Guilty and Gone: Pakistani spot-fixers suspended

An ICC tribunal has announced that the three Pakistani cricketers accused of spot-fixing during their tour of England last year have been suspended for lengthy stretches. Then-captain Salman Butt received the heaviest ban, a 10-year suspension of which five years are suspended. 28-year old fast bowler Mohammed Asif was sanctioned for seven years including two suspended; the brightest young thing in world bowling circles, Mohammed Amir, received a five year ban.

Though spot-fixing is not as harmful to the game as match-fixing, it still remains an open lesion where players can earn money for sabotaging their own performances, which by extension detracts from their team's displays. The ICC needed to send a message that accepting bribes for any poor performance is unacceptable in the extreme and by removing those individuals from the game for what equates to five years, it has ensured that all three will feel financial and public pressure as a result of their misbehaviour.

Given the state of Pakistan cricket and that nation's variegated selection policy of past years, the bans probably aren't quite strong enough. Butt and Amir particularly will almost certainly return to represent their country at the highest level. By the time he returns, Amir - for whom there has been the most public sympathy and who has said that he will appeal the sentence - will only be twenty-three and entering his peak years as a bowler. His appeal will likely be based on his stance that he was just "following orders". Butt, whose heavier sentence confirms suspicions he was the ringleader, will be 31 in five years and liable still to be the best opener in Pakistan.

Though probably generous, five years seems close to the mark when Hansie Cronje and Salim Malik were dealt life bans for rigging the outcomes of matches. There is a strong body of opinion that any acceptance of bribes on-field should be an automatic expulsion from the game - that valuing financial reward more than the sport's virtue is enough to earn you the lifelong scorn of your peers and public. When I first heard about the "incidents" in August, that was my first reaction.

But what that doesn't take into account is a Western judicial tendency to allow second chances. Should Amir, Asif and Butt have been expelled from the game for life, others may have learnt from their idiocy but would the trio get a chance to reform? To rehabilitate? It's unlikely; they would be sent back to Pakistan to live the rest of their lives in admonishment. Punitive action must hurt the offenders no doubt; but any government should at least allow offenders the chance for remorse at a later date - if not, they risk becoming a dictatorship, something the ICC is loath to appear. When taking into account Amir's testimony, life-bans became increasingly more unlikely as small doubts grew as to whether the bowling pair were acting under captain's instruction. That suspended penalties have been assigned is the most ludicrous part of this sentence: the players knew their actions were illegal and ban-worthy: so having the threat of another ban around their necks is unlikely to stop them offending a second time. Perhaps a greater deterrent would have been to combine the years: Salman Butt could be reinstated at 35 and Asif at 35. That way each player has the slim chance of righting their wrongs at international level.

That only five years was meted out after the life bans were mooted may however be a decision which encourages burgeoning spot-fixers. If the remuneration is lucrative enough, a player may make the cost/benefit analysis that five years of their career is a price worth paying for millions of dollars. As a deterrent, a five-year ban only barely registers. The ICC has delved into the same muddy waters of the debate about capital punishment: is the deterrent effect worth the human cost?

Though guilty of Herschelle Gibbs-style dropping the ball on many occasion, the ICC has employed the right selection of tribunal panellists and the Pakistani trio have been found guilty after having evidence presented from all sides and the opportunity to defend themselves. Both the process and the verdict were arrived at fairly, and though sanctions took time to administer the process was (by ICC standards) transparent. The Pakistani Three's will have to live with their sanctions. The International Cricket Council will have to live with the precedent they've set.

Jury and Executioner: Everyman

After hearing several voices espousing potential punishments for players found guilty of spot -fixing, I thought perhaps it's time to take a novel and contextual approach as to how to deal with these “fixers”. I think everyone agrees that those guilty of putting themselves before the integrity of the sport which made them so wealthy should be banned, the question though is for how long?

