorship opportunities, desperately needed media coverage and higher participation rates that result from a World Cup appearance are key elements if new cricketing nations are to prosper or in some cases, survive.

Removing two associate countries from the 2011 World Cup removes hope for too many. There is too much at stake for greed and self interest to win out.

The ICC Executive Board can make a brave decision that will benefit the majority of it’s members or it can bow to the old boys club that have dictated terms for far too long.

The International Cricket Council must insist that there is no reduction in teams for the 2011 Cricket World Cup.

The tournament’s hosts India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have proposed that the number of teams that should compete at the 2011 event be reduced to just 14, with four associate countries “allowed” entry instead of six.

In other sports, such a proposal would be laughed at and shown the door without hesitation. Cricket, however, is a game that pays little attention to the spirit of competing and the cultural diversity that should automatically constitute a “World” Cup event.

Subsequently, this narrow minded and ill conceived proposal is actually being considered by the game’s governing body. Cricket World Cups are owned by the ICC and allocated to grateful and supposedly gracious hosts but such is the financial clout wielded by India (BCCI) these days, it is feared that the game’s keepers will cave in to BCCI pressure.

The ICC has an obligation to serve all 101 of it’s members, not just the powerful, outspoken ones. In fact, the globalisation of the sport is a key ICC mandate. The ICC’s website clearly states- ” We care for cricket. Everything we do and every decision we make is motivated by a desire to serve the game better. We are an international organisation with a global focus and act at all times without prejudice, fear or favour. As a leading global sport cricket will captivate and inspire people of every age, gender, background and ability while building bridges between continents, countries and communities.”

Some might say that if the BCCI proposal is rubber stamped, the ICC would have acted with fear and favour instead of the reverse.

Cricket was recently accepted into the International Olympic Committee. The sport’s newly found global outlook and acceptance played a large part in that decision. Those at the IOC who welcomed cricket might now be wondering if they made the right decision upon hearing of this latest proposal from the BCCI and it’s co-hosts.

Little did they know that cricket’s prejudiced side would re-emerge so quickly.

For all it’s glory, cricket has an unfortunate reputation for insularity and a lack of cultural acceptance. In the early part of the last century India and the West Indies had to fight for the right to play test cricket. Many preferred that the game be played only by Englishmen, Australians and South Africans. Unbelievably, non-Commonwealth countries were barred from becoming members of the ICC until 1965. Even Sri Lanka had to wait an inordinate length of time before they were allowed to play test cricket. How quickly India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have forgotten their own history. Money tends to dull the memory somewhat.

Some of those archaic attitudes still exist although the spin doctors of the 21st century are far more adept at camouflaging their insularity, bigotry and appalling short sightedness.

The old guard are masters at presenting insularity as quality control. Bigotry is sold to the world as protecting the game’s heritage and short sightedness is cunningly portrayed as concentrating on the present.

What can’t be disguised is their greed. The 2011 World Cup hosts have openly admitted wanting less associate nations competing at the event to maximize profits and prevent anyone else apart from the full members progressing into the later rounds. Some might regard this as a mere step away from orchestrating results for purposes other than those considered within the spirit of fair play.

Shame on Ireland for beating Pakistan and Bangladesh at the 2007 World Cup. How dare they play so well to knock out a cricketing powerhouse. This was supposed to be a party for the old guard and the plucky and determined Irish were not given an invitation. While the Irish were criticized for playing too well, Canada were attacked by the elitists for not playing well enough, despite mustering a respectable 249 against New Zealand, 228-7 against England and 199 versus Kenya.

The length of the 2007 tournament has rightly been criticised. The group stage involving the ten full members and the six associates lasted 12 days. The super 8’s and finals, which were designed to showcase only full members, meandered along for 34 days. So why are the associates being blamed for making the tournament too long?

Some critics of the younger cricketing nations will bend the truth as far as their agenda allows them.

Cricket has made major inroads into the global market since 1997. There are now 101 members of the ICC. The sport has a healthy following in countries as diverse as Uganda, Kenya, Namibia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Malaysia, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Bermuda and in pockets of Canada and the US.

Cricket is also taking root in Iran, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Chile and Cuba, to mention but a handful. The development initiatives in these countries are very exciting. Key indicators and ever increasing participation figures support those who believe that cricket has a big future outside the current small base of ten full members.

More than 300,000 people now play cricket outside of the 10 full member nations and that number is growing quickly. Unpaid volunteers, coaches, administrators, umpires, school teachers, ground keepers and players toil away in the hope that one day their country will win their way through the extensive qualifying tournaments and into a World Cup.

No wonder youngsters are now queuing up to play cricket in the emerging countries like never before. The pathway is clear and the goal more tangible than ever.

To remove two associate nations from the World Cup, removes hope for too many. It would be a step back to cricket’s Imperial era when old toffs ruled over the game and unfashionable nations were treated with disdain.

Has cricket learned any lessons from the past?