It's time to stop calling international cricket international cricket

[RedwoodOriginal]

A recent article in Forbes reported that Bangladesh's next tour of Australia would now be in 2023, a whopping 20 years since the last and only time they toured Australia. And that is ofcourse if Australia don't postpone it again. Bangladesh is a terrible test team. But did they not even deserve a single solitary test in Australia in 20 years?

The defenders of the Big 3 on this site never miss an opportunity to come to the rescue of the very people who have destroyed international cricket. And its amazing to me how they continually defend these greedy, power-hungry boards on the pretext of money.

Because to them this is the only thing that matters. Why? Because it fills the pockets of their already wealthy boards all while the already segregated gap between the Big 3 and the others keeps increasing. It's remarkable how we are still calling this international cricket when its just a handful of teams playing against each other, getting as rich as they possibly can as countries like Zimbabwe teeter on the edge of bankruptcy while under-resourced associates give up any dreams they had of ever playing top-level cricket.


Cricket can only be successful in post-colonial states and they are third-world countries therefore they don't matter

One argument that I have heard on here is that test cricket can only be successful in post-colonial states, and since most of them are third-world countries they don't matter. This is exactly the kind of thinking that absolves the Big 3 of their shameless attitude of not doing anything for the expansion of the game and the associates. Because why even try to bring more countries in when its all about who brings in the most money?

What's stopping the Big 3 from helping out the associates or undeveloped cricketing countries. It's not like the Big 3 have a shortage of money. They are only getting richer. Why can't they spend some money to help countries like Nepal, PNG, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan who have shown they have an immense passion for the game. And f they had more resources and money they could do wonders to improve the standard of their cricket. The ICC doesn't even have to give them the money, it can send financial experts to evaluate and spend their money for them. Will these countries bring the amount of viewers that India does? No. But that's not what international cricket is about. Are many of them third-world countries? Yes. But then again so is India according to Western theory.


Who would want to see mediocre teams play against top level teams?

Another argument I came across recently after seeing the shockingly low number of test matches that all the test playing nations play in comparison to the Big 3 is: why would anyone want to see mediocre teams playing against big teams?

Well how are the mediocre teams supposed to get better if they don't play against teams that are better than them? And what about New Zealand, who have somehow played even less matches than Pakistan? Are they mediocre too?

The next argument ofocurse automatically goes to the money. Why would anyone want to see England vs. New Zealand when they could see England vs. India in a 5 match series?

They want to see both. Its just that you will make more money from one series over the other. But while you're laughing yourself to the bank, you are serving as a detriment to other nations who are not getting the same opportunities to make even a fraction of the money you are making because you don't play them. Case in point: Zimbabwe.


Why should the Big 3 help the others?

What the Big 3's cold capitalist defenders often tend to forget as they defend the predatory tactics of cricket's one and only oligarchy is that they have a responsibility towards the game that they are deliberately shunning so they can continue filling their own pockets as much as possible.

How can anyone even say that the game has no chance of growing in other countries when Afghanistan, Nepal, PNG and Ireland have risen the way they have in the last decade despite having little to no resources at their disposal. What's to say they couldn't rise even higher of given the opportunity?


Let's stop calling international cricket international cricket

Bangladesh haven’t toured Australia since 2003, England haven’t played Zimbabwe in any international since 2007, Pakistan-India don’t play, Australia haven’t toured Pak since 1998-99. I think its about time we stopped calling international cricket: international cricket.

Cricket today is basically a segregated sport where an oligarchy of boards run roughshod and do what benefits them, rather than what benefits the sport in general. If it wasn't for the Test Championship of the ODI Super League I doubt the Big 3 boards would even play the games they do play against the lesser ranked teams.



I'm willing to engage in civil debate. But if anyone waves 'revenues' or 'money' in my face I won't bother responding. International cricket is not all about money. The Big 3 boards can still keep getting rich while working for the betterment of international cricket. Its not as if one thing can only happen at the expense of the other. They just choose not to. Why? Because they are greedy capitalists who are running cricket like a business rather than a sport and I'm frankly tired of hearing people defend them like its perfectly alright.