Do immediate lifetime bans work? That most gambling-related bans have occurred in the last ten years seems not to have dissuaded the current crop of alleged bribees, making them either super-naive, super-stupid or super-arrogant. Life bans handed out to Mohammed Azharuddin, Salim Malik and Hansie Cronje have left little or no impression on those allegedly fixing since. Mohammed Amir was 9 years old when Malik was banned, old enough to know that the Pakistani ex-captain had been “in the wrong”. Even if he wasn't aware of it at the time, fixing has been the bane of subcontinental cricket for much of the past twenty years meaning the responsibility for informing the players falls directly on the shoulders of the control boards.

That Pakistan and India have been the centre of most of these allegations is quite obvious, giving an indication of the roles that their boards must play in stamping out this scourge. That cricket plays such an important role in the mass-psyche of these countries also cannot be ignored. Perhaps it's time to start holding players and officials accountable for the hopes and dreams of their nations.

The Pakistani average per capita income has been announced for 2010 at somewhere around 2600 International dollars, with International dollars being hypothetical money used for comparative purposes only. Compared to other cricketing nations, that's miniscule; using International dollars, Pakistan ranks 130^th worldwide in average income, smack-bang between economic powerhouses Nicaragua and Uzbekistan. This International dollar total equates to somewhere around $US 1000.

Major Test-playing country	Per Capita Income (International $)	Rank (Worldwide)	Per Capita Income ($US)	Rank (Worldwide)
Australia	38911	10	45587	11
England	34619	19	35334	22
New Zealand	26708	33	27259	27
Barbados, Jamaica & Trinidad/Tobago (avg.)	15575	(Would be 50)	10992	(Would be 51)
World Average	10366	Would be 76	8600	Would be 60
South Africa	10244	77	5824	73
Sri Lanka	4769	113	2041	119
India	2941	128	1031	139
Pakistan	2600	133	1017	140

(source: International Monetary Fund 2009 tables)

The table above paints a stark picture. It would be much worse had Zimbabwean cricket not collapsed so horribly seven years ago – the average annual per capita income there has fallen to only $US 375. There's no question as to why subcontinental, African or even Caribbean cricketers could be tempted to take the money on offer – if a gambler lays on $US 50,000 then that's more money than the average Pakistani could earn in 45 years. To put it another way, those 45 years comprise give or take two-thirds of the average lifespan in Pakistan. When compared to an Australian it's no wonder that the Western cricketing establishment doesn't seem to be as tempted. The same $US 50,000 makes up one year's income for the average Skippy, hardly worthwhile throwing a career away for when the money from endorsements, central contracts and other miscellany can last a lifetime.

It's also no coincidence that the performances of any national side defines a population. Most players speak of their joy at being able to represent their country and what it stands for; to wear the crest of a nation made up of of people of whom you are very proud is perhaps a country's highest honour. The general populace of every country lives vicariously through their sports teams and most people would be horrified if that faith and trust were to be thrown away by players with opportunities that Joe (or Mohammed) Public would die for.

So with this information in hand, a novel way of punishing the guilty party might be to take the lowest common denominator – in this case Pakistan – and apply the same principles to the punitive action. If found guilty, a player would be banned for the length of time it would take the lowest-earning cricket fan to earn the amount of money alleged to have been accepted. So for example, of the eight major test-playing nations, Pakistan has the lowest average annual income of $US 1017. If an Australian is found guilty of fixing, then it is only fair to judge them by Pakistani standards as by its very nature cricket is a worldwide community and every nation suffers should the game be brought into disrepute. If that Aussie is found guilty of accepting $US 50,000 then ban them for fifty years – the amount of time the least among us would take to make that money legitimately. If our hypothetical Aussie is found guilty of accepting $US 10,000 then ban him for ten years.

