2013 has seen the end of ICC run tournaments for many teams across Europe effectively meaning the end of recognised international cricket for many European countries. Those teams in Division 1 this year escaped the guillotine, but most teams in Division 2, and all teams in Division 3 have fallen victim to the new direction taken by ICC Europe. This new direction sees more funding for the ‘development’ of cricket, but could this be a mistake by ICC Europe which in fact has a negative effect on the development of the game in the region?

In a recent article on the site, Andrew Nixon highlighted the pitfalls of funding becoming more reliant on participation numbers. A cursory inspection of current levels of ‘participation’ in Europe in comparison to those from a few years ago suggests that either some interesting book keeping may have taken place or ICC Europe need to take a second look at their definition of ‘participation’. Andrew Nixon also highlighted the lack of clarity over how the culled countries can work their way back towards recognised competition – and the funding that accompanies competition participation.

This second point will have a greater impact in the concerned countries than simply a drop in funding. Having a national team which plays on a European and Global (in the case of teams in the WCL structure) stage is a hugely important tool in ‘selling’ the game, and genuinely widening participation. Whilst the impact of having a national team is unquantifiable, it is not negligible. The potential of representing one’s country is a tremendous pull when it comes to encouraging young people to take up cricket in favour of more established sports.

ICC Europe is putting time, money and effort into the promotion of ‘Street 20’, in the hope that this format will be effective in attracting greater numbers of city-dwelling youngsters from Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain to cricket. However with two of these countries effectively seeing their national sides scrapped by ICC Europe, how realistic is it that in Greece and Finland youngsters will see a future in playing cricket?

On the flip side of this, in France we are fortunate enough (thanks to 2 consecutive successful Division 1 campaigns) to still be competing internationally. This means that a talented 12/13 year old who falls in love with the game still has a chance of representing France in 2020, and hopefully the U17 and U19 national sides before then (although funding has also been withdrawn from official ICC junior tournaments). Surely as a result a French teenager is more likely to choose cricket over football than his Finnish or Greek counterpart? As such the existence of a national side must not be underestimated as an aid to establishing cricket as a major sport in Europe.

Many defend ICC Europe’s new policy by pointing out how costly running these tournaments is. More cynical opponents go further and accuse these tournaments of being a competition of which European nation has the most talented expats, and as such view these tournaments as entirely futile in developing the game.

Whilst tournaments are undoubtedly costly to run, ICC Europe must consider what it wants cricket to become in Europe. If the answer to this question is that it wants cricket to become a major sport in Europe (which it surely must), then are tournaments and national sides not crucial to this aim? How can a sport establish itself without competition and national representation?

If the financial burden of 5 European Divisions is too great, then why not have Division 1 and 2 with regional qualifiers to decide which teams qualify to enter Division 2? This would greatly reduce the accommodation and travel expenses of tournaments, whilst ensuring that there is still international cricket for all countries? Similarly the ICC could return to the structure from 2009-10 where there were 5 divisions of 6, meaning shorter, and hence cheaper tournaments.

These potential solutions will not satisfy the cynics who suggest that European tournaments are an expat exhibition. This familiar accusation is both lazy and naïve. One only needs to recall the Estonian, Slovenian and Bulgarian squads from ICC Division 3 2012 to verify this. Cricket has survived long enough throughout Europe that national sides are no longer the preserve of expats. They are made up of players who learnt their cricket in their country and now proudly wear their national colours. This fact demonstrates the success which cricket has had in Europe, and how it is increasingly taking hold outside of immigrant/expat communities.

It is interesting to ask how different the cricketing demographic of a country like France would look if there were no national side? Would cricket be on the sporting curriculum in a third of French Departments if there wasn’t a national side? Would cricket have developed as quickly as it has without the potential carrot of representing your country? Would women’s cricket have a national indoor competition which runs through the winter? Would each of the clubs in the ‘Super-Ligue’ (France’s Premier club competition) be compelled to have competitive women’s and youth sides if there were no national Junior or Women’s teams?

ICC Europe is right to want to develop the game. But developing the game requires more than introducing people to the game. Those new to the game, particularly young people, need a reason to make cricket their chosen sport, and the possibility of representing their national side is a very good reason. By taking this possibility away from potential young cricketers in many countries across Europe, has ICC Europe not hamstrung those working on the ground to make cricket an established sport? It is important that ICC Europe doesn’t become overly obsessed with easily manipulated participation figures.

Instead it must concern itself with real development of the game: significant numbers of children choosing to play cricket over more established sports. ICC Europe must then ask themselves: Are our development aims really best served by removing international competition (and hence national representation) from the likes of Finland and Greece? To my mind the answer is clear.