 

[Mamoon]

Problem: big 3 boards are evil and do not care about cricket.

Solution: big 3 boards should stop being evil and start caring about cricket.

 

[Last Monetarist]

It's easy to ignore financial considerations in a theoretical context, but practically I'm afraid one can't get away from the deplorable impact of economics.

The Big Three's predatory tactics may be repugnant and distasteful, but the problem remains that there is a lot of mismanagement within the game which means that most of the money being earned is frittered away. The reason why the Big Three keeps blackmailing the ICC for more money is because there are too many mouths to feed within their respective organizations and costs keep blowing up each year.

The fact of the matter is that the financial state of the game even in England, Australia, and India is perilous, as laid bare drastically by the pandemic.

The ECB need to subsidize the whole county game, with many of those counties not financially viable. They have bet the house on the Hundred being a success and squandered a couple of years of cash reserves on marketing and developing the concept. I shudder to imagine the impact on the English game in the medium-term if the Hundred is a colossal failure.

Whereas, it's not even been a year since the bombshell that Australian cricket had to restructure the organization as there were no cash reserves remaining. CA is also in the middle of an unedifying battle with one of their key broadcasters about the value of the tv rights, which will potentially result in a reduction in the value of the next contract in a couple of years. The escalation in the value of sports rights isn't sustainable and even foxtel have been forced to get a bailout from the Australian government. CA will need to adjust to the new reality and cut costs, a lot of which are attributable to the expansion of the BBL.

The most stark evidence that the state of the global game is fragile is the fact that the BCCI are on course for record losses if the IPL isn't completed this year. The BCCI have enormous budgetary constraints due to the patronage structure of Indian cricket, whereby most of the money earned is funnelled through to the state associations and leaving little room for contingent risks.

Under this disastrous operating environment, the Big Three boards will never pay more than lip service to ideas such as competitiveness and equitable treatment for the other ICC full members, let alone associates.

 

[ElRaja]

not sure what OP is getting at, no one really thinks international cricket is run equitably. the big three will hold there place in the sport. nz will always be there or there about owing to its decent economy and proximity to australia.

pak is the only country out of the rest, owing to its massive market and potential value of pak india cricket that may join this group in a decade or two, but that is highly dependent on the country's economic growth and relations with india.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

It's easy to ignore financial considerations in a theoretical context, but practically I'm afraid one can't get away from the deplorable impact of economics.

The Big Three's predatory tactics may be repugnant and distasteful, but the problem remains that there is a lot of mismanagement within the game which means that most of the money being earned is frittered away. The reason why the Big Three keeps blackmailing the ICC for more money is because there are too many mouths to feed within their respective organizations and costs keep blowing up each year.

The fact of the matter is that the financial state of the game even in England, Australia, and India is perilous, as laid bare drastically by the pandemic.

The ECB need to subsidize the whole county game, with many of those counties not financially viable. They have bet the house on the Hundred being a success and squandered a couple of years of cash reserves on marketing and developing the concept. I shudder to imagine the impact on the English game in the medium-term if the Hundred is a colossal failure.

Whereas, it's not even been a year since the bombshell that Australian cricket had to restructure the organization as there were no cash reserves remaining. CA is also in the middle of an unedifying battle with one of their key broadcasters about the value of the tv rights, which will potentially result in a reduction in the value of the next contract in a couple of years. The escalation in the value of sports rights isn't sustainable and even foxtel have been forced to get a bailout from the Australian government. CA will need to adjust to the new reality and cut costs, a lot of which are attributable to the expansion of the BBL.

The most stark evidence that the state of the global game is fragile is the fact that the BCCI are on course for record losses if the IPL isn't completed this year. The BCCI have enormous budgetary constraints due to the patronage structure of Indian cricket, whereby most of the money earned is funnelled through to the state associations and leaving little room for contingent risks.