It may be harsh – being found guilty of accepting anything over perhaps $US 8000 would amount to a lifetime ban – but this method would judge players by the “everyman” standard. It works this way because cricket is a world sport. Obviously penalising our on-the-take Australian by his country's per capita income is less of a penalty – to make a quick $US 20K he risks only a little over six month's ban if discovered. Obviously this has almost no value as a deterrent and it forgoes cricket-mad Mohammed Public in Rawalpindi, earning $US 1017 (and potentially far less), finding the sport he loves weakened by the iniquities of its players. This puts the the cricketing punishment into terms that the public both identifies with and enforces; in essence the guilty party is judged by those he is representing – his own peers

There are undoubtedly flaws in this argument. Policing alone would require solid evidence, probably nigh on incontrovertible proof or even a confession. Also, this simplifies the issue to the n^th degree and doesn't allow any flexibility – “black and white” laws tend to work well in theory but less well in practice. But in the whole sphere of world sport, cricket is very much an afterthought. Played as a major sport by only eight nations, cricket needs to maintain its integrity in order to survive in the long term. The accountability to this must rest on everyone – fans, administrators, coaches and especially the players.

The Very Powerful and the Very Stupid

“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common – instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts which needs altering”.

Doctor Who, played by Tom Baker in “The Face of Evil” (1977)


Mohammed Asif's reported request for asylum in England throws the role of players allegedly involved in spot-fixing into stark contrast. Gone are the callow days of cricket, farewell to “innocent until proven guilty”. No doubt Asif's suddenly found himself in more trouble than he could have ever imagined but an plea for safety of this sort really gives one an idea of what trouble these potentially misguided and undoubtedly unfortunate men will face at home.

When the safety of players is threatened due to on-field performance – or lack thereof – the first name mentioned is usually Andrés Escobar, the Colombian who was shot dead in 1994 after his own goal at the FIFA World Cup. It is thought that his own goal was the catalyst for heavy gambling losses sustained by drug warlords who then took their revenge on the Atletico National defender. Hansie Cronje was also subjected to death threats as a result of his role in the “tempted by Satan” affair of 2000 while mystery still surrounds the 2007 death of Bob Woolmer at the ICC World Cup. That Woolmer, the retiring coach of Pakistan, was to publish a tell-all memoir detailing gambling's arm-in-arm relationship with Pakistani cricket can hardly have eased suspicions of a gambling-driven murder.

That our athletes are subjected to such stresses makes me very, very sad. There's no question that each person seduced by gamblers, be it for information, point shaving/spot fixing or match fixing deserves to be punished to the full extent of the laws for that sport. If that's a flat ban, then so be it. Should the laws dictate fines and suspensions, then apply them to the fullest. But the laws need to be enforced by the police and the governing bodies and not by individuals. Taking one's frustration out on a person who's wronged you rarely helps a situation and tends only to complicate matters – but sporting pride or indeed national pride engenders such fierce parochialism that it becomes impossible to talk with a devotee in rational terms. A case of “white line fever” can develop remarkably quickly into the more serious “white line foaming at the mouth” and finally result in “white line dead-on-arrival”.

No doubt Mohammed Asif fears for his safety. He lives in a country in which disease, death and destruction are commonplace yet has risen to become one of the world's best fast bowlers and he's done this amidst violence on a scale that most of us could only have nightmares about. If he fears for his safety, you can be sure he has ample reason. To take money from gamblers means that you are always in their pocket – they can always approach you again, and if you ever refuse the option forever remains for them to “out” you. Or “off” you. And if exposed, you risk the scorn (at best) and the vengeful ire (at worst) of your country's sporting faithful. So no matter what your economic situation, to take money from these people is naive at best, clinically stupid at worst.

As the good Doctor tells us in the opening quote, the very stupid may think that gambler's money is just easy cash and this obviously is not the case. A fool isn't necessarily someone who doesn't see risk – that simply makes them unfortunate or unintelligent – a fool is someone who justifies that risk as worthwhile. And the very powerful will always have that power. Like any good gambler, the powerful ensure they hold all the cards before being dealt in. If only we could say the same for the very stupid.