debut: 2/16/17
39,780 runs
CWI Blames Governments, Dodges Responsibility
The logic in blaming Caribbean governments for the decline of West Indies cricket, given the structure and autonomy of CWI, is deeply flawed.
Let's break this down with a more human, analytical touch:
The Structure of CWI and Its Autonomy
CWI (Cricket West Indies) is, by its own admission, a private entity. It negotiates its own broadcasting agreements, controls the highest level of game administration, and manages the sport's commercial rights in the area. When CARICOM, the regional political bloc, attempted to intervene or recommend reforms, CWI pushed back, emphasizing its independence and lack of formal accountability to any government.Caribbean Governments dont pick the team.
Use of Public Resources Without Reciprocal Accountability
Despite this autonomy, CWI benefits immensely from public resources—state-funded stadiums, tax exemptions for players, and grassroots talent developed through government-funded school and college sports programs. In essence, the public sector invests in the early stages of player development, but once players enter the professional pathway, CWI controls their careers and the commercial outcomes.
Historical Context and Missed Opportunities
Historically, many of the West Indies’ cricketing legends honed their craft by playing in competitive overseas leagues, particularly in England. When that door closed, the lack of robust, region-wide development programs became glaringly obvious. Instead of investing in academies and coaching infrastructure to compensate, CWI’s leadership stagnated, clinging to old structures and insular administration.
The Blame Game: Deflection or Accountability?
Now, with the team's performance plummeting—recently even failing to qualify for major tournaments—CWI’s leadership has often deflected blame onto governments, claiming insufficient investment. But this argument doesn't hold water:
If CWI is a private entity, it should be responsible for raising its own funds, innovating, and building talent pipelines, just as successful sporting bodies do globally.
If governments are not involved in decision-making or oversight, blaming them for poor results is disingenuous.
The old-boys-club governance model, with stakeholders nominating directors, insulates the leadership from meaningful reform and public accountability.
The Core Issue: Governance and Vision
The real issue isn't government investment—it's CWI's lack of progressive vision, unwillingness to modernize, and failure to leverage the region’s raw talent through structured, professional development. Blaming governments is a convenient smokescreen that avoids confronting these fundamental problems.
If you want to run cricket as a private business, you must also accept responsibility for its failures—and for cultivating its future. You can't have it both ways: using public assets and talent pipelines while refusing public accountability, then blaming governments when things fall apart. That’s not just illogical; it’s a classic case of dodging responsibility.
In other words:
CWI’s leadership needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers across the Caribbean Sea.
Sarge
The logic in blaming Caribbean governments for the decline of West Indies cricket, given the structure and autonomy of CWI, is deeply flawed.
Let's break this down with a more human, analytical touch:
The Structure of CWI and Its Autonomy
CWI (Cricket West Indies) is, by its own admission, a private entity. It negotiates its own broadcasting agreements, controls the highest level of game administration, and manages the sport's commercial rights in the area. When CARICOM, the regional political bloc, attempted to intervene or recommend reforms, CWI pushed back, emphasizing its independence and lack of formal accountability to any government.Caribbean Governments dont pick the team.
Use of Public Resources Without Reciprocal Accountability
Despite this autonomy, CWI benefits immensely from public resources—state-funded stadiums, tax exemptions for players, and grassroots talent developed through government-funded school and college sports programs. In essence, the public sector invests in the early stages of player development, but once players enter the professional pathway, CWI controls their careers and the commercial outcomes.
Historical Context and Missed Opportunities
Historically, many of the West Indies’ cricketing legends honed their craft by playing in competitive overseas leagues, particularly in England. When that door closed, the lack of robust, region-wide development programs became glaringly obvious. Instead of investing in academies and coaching infrastructure to compensate, CWI’s leadership stagnated, clinging to old structures and insular administration.
The Blame Game: Deflection or Accountability?
Now, with the team's performance plummeting—recently even failing to qualify for major tournaments—CWI’s leadership has often deflected blame onto governments, claiming insufficient investment. But this argument doesn't hold water:
If CWI is a private entity, it should be responsible for raising its own funds, innovating, and building talent pipelines, just as successful sporting bodies do globally.
If governments are not involved in decision-making or oversight, blaming them for poor results is disingenuous.
The old-boys-club governance model, with stakeholders nominating directors, insulates the leadership from meaningful reform and public accountability.
The Core Issue: Governance and Vision
The real issue isn't government investment—it's CWI's lack of progressive vision, unwillingness to modernize, and failure to leverage the region’s raw talent through structured, professional development. Blaming governments is a convenient smokescreen that avoids confronting these fundamental problems.
If you want to run cricket as a private business, you must also accept responsibility for its failures—and for cultivating its future. You can't have it both ways: using public assets and talent pipelines while refusing public accountability, then blaming governments when things fall apart. That’s not just illogical; it’s a classic case of dodging responsibility.
In other words:
CWI’s leadership needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers across the Caribbean Sea.
Sarge
- edited -
