Dirty money in sport.

Today was an important day in the world of sport. Southwark Crown Court in London found the former Pakistani cricket captain Salman Butt and fast-bowler Mohammad Asif guilty of plotting to bowl deliberate no-balls in the 2010 Lord’s Test as part of a spot-fixing plot. Another player, teenager Mohammad Amir had already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments before the trial. The trio who had already received sporting bans from their sports may also receive prison sentences for the duplicity. Though many cricketing administrators will see this as justice, it only opens further questions of how pervasive and corrupt the game and sport as a whole is.

If you do not already know the story or have not seen the footage of the players’ misdemeanours then it is simple to explain. The News of the World (NOTW) and the ‘Fake Sheikh’ (a notorious undercover tabloid reporter) met with the UK based sports agent, Mazhar Majeed and recording him boasting that he could arrange Pakistan players to rig games for money. Majeed was paid £150,000 by the newspaper and in return Amir and Asif, following instructions from the captain Butt, bowled no-balls (an illegitimate delivery) at specific timings through the game. With foresight of the deliveries any individual could make a fortune through the vast, yet illegal; betting industry in South East Asia. Anyone watching the game may have been surprised by the errors, though it probably would have been deemed to be an aberration, yet the newspaper headlines and undercover footage led the Police to the same banknotes found in the player’s hotel rooms.

The maximum sentence for cheating is two years in jail and an unlimited fine, while accepting payments carries a maximum sentence of seven years and an unlimited fine. Unfortunately for cricket, this was not a new story. In the 1990s many players were wrongly accused of match-fixing including England’s most capped test player Alec Stewart, whereas others including the former Indian captain Mohammad Azharuddin and Pakistani captain Saleem Malik were both found guilty. The most famous case was that of Hansie Cronje, the South African captain who had led the country out of its sporting wilderness and made it one of the world’s most dominant and competitive teams. Cronje was a national hero and yet a chance find Delhi police implicated him receiving money to help fix matches. Most famously a test match between England and South Africa at Centurion Park in 2000, after a rain delayed match, Cronje forfeited an innings to see whether England could chase down the target and achieve an improbable result. Some saw it as an act of great sportsmanship, yet we now know that Cronje received £5000 and a leather jacket in return for inducing a result. The world of cricket was aghast at the news and Cronje, who would later die in a plane crash, became a fallen figure and national disgrace.

Both incidents were chance findings and tip offs. It is more than likely that the ICC would have been unable to detect these crimes without third party investigations. This is where the problem lies; the cricketers were guilty of accepting corrupt payments from unregulated bookmakers. In the West, suspicions would be raised immediately if someone bet £100,000 on a no-ball, as one statistician said the probability of calling a no-ball is around is 1.5 million to one, yet in South East Asia where gambling is illegal, who is there to police it? Some arguments have been put forward that these men were not cheating, nor influencing the result, they were simply making a bit of pocket money from a game that is not necessarily well-paid. Yet, the court heard that Butt was asked to rig the results of One-Day Internationals, a request which he says he declined. Like all cheats, there is always a complicity to break the rules; spot-fixing is just as bad taking sport enhancing drugs, who is not to say they would move onto rigging contests?

The problem for sport, not just cricket is that we just don’t know how to solve the problem and this case has simply highlighted the problem. Who is there to monitor football matches that aren’t televised or to question double faults in tennis? Sport today is about winning and money, but how much of that money is dirty?

England's Cricketing Industrial Revolution

It appears that English cricket has not even reached its zenith. After years of being shackled by our own colonial ancestors we have liberated ourselves from historical dogmas, in what can only be called a thrashing. Perhaps the most famous series of them all, Bodyline, was not remembered for England’s resounding 3-1 series victory, but for the perceived ‘ungentlemanly’ behaviour of the English fast-bowlers. The 2010 series will be remembered for the simple reason that England were a fantastic all round cricket team, but are there any particular reasons why and if anything could be learnt?

Let us not forget this series win was not purely founded on one win in Australia. It is the culmination of reform from the top down of English cricket over the past ten years, in a period that was not easy. The series defeat to New Zealand in 1999 was the summer when the whole system imploded as England officially became the world’s worst Test side. Through the 1990s, England were a decent team, they had good players e.g. Stewart, Thorpe, Gough and certainly, but as a force in test and one day internationals they were moving nowhere. The initiation of central-contracts was part of the first steps to re-professionalise cricket and change the relationship between the county and national system. The contracts were given to the country’s best players, whilst future talent joined the England Academy in winter camps. It made the players full-time England internationals rather than county players that represent England.