Under this disastrous operating environment, the Big Three boards will never pay more than lip service to ideas such as competitiveness and equitable treatment for the other ICC full members, let alone associates.

Many of the things you mentioned here are things that have happened recently in the past 2-3 years. Whereas this has been going on for much longer.

And I understand your point. But that doesn't change the fact that these boards have a greater responsibility to work for the betterment of the game. They should never have taken over this responsibility if it was all going to be about them.

And the way I see it, most of the problems you mentioned: patronage, mismanagement, issues with broadcasters are self-created that shouldn't exist in the first place for any professional cricket board with more resources and money at its disposal than 70% of the world's other cricketing boards.

So pardon me if I don't care to shed a tear for whatever mismanagement the Big 3 boards are responsible for, how the pandemic impacted them and how they aren't as rich as they should be. They still have it infinitely better than most of the cricket boards in the world.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Many of the things you mentioned here are things that have happened recently in the past 2-3 years. Whereas this has been going on for much longer.

And I understand your point. But that doesn't change the fact that these boards have a greater responsibility to work for the betterment of the game. They should never have taken over this responsibility if it was all going to be about them.

And the way I see it, most of the problems you mentioned: patronage, mismanagement, issues with broadcasters are self-created that shouldn't exist in the first place for any professional cricket board with more resources and money at its disposal than 70% of the world's other cricketing boards.

So pardon me if I don't care to shed a tear for whatever mismanagement the Big 3 boards are responsible for, how the pandemic impacted them and how they aren't as rich as they should be. They still have it infinitely better than most of the cricket boards in the world.

The point isn't to shed tears or feel sorry for the bigger boards, of course, the problems are of their own making. In fact, these boards deserve to be more heavily criticized for their abject incompetence.

The inherent structure of the game is broken and in this context it's naive to assume that these boards will bear holistic responsibility or even care for the wider development of cricket.

 

[gazza619]

Problem: big 3 boards are evil and do not care about cricket.

Solution: big 3 boards should stop being evil and start caring about cricket.

Big 3 is the not the problem.

It is the small 6 who are the real problem for not standing together.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The point isn't to shed tears or feel sorry for the bigger boards, of course, the problems are of their own making. In fact, these boards deserve to be more heavily criticized for their abject incompetence.

The inherent structure of the game is broken and in this context it's naive to assume that these boards will bear holistic responsibility or even care for the wider development of cricket.

That's a separate issue. That doesn't excuse all I things I mentioned above. Nor are all the things I mentioned above directly related to the inherent structure of the game.

You're speaking for a realistic point of view and again, I can understand that.

But just because something isn't happening or doesn't have any chances of materializing doesn't mean one should sit down with their hands crossed. Fact is these boards do have a responsibility for the wider development of the game being the administrators of cricket. And if they are not called out repeatedly for their predatory governance and administrative tactics than they won't even bother with the few incremental changes.

 

[Rajdeep]

How many times Pakistan invited Bangladesh to play in UAE?

Lets be honest, there is a sub concious bias against BD by every team...so its not right to single out Australia. Pakistan used to host every team in UAE but the stipulation for BD was they have to play in Pakistan. This was justified by saying that hosting BD in UAE was not profitable for PCB.

Similarly, Australia also never bothered calling BD bcoz ACB would incur loss from that tour. India also never hosted BD until 2019 for same reason. Both the teams however toured BD many times so that BCB can make profit.

So not inviting BD is not only a big 3 issue but most boards adopt same approach.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

A hypothetical question and not trying to make a point
Would cricket survive if it was just India, England and Aus playing against each other?

 

[Shazzam]

A hypothetical question and not trying to make a point
Would cricket survive if it was just India, England and Aus playing against each other?

I think India survives without World Cricket. IPL alone is bigger than World Cricket.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

I think India survives without World Cricket. IPL alone is bigger than World Cricket.

