There is understandable concern in lofty corners of cricket administration that the game is facing its Kodak and Blackberry moment, that it may have begun the journey from billion-dollar business to bankruptcy because of its failure to adapt to trends and technology in a changing world.
For the purposes of the analogy, it is necessary to distinguish between T20 franchise cricket and pretty much every other format, especially at international level. The burning question is this: are the burgeoning T20 leagues around the world the “new technology” which will kill off the game as it has been played for 200 plus years at first-class level and 50 plus years in the one-day form?
Or will their popularity fade in time with cricket fans requiring something more substantive in future? If not, then the question needs to be asked dispassionately: is it worth attempting to preserve the old ways and formats? And are those old ways, as “cricket people” will tell you, genuinely the bedrock from which the T20 specialists emerge?
At the heart of the debate between old school values and love of the game and the “new world” is whether you believe that cricket still has something to offer society other than commercial opportunities. And if it does, is it still worth paying a price to maintain? Is it even possible to “manage” cricketing capitalism?
This conflict was well illustrated last week by Manoj Badale, the majority owner of the Rajasthan Royals franchise, speaking on a BBC podcast. Badale warned that we should expect much less Test cricket to be played in the future (no breaking news there) but also claimed that he enjoyed the longer formats of the game.
“It is a difficult one for me because Test cricket is what you grow up on as a fan and I haven’t missed the first day at Lord’s for however many years, it is still my preferred format,” he said. “But it is not about me, it is about what the 10 to 15-year-olds in India and across the world are thinking.”
And there you have it. The future of the game is in the hands of children, not grown-up billionaires making an awful lot of money from T20 franchise cricket. Badale has a theory about how to save Test cricket: “We can make it ... more of an event. We should have it at the same time every year, played between a small set of nations that can actually afford it and Lord’s becomes like a Wimbledon, an event that is the diary.”
Guess that rules SA out. A fortnight of Test cricket each year, presumably between England, Australia and India. There you have it. At least Badale is a straight-talker, even if his interest in the matter is heavily vested.
At the top of the international food chain it emerged that India’s BCCI have “suggested” the ICC give them a greater slice of the global cash pool, seeing as they are responsible for generating most of it. Not satisfied with the recently improved $6bn TV rights deal for the IPL, the BCCI would like its revenue percentage increased from 22% to about 37% — from about $350m to $600m. They point out that, in real terms, the income paid to other nations would actually increase despite their percentage being decreased.
The “Revenue Model Distribution” proposal was presented to the ICC by BCCI secretary Jay Shah, who also holds the chair of the ICC financial committee. Must be a reasonable chance of the motion being adopted.
At the other end of the food chain Cricket Ireland was celebrating, sort of, the success of fast bowler Josh Little, who became the first player from that country to earn a contract in the IPL.
“He’s played just two out of 23 days in international cricket for us in the last four months. That's not sustainable from an investment point of view,” said high performance director Richard Holdsworth. “We’re paying this guy good money in terms of our structure and he’s come through our system. We’ve developed and invested in him since a young age. Our belief is that [the IPL] is good for his development and will help Irish cricket for the long term, but what we’re grappling with is that we need our best team on the park.”
It was a sentiment which may well be shared by the majority of nations in the future if the franchise leagues continue to dominate the fixture landscape. What does Badale think about that? “We’ve got too many franchise leagues now so you can have a hierarchy of the IPL, major leagues and then minor leagues”. Right. So, not less in future, just less status.
The other alternative is to play cricket altruistically, Test cricket for example, and not prioritise the monetisation of the product. But that’s just silly. Who’d do that?
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.