England players dig in over Zimbabwe

Any prospect of cricket becoming the main feature of the 2003 World Cup receded further yesterday. The interminable dispute surrounding England's match in Zimbabwe reached yet another impasse as the Professional Cricketers' Association demanded further guarantees about safety.

The PCA will continue their offensive this week with the aim of persuading the England and Wales Cricket Board to withdraw from the fixture. If that fails, and the board fail to make their case, it is entirely possible that the players will refuse to travel to Harare.

With the opening ceremony due in Cape Town next Saturday, the tournament is in now in danger of being overshadowed by ancillary events. Indeed, it is not yet beyond the bounds of possibility that the tournament, and world cricket, could descend into chaos.

Two days ago, New Zealand pulled out of their fixture in Kenya, citing security concerns, and intend taking legal action to avoid being docked points or money. They were the first country to break ranks with the International Cricket Council, whose officials have been trying desperately to maintain a fragile alliance of the major cricketing countries, as well as their grip on the $550 million that they secured from the Global Cricket Corporation for television rights to ICC events until the 2007 World Cup.

That cash underpins the financial wellbeing of the whole game – including the wages of players and the staging of international matches. But there is a feeling among the England players' representatives that the ECB would have been wiser to follow the lead of the New Zealand board and pull out on safety grounds no matter what the ICC view.

Before the ECB management meeting tomorrow morning the PCA's lawyer, Gerrard Tyrrell, will ask them to consider their duty of care to the players and whether they are fulfilling that. The PCA also want to see the report prepared by the Kroll risk-consulting company. The dossier of the American company, who have been involved in high-profile security cases around the world, says that the six matches scheduled to take place in Zimbabwe, should be safe from trouble. But one paragraph in the report is believed to have raised eyebrows.

Richard Bevan, the England players' representative, said: "All we are seeking is access to the Kroll report. We need to consider all the implications before we can make a decision about the fixture in Zimbabwe. I have to question the judgement of the ICC in not so far allowing us to see it." The implication is that if the ICC are not willing to share their security consultants' findings with the players then they might have something to hide. Similarly, in Kenya, the New Zealand board decided the risks were too great despite ICC advice.

There is a difference between Kenya and Zimbabwe, whatever the moral observations to be made. In Kenya, there is definite terrorist activity, in Zimbabwe there is not. But neither country has been ruled out of bounds by the Foreign Office, which as of last night was still stating only that people should exercise vigilance. In addition, the PCA will now point to the delicacy of the relationship between Zimbabwe and Britain as part of their overall strategy to persuade the ICC to change their mind.

Dr Ali Bacher, the World Cup director, who has spent three years planning the event, was in remarkably sanguine form last night. He is part of the six-man technical committee which will probably have to make a final ruling on New Zealand's match and any England request to move their fixture.

"No sporting event ever again will be free from this kind of thing," he said. "The days are gone when you can concentrate on only the sport. But I can assure you that this competition is being eagerly anticipated in South Africa." The chief work of the ICC in the week before the first game in the tournament a week today (South Africa v West Indies in Cape Town) will be on keeping all the nations together. For instance, while New Zealand have refused to play in Kenya, the other side due to go there, Sri Lanka, have no qualms. "Of course, we must have concerns, but we are prepared to accept the judgement of the ICC, for it is they who sent a team there," said Anura Tennekoon, chief executive of the Sri Lankan board.

Moral concerns over Zimbabwe have driven the debate in this country (there is a certain irony in the fact that Kenya ousted their purportedly corrupt President Moi after 24 years only four weeks ago) but concerns about security will be dominant this week. The question: "Is it safe?" will be asked more often than it was by Laurence Olivier's dentist in The Marathon Man. The surmise grows that it will keep being asked until people get the answer they want.

There is similar impression to be gleaned from the safety reports commissioned by the various parties. New Zealand have one suggesting that it would be unsafe for their players to go to Kenya. Yet the ICC have one ( from Kroll) saying it is safe. No doubt both sets of expert consultants have been scrupulous in their research. But it is not wholly easy to escape the conclusion that they have come up with the answers that their employers might have been looking for.

The ICC delegates to the World Cup will begin to assemble in Cape Town today. They are still hoping to persuade New Zealand to change their minds.

"Obviously we have different opinions over safety," said their spokesman, Brendan McClements, yesterday. "We want to meet them to try to allay their fears." All talks will be aimed at ensuring all matches proceed, if not quite as planned, then in some other place.

New Zealand have been applauded for their stance, not least at home. But it definitely jeopardises the ICC's income. Last August, Martin Snedden, the NZ chief executive, said the TV money was crucial. "If the ICC cannot deliver on the agreement and the GCC look to pull out, each member country would lose hundreds of millions of dollars. In our case, 30 to 35 per cent of our forecast income for five years would be lost and that would have a huge impact." They may now have the chance to find out how huge.

The ECB through Tim Lamb will make a final attempt to persuade their players on Thursday. A possible split is on everybody's minds, although Chishty Mujahid, of the Pakistan board, played it down. "I don't think that will happen necessarily, but teams like New Zealand can't keep going against the wishes of the ICC. It doesn't seem right that they can pick and choose where to play." Let the games begin, if it ever gets that far.