But would the IPL survive without International cricket?

 

[Shazzam]

But would the IPL survive without International cricket?

Absolutely. Players already choose IPL over International cricket.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Absolutely. Players already choose IPL over International cricket.

No. I understand that, but doesn't the IPL thrive on players who've already made their name in international cricket. If there's no international cricket how can the IPL thrive.

 

[Shazzam]

No. I understand that, but doesn't the IPL thrive on players who've already made their name in international cricket. If there's no international cricket how can the IPL thrive.

IPL can make there own stars with international cricketers. Thats how nobody's like Rashid Khan made there name. The brand of IPL is so huge that it gets people valuing unknown stars.

 

[Farabi]

Sports is entertainment and entertainment is funded from eyeballs. This is the basic principle no one can ignore. You can’t sustain sports if the sport itself can’t fund itself. Test cricket can’t fund itself anymore and that itself is enough to phase it out

The answer is simple: Play T20s and phase out test cricket. Games will be more competitive, inclusive and financially sustainable because revenues from T20 can cover for the costs easily.
Test cricket really isn’t competitive anymore, the gap is tooooo wide.
Cricket leadership is trying to preserve test cricket which is not financially viable. Even BIG 3 are having a hard time funding domestic FC (IPL funds Indian FC).

 

[TheNightWatchman]

IPL can make there own stars with international cricketers. Thats how nobody's like Rashid Khan made there name. The brand of IPL is so huge that it gets people valuing unknown stars.

I'm pretty sure he started his international career before the IPL though which definitely allowed him to showcase some of his skills before being picked up. Wrong example. The MAJORITY of foreign players are still players who play internationally.

Domestic cricket in most countries will diminish if international cricket disappears and so IPL will have less places to scout from. Also there's a finite amount of players that can play in the IPL. Domestic players from across the world won't be competing solely for a chance at an IPL contract alone.

 

[TabishNator]

IPL can make there own stars with international cricketers. Thats how nobody's like Rashid Khan made there name. The brand of IPL is so huge that it gets people valuing unknown stars.

Honestly doubt that, guys like Sandeep Sharma and Manish Pandey have been playing IPL for years. Would you say the IPL would be the same if it had no international stars and only had the likes of Sandeep and Manish?

 

[Last Monetarist]

Even BIG 3 are having a hard time funding domestic FC (IPL funds Indian FC).

Blatantly false. First-class cricket in the big 3 countries is funded by test and international white ball cricket, not franchise cricket. In fact, CA and the ECB are financing the BBL/whatever monstrosity the Hundred is supposed to be, through the tv rights deal for test cricket.

Test cricket may not be viable outside the Big 3, but in those countries the other formats are slowly dying as well, it might just not be that apparent at the moment. Those boards are living a hand-to-mouth existence based on the handouts from the ICC.

 

[Last Monetarist]

It's an absolute myth that cricket in countries such as South Africa, Sri Lanka, and the West Indies is surviving based on white ball cricket. The fact of the matter is that those boards are heavily reliant on tours by India and in the case of South Africa and the West Indies: test tours by England and Australia (to a lesser degree in the Caribbean) based on the commercial and broadcasting income derived from those markets.

This is reflective of the game's broken structure referred to in the earlier posts. It's not as if CSA makes any profits from a Pakistan T20 or ODI tour, they needed to schedule it this year to fulfil contractual commitments to supersport after the virus wreaked havoc with their home summer. Similarly CWI has been begging the ECB for regular test tours because that's the only series (apart from an Indian visit) that can (barely) sustain their FTP cycle.

