Un­for­tu­nate­ly, the Bar­ba­dos Crick­et As­so­ci­a­tion [BCA] and the Guyanese Crick­et Board [GCB] opt­ed out of the CWI meet­ing to ad­dress the We­h­by Re­port on Gov­er­nance Re­form 2020 rec­om­men­da­tions. Their at­ten­dance would have al­lowed them to ven­ti­late their is­sues on the re­port's rec­om­men­da­tions and stand firm if the dis­cus­sions did not sway their po­si­tions.

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, had they not sup­port­ed the re­port’s rec­om­men­da­tions af­ter at­tend­ing the meet­ing, it would have pro­vid­ed them with cred­i­bil­i­ty to air their con­cerns pub­licly, show­ing the pros and cons of their ac­tion and the fi­nal de­ci­sions of the CWI for which they are mem­bers.

The is­sue of gov­er­nance of West In­dies crick­et has been a peren­ni­al cause of con­cern for play­ers, fans, and CARI­COM. The gov­er­nance prob­lem was a dom­i­nant theme of the two-day CARI­COM meet­ing ear­li­er this year in T&T. One of the ma­jor com­plaints over the years has been the fail­ure of the CWI to im­ple­ment the rec­om­men­da­tions of sev­er­al re­ports be­fore the We­h­by Re­port. There­fore, it is shock­ing that some board mem­bers are shy­ing away from the fo­rum to dis­cuss the gov­er­nance of West In­dies crick­et.

The stale­mate comes when more needs to be done to rein­vig­o­rate the game in the re­gion. The men's team prod­uct in Tests, ODIs, and T20s has fall­en off, es­pe­cial­ly when play­ing against top na­tions such as Aus­tralia, Eng­land, In­dia, and South Africa. Like­wise, the women’s team

lags be­hind the top five—Aus­tralia, Eng­land, In­dia, South Africa, and New Zealand—al­beit the team sur­prised many in reach­ing the se­mi-fi­nals of the ICC T20 World in 2024. Fans no longer at­tend match­es, a far cry from what was ob­tained un­til the late 1990s in­to the 2000s when the West In­dies brand was dom­i­nant and for­mi­da­ble.

If an op­ti­mised gov­er­nance struc­ture can­not be found, the prod­uct will con­tin­ue to be neg­a­tive­ly af­fect­ed. In a pe­ri­od when crick­et has sport­ing and non-sport­ing op­tions, the con­fi­dence of the ma­jor stake­hold­ers—play­ers, fans, and spon­sors—will con­tin­ue to de­cline.

Such a re­al­i­ty will give cre­dence to the call by for­mer Chair of the ICC, Greg Bar­clay, who high­light­ed the fi­nan­cial plight of West In­dies crick­et, where the West In­dies will re­ceive less than a 5 per­cent share of the ICC earn­ings for 2024-27.

Bar­clay said, “You look at the West In­dies; I love what they’ve done for the game, but is the West In­dies in its cur­rent form sus­tain­able?” “Is it time for them to break in­to each of their is­lands?“ The thing is, can they (the West In­dies) af­ford to (con­tin­ue to play Test crick­et)? They can bare­ly bal­ance their books now.

If Bar­clay’s com­ments are to be ban­ished as an op­tion, the ad­min­is­tra­tors of West In­dies crick­et have to wake up and smell the cof­fee. The rich his­to­ry of men's and women’s crick­et will cel­e­brate mon­u­men­tal land­marks in the next four [4] years. West In­dies women will cel­e­brate 50 years of ex­is­tence in 1976, and West In­dies men will cel­e­brate 100 years of test sta­tus in 2028.

Hope­ful­ly, the gov­er­nance is­sues will not over­shad­ow the stel­lar achieve­ments of those who cre­at­ed a stel­lar, en­vi­able world brand. If nec­es­sary, ring the wheel of change for the ben­e­fit of West In­dies crick­et at the CWI and ter­ri­to­r­i­al lev­els.