Free Essay: Governance and Management of Cricket in Australia
Most people have known professional sport’s governance in a manner that is reasonably undemanding. Governance in sports highlights tension between volunteers and paid professionals in relation to collective leadership, board motivation, board performance and structures. The attention that is being paid to governance in sport is always increasing and this indicates the essence of delivering sport’s services professionally to sport enthusiasts and the entire communities. Implementing modern practices in governing sport increases sporting opportunities’ provision and coordination in several communities. This essay will mostly focus on Governance and Management of Cricket in Australia.
Sport contributes to the economic and society’s systems and this is experienced by individuals, nations and organizations. Countries that have sporting prowess have become very popular among their trading partners internationally due to their achievements in sporting. Cricket sporting brands have earned Australia trading presences among the economic community globally (Shilbury & Ferkins, 2011, p. 109).
Governance refers to a structure that is employed in directing and managing organizations. Adhering to certain rules that are usually fixed is a vital feature in modern sports. The rules mean governance. Governance structure means the established relations between the individuals who establish and manage the rules as well as the individuals who the rules govern (Anand, 2013, p. 38). In a great way, governance influences how organizational objectives are developed and achieved. It also determines the procedures that are followed in making organizational decisions while establishing the means for optimizing and monitoring performance.
In the organization of the sport’s sector of Australia, commitment to proper governance’s principles plays a vital role (Szymanski & Ross, 2007, p. 617). In Australia, cricket is a favorite sport for most people. Cricket is ingrained deep in the minds of the Australian sport lovers. The Cricket Australia (CA) takes care of cricket. The organization employs over 150 people starting with the main office that is located in Jolimont, Melbourne. It is at the core of Brisbane’s excellence. This body comprises of several staffs that are found in different states throughout the country (Chopra, n.d.). The focus of this paper is on evaluating management performance and governance protocols of Cricket Australia.
In the entire Australian community, cricket occupies an exceptional position. This is why it is a popular sport for summer in regards to spectators, media coverage, participants as well as its contribution to the Australian economy (Ward, 2003, p. 95). The diversity council of cricket in Australia allows the cricket governing body the freedom of positioning diversity as a vital strategic asset which enhances the achievement of the Australian cricket’s business objective. This council also influences strategic diversity direction. This includes creating diversity, providing leadership when identifying emerging and current opportunities that can enhance its diversity plan and setting objectives that can easily be measured. Governance is vital in cricket since it is at the center of this sport culturally, symbolically and commercially.
Embracing professionalism in the Australian Cricket over the last decades has transformed how players train, plan and prepare for competitions. The playing lists keep getting thinner and this requires the playing squad to be managed throughout the season. How a team is managed after playing one game and how it prepares for the next game determines its success or failure. There are some features that have been set in the Australian cricket. Each team strives to improve so that it can achieve continuous gains as well as successful performance. The components of this improvement are either team or individual aspects. Conditioning deficiencies and specific strengths are the individual aspects. The team aspects include team play, team dynamics, leadership and tactics (Westerbeek & Smith, 2005).
The record of Australian cricket is flamboyant and it stands out due to its values. The scale of the revenues that it is generating was not anticipated some years back. The aspirations of CA with no doubts imply that being the central cricket’s body it has vital responsibilities of ensuring that the sport meets the highest standards. Cricket equals the truthfulness and evenhandedness that widespread referrals exemplify to its spirit. It has values that are important to it as a game. Whatever happens in the field can damage cricket’s integrity. Off-field issues can also damage it just like the field issues. Thus, they can also risk CA’s commercial value of events via broadcasting and sponsorship rights as well as the benefits of hosting the events (Bernays, 2009, p. 158).
14 directors govern Cricket Australia and the respective member associations appoint them. A team of senior management manages the body. Chief Executive Officer of the body is required to report to a board of directors. This board is responsible for maintaining strategic focus in game’s governance. The CEO has the responsibility of implementing the strategic plan as well as managing the Cricket Australia’s operating activities. Cricket’s finances are managed by Cricket Australia and it administers the internal operations. CA is also responsible for administering all developments in cricket in Australia. Essentially, Cricket Australia has the responsibility of ensuring that cricket performs well in Australia.
The board that comprised of 14 directors was ineffective despite being large. The perception that most people had was that it had implanted conflicting interests which were seen when it came to making decisions. The directors’ appointment process did not consider the necessary skills for the board members. Essentially, there lacked lucidity in regards to the roles that were played by CA board, the state and the management. There was no lucidity in the roles of the States, the management and the board in making decision. This caused indecision, continuous re-generation of issues and conflicts. The large size of the board also caused wastage of time in the process of making decisions. The process of holding effective decisions was also slowed down which enabled individual directors to abandon responsibilities without facing consequences.
