IT is no coincidence that a sport's capacity for self harm increases with the amount of money at stake.

Look at football. Once the working class domain, where the players would travel to the game on public transport alongside the fans, and now echoing to accusations of “modern slavery”, because players on £140,000 a week are not able to tear up their contracts as and when they wish.

The amounts are not quite so eye-bulging in cricket.

But the image of the game suffered damage this week at the hands of those who would like a larger slice of the pie that is Twenty20 cricket.

The vested interest brigade was out in full force with the leaked proposal that the English Premier League should be contested by nine franchise clubs based around the Test and one-day international venues.

Surprise, surprise – the idea was proposed by representatives of four of the venues that would benefit from the carve-up.

Did they really believe they would placate the nine other counties with a promise of crumbs from the top table?

It appeared a classic case of the rich seeking to get richer at the expense of the rest.

To his credit, England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke quickly sought to distance himself from any proposal that would exclude half of the county clubs, should the EPL come to fruition in 2010, as seems inevitable.

That was even though two members of the ECB's management board, MCC chief executive Keith Bradshaw and Surrey chairman David Stewart, were behind the nine-franchise proposal.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but, as theirs is so at odds with their chairman's declared view, should they consider their positions?

But the damage to the good name of cricket was even more sorely felt in the farce at the Riverside.

Whether or not Yorkshire fielded an ineligible player in a Twenty20 Cup group match against Nottinghamshire, how on earth can a decision to postpone the quarter-final in Durham a couple of minutes before the start be justified?

Where did the interests of 6,000 paying customers come into the equation?

Surely the fact that you have a full house paying good money for tickets and transport means any row over who should or should not have played earlier in the competition should be saved for later.

It is not always possible to say, with confidence, that everyone in the decision-making process has the best interests of the game at heart.