The solutions are difficult and possibly just band-aids at this moment. However, one idea that's been mooted to reduce reliance upon ICC distributions is to bundle up the away television rights of boards such as New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the West Indies. The benefit of this scheme is that there would be a steady stream of content for broadcasters in India, which will not be allowed to pick and choose the value of individual rights based on only when India are slated to tour. It will also potentially ensure the maximization of the rights value in Australia and England.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

As much as I see CA's decisions in isolation, the more I loathe them. They're literally the opposite of what their cricket is famous for: Fight and Spine. In reality, they are always sucking up to the stronger boards, ECB in the past and BCCI for the last decade and so.
They haven't played even a solitary Test against Zim due to political reasons for over 17 years now.

They are just a desperate board who is willing to stoop to any level to please BCCI and ECB. They won't even care if they don't play any other team again.

 

[El Generico]

IPL can make there own stars with international cricketers. Thats how nobody's like Rashid Khan made there name. The brand of IPL is so huge that it gets people valuing unknown stars.

Do you think stars like Kohli, Smith and AB can be developed with just IPL? If IPL does take over and ends international cricket then I think it would also be the end of cricketing legends and superstars. Don’t think we will ever legends of the stature of Sachin or Wasim again.

The best we will get will be T20 superstars like Rashid Khan and Andre Russell.

 

[cricket4all]

For much of cricket history it was the big 2: England and Australia but with the amount of money from Indian cricket it has been the big 3 since the last 20 years or so. That is likely to remain and the gap because of money will remain between them and most of the rest. It will only widen and isn’t good for cricket but great for 3 countries only.

 

[hitthestump]

A hypothetical question and not trying to make a point
Would cricket survive if it was just India, England and Aus playing against each other?

England have been pretty terrible team for a fair bit of their modern history and it is inevitable that they will sink back to those depths again soon. Cricket is not a big enough sport in England to ensure they will constantly produce top level players generation after generation. Even now so many of their main players are questionably English.

If this happens then cricket will become India vs Australia. While India would love such an arrangment, Aussies might start tiring of the same old competition and instead turn to any one of the other many many sports Australia are very good at, leaving India on their own at the top of the table but with no one to play against.

 

[Giannis]

How many times Pakistan invited Bangladesh to play in UAE?

Lets be honest, there is a sub concious bias against BD by every team...so its not right to single out Australia. Pakistan used to host every team in UAE but the stipulation for BD was they have to play in Pakistan. This was justified by saying that hosting BD in UAE was not profitable for PCB.

Similarly, Australia also never bothered calling BD bcoz ACB would incur loss from that tour. India also never hosted BD until 2019 for same reason. Both the teams however toured BD many times so that BCB can make profit.

So not inviting BD is not only a big 3 issue but most boards adopt same approach.

Uh....several times?! You do realize Bangladesh and Pakistan have had diplomatic issues and the Bangladeshi regime which was allied with India has refused to tour Pakistan several times

 

[Hasan123]

All this hate for the big bad evil big 3 yet they are the one who play the most test cricket. So they are the ones trying to keep alive the format everyone loves lol. The victims like West Indies and Pakistan are the ones who regularly scheduled 2 match test series and multiple T20 series. I have seen some Pakistan fans say T20 cricket doesn't matter yet we organise T20 series like eating breakfast.

Make it make sense people!

 

[U$ofA]

All this hate for the big bad evil big 3 yet they are the one who play the most test cricket. So they are the ones trying to keep alive the format everyone loves lol. The victims like West Indies and Pakistan are the ones who regularly scheduled 2 match test series and multiple T20 series. I have seen some Pakistan fans say T20 cricket doesn't matter yet we organise T20 series like eating breakfast.

Make it make sense people!

Exactly. The non Big3 boards could care less about test cricket. They fill their coffers with T20 and domestic T20 league $$$. Then they will play one and two test "series". Total and absolute selfishness and greed. Not mention the miss-management and corruption.

The Big3 are the ones keeping test cricket alive.

 

[deems]

Cricket,like football will be league based in the very immediate future. There just isn't enough energy from the Big 3 and the rest to keep it going as it should.

I find bilateral series boring now. Bring back tri series and quad series. In the 2000s, I loved it when such tourneys took place. Keeps you engaged as viewer and follower of the game.