Poor practices by the management led to the recent Australian Cricket’s downfall. Such practices include ineffective leadership, poor culture, poor talent, succession management, lack of or inadequate feedback and unclear accountability. Before the national team’s performance decline rapidly, global cricket was dominated by the Australian cricket. This dominance veiled organizational, cultural and structural problems that needed ironing out. However, CA took so long to take action. This caused poor performance. The organizational structure of Cricket Australia should be blamed for the decline in the national team’s performance. A single person cannot be responsible for the team’s performance.
Additionally, the performance of players is not their individual responsibility. The management of Australian cricket lacked a strong culture for managing this sport. Furthermore, the Australian’s cricket management lacked the appropriate targets, review processes and metrics. It is interesting that despite being a century old, this management lacked succession planning and talent management. This contributed to the decline in the performance of cricket in Australia since there were no pictures to depict future competition.
Poor practices by the management caused criticism to the sport’s management and governance in Australia. The cricket’s management and board required knowledge and a great approach in order to deliver the cricket’s vision and to restore the damaged image of cricket in Australia. Governance was changed and the association of each state had to approve the reduced and renewed structure of the Australian Cricket board. This abolished the power imbalance that had existed for a century while according all states equal rights (Lyle, 1997).
The belief was that transparency and accountability could be introduced in managing the Australian cricket by a revolution. This way, the much-anticipated improvement in field performance would be achieved. After specialists in sport’s governance assessed and gave recommendation, change was instituted in CA’s governance. Currently, the board of directors of Cricket Australia has nine directors. A director is appointed by each state while two-third majority appoints the other three at CA.
A new means of governing cricket was instituted by the board that comprises of nine directors with an aim of enhancing cricket operations in Australia. Single-point accountability was also established in CA. The process was managed through the creation of a general manager’s post. A matrix management system linked Cricket Australia and states in a different attempt of promoting collaboration and enhancing accountability.
Creating a single-point for accountability proved to be very important. The general manager became accountable for different operational responsibilities instead of focusing on team’s performance and leadership only. With good practices in governance, conflicting interests were eliminated. The board’s directors also avoid participating in matters that can benefit them or their shareholding.
Success of the cricket team in Australia is not important to Cricket Australia only but to all Australians including sport lovers, the government and States associations. Actually, for the cricket team of Australia to succeed it requires the contribution of different organizations that include CA and the States. The new governance linked the COE coaching and the State openly to the national management via matrix management. The general manager is responsible for scheduling as well as negotiating the memorandums of understanding. The management is responsible for improving players’ selection and managing talents. This is facilitated by increased communication and management of players’ development against the agreed skills’ plans for the individuals.
The new Cricket Australia governance has established new approaches for managing injuries. The belief is that poor approaches in managing injuries led to poor performance. Wrong approaches were pursued by the physio, conditioning and medical staff in managing players since no body was given the responsibility of monitoring what happened in the cricket’s world. The new CA’s management put the conditioning and medical staff to the task. Sports medicine and coaching staff professionals started managing players. Workload and match schedule were changed. This reduced the injuries that occurred among players.
To motivate players, the governance requires that players receive substantial payments. Match wins, series win and world’s ranking of the team determines the players’ base payment. The belief of the new governing body is that the cricket team’s competitiveness will improve when State players are paid more after performing and less after failing to perform. Players are paid a lot of money even when they fail to perform by an ineffective system.
Since the beginning of the 1990s to the late 2000s, Australia remained a dominant force in the world of cricket. The cricket team of this country was efficient, appreciated and feared by the entire world. However, due to poor practices by the management of Cricket Australia, the cricket team’s performance started dwindling. This caused a sad mood countrywide and this led to the restructuring of the 14 members’ board to form the 9 members’ board. This has brought some light to the Australian national cricket team that was once dominating the world. The structure of the new management is integrating strategic, custodial and tactical aspects of the affairs of the team to the specific roles. This is increasing accountability in this sport. Australian cricket is now on a direction that will enable it to regain its position in the world of cricket. The new Australian cricket governance has adopted a management structure that is considered the best globally. The well-skilled and self-governing board does not report to owners and its roles are not mystified with those of the team’s management.
Anand, A. (2013). The Value of Governance. Rotman International Journal Of Pension Management, 6(2), 38-43. doi:10.3138/ripjm.6.2.38.
Bernays, E. (2009). A game of cricket. Antipodes, 23(2), 158-160.
Chopra, S. (n.d.).Brave New Pitch: The Evolution of Modern Cricket. New York City: HarperCollins Publishers India.
Lyle, J. W. B. (1997). Managing excellence in sports performance. Career Development International, 2(7), 314-323.
Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2011). Professionalization, sport governance and strategic capability. Managing Leisure, 16(2), 108-127. doi:10.1080/13606719.2011.559090
Szymanski, S., & Ross, S. F. (2007). Governance and Vertical Integration in Team Sports. Contemporary Economic Policy, 25(4), 616-626. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00081 .x.
Ward, T. (2013). Sport Australian. London: Routledge.
Westerbeek, H. W., & Smith, A. T. (2005). A Framework for the Future of Professional Sport Research in Australia. Futures Research Quarterly, 21(2), 5-25.