The CWI House Needs More than a Fresh Coat of Paint
Cricket West Indies (CWI), once the proud custodian of Caribbean cricketing excellence, now finds itself under the harsh glare of scrutiny, with accusations that its leadership has morphed into “an old bwoy's oligarchy.” It’s a grim description, but not an unfounded one. The current state of governance at the regional body reflects not just executive dysfunction but a deeper malaise in how power is distributed, exercised, and protected within the organization.
At the heart of the problem is CWI’s muddled governance framework, one entangled in political influence, competing obligations, and a worrying lack of accountability. Public funding, political ties, and administrative allegiances form a web that leaves little room for genuine oversight. The result? A growing erosion of confidence among stakeholders: fans feel alienated, sponsors uncertain, and governments frustrated.
Calls for stronger conflict-of-interest policies have surfaced repeatedly, yet little seems to have changed. Even insiders struggle to identify where, within CWI’s own constitution or legal frameworks, such critical safeguards are properly articulated. Meanwhile, CWI’s leadership insists that its internal controls have “matured” and that its governance standards could rival any global sports organization. But such declarations ring hollow against the backdrop of persistent controversy and declining trust.
There is also an important structural reality often obscured by the noise: the CWI president is not a day-to-day executive. The CEO and management team, not the president’s “whims and fancies,” supposedly run operations. Moreover, financial and strategic committees are in place precisely to distribute authority. Yet, the optics of overlapping roles, where a president also chairs key committees, continue to blur the lines between diligence and dominance.
Defenders argue that misconceptions fuel talk of conflict. But perception, in governance, is often as critical as reality. The mere appearance of competing loyalties, especially when political figures or public officials are involved, undermines confidence in impartial decision-making. The president “must act solely in the interests of West Indies cricket,” the argument goes, but how can that be reconciled with national or political obligations?
Now, with the current president’s decision not to seek re-election, CWI faces another test. Should the board accept his stance quietly or demand a more definitive break? If the leadership vacuum becomes a theatre of speculation, the damage, reputational and structural, will only deepen.
West Indies cricket deserves better than governance that inspires suspicion instead of stability. It needs modern stewardship guided not by insularity or politics, but by transparency, competence, and collective vision. Until then, the echoes of decline will continue to drown out the once-mighty roar of Caribbean cricket.
Sarge,