 

[Rajdeep]

Uh....several times?! You do realize Bangladesh and Pakistan have had diplomatic issues and the Bangladeshi regime which was allied with India has refused to tour Pakistan several times

Nope. Pakistan never invited BD to tour UAE in all those years. They used to host every other team in UAE but BD was asked to travel Pakistan bcoz hosting them in UAE was not cost efficient. It had nothing to do with diplomatic issues as they were willing to host them in Pakistan but just not in UAE.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

I don't see league cricket survive anywhere outside the subcontinent.

Also to fans in England cricket is basically the Ashes, you take that away and cricket will finish in England. Aus is very proud of their NATIONAL team and care more about their team rather than any individual players. Take away internationals and cricket popularity will finish in Australia.

Take away international cricket from NZ and SA, cricket will not exist even on the domestic level. Rugby satiates their sporting needs.

Cricket is just not a popular enough sport to be played "domestically" in these countries. Even if it is a T20 format. Cricket will however survive in the subcontinent because this is basically the only sport we are good at lol.

 

[Gayle_Force]

The biggest hurdle for the survival of international cricket are the multiple formats it’s played in. Cricket is probably one of the very few international sport that has three formats, its pretty ridiculous to be honest.

Personally speaking ICC needs to find middle ground and create one format that fits modern day attention span, otherwise the sport will continue to decline everywhere with the exception of maybe India.

Test Cricket for example is more often than not very predictable, even amongst the top teams it is the home side that more often wins the series. Also, I don’t mean any offence but really what’s the point of a Bangladesh vs Australia test series played in Australia (or Pak vs Aus for that matter) the result of that series is already known. Yea there is maybe an outside chance that one or two sessions maybe won but the two sides have too much gap in skills, esp in Aussie conditions that it is really a pointless series to watch. This Zim vs Pak test series is another example of watching two teams just going through the motions.

In short, until ICC settles on one format of Cricket in which all teams are somewhat competitive, international cricket will continue to decline and eventually whither away.

 

[HitWicket]

Blatantly false. First-class cricket in the big 3 countries is funded by test and international white ball cricket, not franchise cricket. In fact, CA and the ECB are financing the BBL/whatever monstrosity the Hundred is supposed to be, through the tv rights deal for test cricket.

Test cricket may not be viable outside the Big 3, but in those countries the other formats are slowly dying as well, it might just not be that apparent at the moment. Those boards are living a hand-to-mouth existence based on the handouts from the ICC.

The entire reason the counties voted in favour of the hundred was because the ECB guaranteed them funding out of (mostly) its profits. The English TV rights skyrocketed in value in the first cycle that included the hundred, it's hardly a coincidence.

 

[Markhor]

Exactly. The non Big3 boards could care less about test cricket. They fill their coffers with T20 and domestic T20 league $$$. Then they will play one and two test "series". Total and absolute selfishness and greed. Not mention the miss-management and corruption.

The Big3 are the ones keeping test cricket alive.

It's all well and good asking for teams to play more Test cricket but the question is who's going to pay for it ? The cost of staging a Test can reach in excess of $1m.

West Indies for example have a particularly challenging situation as it's a collection of countries - so in pre-Covid times they're paying to fly players across different islands, at sky high prices because these are popular tourist destinations. Their annual TV rights revenue amounts to only £15m, and the last time they hosted an ICC event was 11 years ago. Thus, repeatedly carping about mismanagement and corruption (as if Big 3 Boards are angels) is a poor defence to justify this inequality.

I believe there are some realistic solutions. There needs to be a cost sharing mechanism to allow poorer boards to minimise their losses. The requirement that tourists must be accomodated in five star hotels is ridiculous.

The minimum broadcast standards should be relaxed, not every series needs Snicko, Hotspot etc. These technologies are great but not necessary for the enjoyment of the game. And there needs to be a properly enforced international programme where everybody plays each other home and away over five years unless there's a governmental ban (IND-PAK).

