England Benefits From Zimbabwe's World Twenty20 Withdrawal

England has successfully asserted its right to block Zimbabwe's involvement in World Twenty20 next summer, thereby ensuring it will stage the tournament – but that is only the first of several impending power struggles that will determine the future of international cricket for the next decade. As the rapid growth of Twenty20 changes cricket's landscape at an alarming rate, every issue to be fought out over the coming weeks is encapsulated by the same basic question: how much can England tame the Indian tiger?

On the pressing issues of whether international cricket should always take precedence over events such as the Indian Premier League, on who sets the rules for the inaugural club Twenty20 Champions League or concerning the commitment to long-term development throughout the cricketing world, the ECB will seek to follow up its success on the Zimbabwe affair by reinforcing its image as the guardian of the game. India will be repeatedly reminded that with its undoubted power must come a recognition of its wider responsibilities.

That process continues next week. The ECB, aware that as many as six England players could be offered Indian Premier League contracts for next season, has hurried forward its central-contract negotiations and is aiming to complete them before the first Test against South Africa at Lord's on Thursday, so empowering England's coach, Peter Moores, to rule upon the window – perhaps as little as 10 days – when England players can take part. David Collier, the ECB's chief executive, described negotiations as "delicate.''

Sri Lanka's agreement to tour England next May, in place of Zimbabwe, is also a deliberate restating of Test cricket's supremacy. If India had assumed that Sri Lanka would never dare to play Test cricket during the IPL, they reckoned without the fierce independence of Sri Lanka's World Cup winning captain and chief executive, Arjuna Ranatunga. Ranatunga has a go-ahead from the president for the tour which will be confirmed next week. Duleep Mendis, his fellow negotiator, emphasised: "International cricket must take priority.''

England and India will continue negotiations in London next week on the inaugural club Twenty20 Champions League. India's demand that English counties who have fielded players from the rogue Indian Cricket League tournament should be banned has still to be resolved. But any assumption from Lalit Modi, India's chief negotiator, that the four-country tournament is an Indian plaything was politely challenged when the ECB revealed that it had also negotiated a comparable commercial deal.

England won the Zimbabwe debate at the ICC annual meeting in Dubai because late on Wednesday, after days of intransigence, India – and specifically Sharad Pawar, the president of the Indian board and India's agriculture minister - had the pragmatism to accept that India had lost the argument and that to avoid schisms in the international game it must broker Zimbabwe's "voluntary'' withdrawal from World Twenty20.

There was some honest brokering, too, from the ICC itself, led by the outgoing South African president Ray Mali, and the man who now replaces him, the former ECB chairman David Morgan, but ultimately Zimbabwe withdrew only because India finally joined the ICC executive in telling them that they must. Peter Chingoka, the chairman of Zimbabwe Cricket, said: "We don't want to be gatecrashers.''

Zimbabwe, irksomely, retain their ICC membership – and their money – but expulsion was never realisable. England will not play them until the 2011 World Cup at the earliest, India will police their accounts and they will play no international cricket of consequence until an ICC task force is convinced that the time is right. The time will not be right while Robert Mugabe remains in power.

Giles Clarke, the ECB's chairman, was careful to pay tribute to India's change of heart. "I had a lot of conversations with Sharad Pawar and have a lot of admiration for him,'' he said. "He had his own views but finally accepted the argument that in Zimbabwe sport and politics were inextricably linked.''

For the government, Zimbabwe's withdrawal is a relief. To expressly ban Zimbabwe from a bilateral tour of England next summer was simple; to ban them from an international tournament over which the UK theoretically has no jurisdiction quite another. The government made its displeasure abundantly clear, but it will be relieved that the ICC finally agreed to police itself.

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, stated: "This sends a powerful message to Zimbabwe that the government must change or face further isolation.'' But the comments from Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, carried more resonance for cricket. "I would like to thank the ECB for the clear and strong lead they set in these negotiations,'' he said. "As a result, individual cricketers will not now be placed in the invidious position of having to make difficult moral judgments.''

For Clarke, this has been a personal triumph. Clarke's ability to work closely with the government, to take an uncompromising, principled stand, yet at the same time to build new English alliances and to weaken the race-orientated stances that have habitually bedevilled the ICC, has been striking.

"Ever since I became chairman I have been determined that Zimbabwe would not be an issue for the dressing room but an issue for the Board,'' Clarke said. "We have undoubtedly reached the right conclusion for world cricket.''