The results spoke for themselves with away wins in West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, culminating in the 2005 Ashes victory. Much of England’s success came through the television contracts with Sky Television. The most recent deal in 2008 saw Sky pay £300 million for a four-year contract, with full coverage of England plus the domestic season too. The other success is the adoption of foreign coaches and importantly their ideas. The appointment of the head coaches Duncan Fletcher and then Andy Flower, both Zimbabweans, have improved the management and training practises.

In some ways this mini-cricketing revolution could be compared to the Industrial Revolution throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The money from Sky is a sore point for traditionalists because matches can only be watched through a monthly subscription, but this money has allowed England to progress. It pays for the coaches, the contracts and the money hitting grassroots cricket. In the industrial revolution it was the money of entrepreneurs that built the canals and the factories, not the government of the day. Watching a programme on Sky the other day called ‘How England won the Ashes’ showed how the money has helped design bowling technologies that reproduce the deliveries of potential opponents. It reminded me of the investment in the British Army during this period that helped produce new weapons like shrapnel shells. There is no irony that in an environment where there is entrepreneurialism it produces more ideas and subsequently inventions, think of America in the twentieth century.

Historically, it is argued that the Britain began to decline in the late nineteenth century. As rivals began to catch up e.g. Germany and America, they were educating their youngsters in science, engineering and maths, whilst Britain failed to adapt its education policy to the likes of its rivals. Many of these countries adopted policies of economic protectionism. Britain and its Empire boosting other growing world economies, whilst they prevented overseas investment. The English cricket team have learnt from this lesson to become the World's best Test team. However, they must continue to revolutionise their methods and ensure to employ the best coaches and innovate their training, like the British cycling team. They must understand the consequences of history and build on this success.

Pakistan and the untruths.

It’s become almost acceptable to criticise Pakistan in any given context. The cricket team beat England yesterday in the test match, but there is always an underlying thought that some of the players may be taking bribes or taking performing enhancing drugs. How about British Pakistanis? They hate the indigenous British and promote a culture of radical Islam. There is no smoke without fire and some of these stories contain some truth, but issues become regurgitated every time Pakistan appears in the news.

The seasonal monsoons have devastated vast swathes of the Northern Pakistan and have continued to destroy the lives of up to 20 million people, but what line has the media taken in reporting this story? It is standard. In comparison to the devastating 2004 Asian Tsunami or the Haitian earthquake this year, donors are reluctant to part with their cash to help a huge number of helpless people, They are all living in poverty with no food for them or their children. Some fear corruption i.e. the Government’s back pocket (only 2% of the country’s budget is spent on education).

The media have led with stories of militant groups giving aid and the pictures show doctors with long beards helping the sick. The fact aid may not be coming through ordinary avenues does not mean that they will turn to the Taliban. As the excellent journalist Mohammed Hanif points out, the man filmed swimming across the river with a chicken tied to his head was not doing it so he could partake in a bloody fight in a country he knows nothing of, he was swimming across to save his chicken. These families only export food from the land they have farmed for centuries and nothing else. We may correctly assume in most circumstances the worse of the nation’s government and military but these innocent men, women and children only care for their next meal, not the Taliban.

Muttiah Muralithiran

When Muttiah Muralithiran took his 800th test wicket this morning, with his final ever test ball, it was obvious what would be said. Something like this: a savage wicket-taker with a controversial action that split many cricket fans, players and administrators. As someone who calls himself a spin bowler I think the past 15 years of test cricket have been incredible, this benign, intrepid but utterly destructable Sri Lankan has turned the ball unimaginably and taken more wickets than anyone can fathom. All with a smile on his face.

I remember reading Nasser Hussain's response to facing Murali, he said that after facing a few overs he wouldn't even bother looking at his wrist or the spin on the ball because he still would have had no idea how much the ball would turn once it had pitched. It may explain why we have seen him destroy England a few too many times. Murali is a true great of the game, a native Tamil, he won the hearts of Sri Lankans, Lancastrians and ultimately the global audience.

It was truly a pleasure to see a master at work and see such a wonderful art in the hand of its most creative protagonists.