 

[Hasan123]

Exactly. The non Big3 boards could care less about test cricket. They fill their coffers with T20 and domestic T20 league $$$. Then they will play one and two test "series". Total and absolute selfishness and greed. Not mention the miss-management and corruption.

The Big3 are the ones keeping test cricket alive.

All these none big 3 boards and fans blame the big 3 because they don’t want to accept responsibility for miss management, not caring about test cricket, and the fact they are only interested in themselves. Not the growth of test cricket or cricket in general.

 

[Markhor]

All these none big 3 boards and fans blame the big 3 because they don’t want to accept responsibility for miss management, not caring about test cricket, and the fact they are only interested in themselves. Not the growth of test cricket or cricket in general.

Mismanagement does not change the financial realities of staging Test cricket. Again, it costs around a $1m to host a Test complying with international broadcasting requirements - whether you are a well or poorly managed board.

Now if you make a paltry $15m a year from TV rights like CWI - after paying your players, marketing costs, accomodation, production costs etc - how much money is left to stage Test cricket ?

The ICC or touring teams aren't required to share the costs. Then when you tour overseas you don't earn a penny as the home board keeps all the revenues.

Does mismanagement exist ? Of course, but it doesn't tell the whole story. No business in the real world will willingly make themselves bankrupt. So ICC must sit down and work out a sustainable financial model for Test cricket - that's why I say relax the minimum broadcasting requirements, waive the five star hotel requirement, introduce cost sharing etc.

 

[Last Monetarist]

The entire reason the counties voted in favour of the hundred was because the ECB guaranteed them funding out of (mostly) its profits. The English TV rights skyrocketed in value in the first cycle that included the hundred, it's hardly a coincidence.

Yes, but the initial development and marketing of the concept has come out of the ECB's reserves. The future profits from the Hundred are dependent on the tournament being a success, however, the ECB's own budgeting stated that the tournament was initially loss-making (to the tune of 12 million pounds per annum based on the projections for 2020) once they accounted for the guaranteed distribution to the counties. That projected loss figure is going to only increase if crowds are not allowed in at full capacity this summer.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Cricket isn't really seen as a major sport outside of the subcontinent anyway. It's a colonial game and that's why it hasn't spread beyond England's former colonies. India has the largest market so you can understand why they don't want to see other countries in the subcontinent growing and taking a share of the riches, hence the big 3 suits them from a selfish point of view. Really it's up to those other subcontinent teams to explore how to grow their own games domestically, then they can worry about international stage later.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

As expected people have singled out one or two points from my post and turned it into a 'revenue' debate eventhough I'm fairly certain that most people here don't know the first thing about the actual costs involved in hosting series and are just writing something they read in an article.

But that wasn't even the central point of my post. One major point was that ICC has a responsibility to expand the game. No matter how bad current circumstances may be, that doesn't change the fact that ICC has done nothing to bring more teams into the fold. If anything they have done everything to keep emerging teams out. And no, saying its a colonial sport doesn't give you the right to not even try to expand the game even when there is clearly great passion for the sport in countries like Nepal, PNG, Afghanistan among others.

And if playing home series against lesser teams really isn't as financially profitable than they can just tour those countries and help them make money, but they rarely even do that.

I could care less how badly England, India and Australia were affected by the pandemic because its nothing compared to what other boards like South Africa had to endure, especially after Australia's 11th hour abandonment of their South African tour.

 

[HitWicket]

Yes, but the initial development and marketing of the concept has come out of the ECB's reserves. The future profits from the Hundred are dependent on the tournament being a success, however, the ECB's own budgeting stated that the tournament was initially loss-making (to the tune of 12 million pounds per annum based on the projections for 2020) once they accounted for the guaranteed distribution to the counties. That projected loss figure is going to only increase if crowds are not allowed in at full capacity this summer.

The hundred in isolation itself is projected to be profit making. Like you say it's the funding the counties have been guaranteed in return to help prop up the domestic FC game (the majority from the profits of the hundred) that drags it down into a projected loss which kind of proves my point?

 

[Markhor]

As expected people have singled out one or two points from my post and turned it into a 'revenue' debate eventhough I'm fairly certain that most people here don't know the first thing about the actual costs involved in hosting series and are just writing something they read in an article.

And if playing home series against lesser teams really isn't as financially profitable than they can just tour those countries and help them make money, but they rarely even do that.

The sources for what you're referring to are direct interviews with CWI President Ricky Skerritt and ZCB Chairman Tavengwa Mukuhlani not articles, but thanks for the usual mix of rudeness and condescension.

I agree international cricket cannot exist in the truest sense of the term if teams are not fulfilling fixtures against every other nation, and yes ICC are not fulfilling their duties to the Associates and Affiliates with the non-resumption of the Intercontinental Cup and the limiting of the ODI World Cup to ten teams being two examples.

But to ask any sport to divorce itself from business considerations is naive.

To answer the underlined part, again the boards do not make money from home series except India and when there's large travelling contingents of English fans. That's why I refer to the ICC needing to work out a sustainable financial model for Test cricket which involves cost sharing (which is not reciprocal - CA can cushion the costs of hosting Sri Lanka for example more comfortably than SLC can), minimising production costs by relaxing mandatory broadcasting standards and boosting the ICC Test Match Fund.

However the Inept Cricket Council have failed as a governing body hence why we keep having these endless debates.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

As expected people have singled out one or two points from my post and turned it into a 'revenue' debate eventhough I'm fairly certain that most people here don't know the first thing about the actual costs involved in hosting series and are just writing something they read in an article.

But that wasn't even the central point of my post. One major point was that ICC has a responsibility to expand the game. No matter how bad current circumstances may be, that doesn't change the fact that ICC has done nothing to bring more teams into the fold. If anything they have done everything to keep emerging teams out. And no, saying its a colonial sport doesn't give you the right to not even try to expand the game even when there is clearly great passion for the sport in countries like Nepal, PNG, Afghanistan among others.

And if playing home series against lesser teams really isn't as financially profitable than they can just tour those countries and help them make money, but they rarely even do that.

I could care less how badly England, India and Australia were affected by the pandemic because its nothing compared to what other boards like South Africa had to endure, especially after Australia's 11th hour abandonment of their South African tour.

FWIW I agree with you that the role of the ICC should be to expand the game, and indeed that is how it used to see itself before the advent of T20 cricket and the IPL. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh became test playing nations in the last couple of generations, certainly they benefitted from the broader vision of the ICC at the time. Then it was headed by England and Australia as founder countries, but since the IPL, the BCCI seems to have taken a more prominent role, and I think it's fair to say they are less concerned about the global game. It seems that finance is the biggest factor these days, so those who are not able to punch their weight with the big boys will be at a disadvantage unless they can somehow find a way of creating an alternate arena where their value can be maximised.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The sources for what you're referring to are direct interviews with CWI President Ricky Skerritt and ZCB Chairman Tavengwa Mukuhlani not articles, but thanks for the usual mix of rudeness and condescension.

I agree international cricket cannot exist in the truest sense of the term if teams are not fulfilling fixtures against every other nation, and yes ICC are not fulfilling their duties to the Associates and Affiliates with the non-resumption of the Intercontinental Cup and the limiting of the ODI World Cup to ten teams being two examples.

But to ask any sport to divorce itself from business considerations is naive.

To answer the underlined part, again the boards do not make money from home series except India and when there's large travelling contingents of English fans. That's why I refer to the ICC needing to work out a sustainable financial model for Test cricket which involves cost sharing (which is not reciprocal - CA can cushion the costs of hosting Sri Lanka for example more comfortably than SLC can), minimising production costs by relaxing mandatory broadcasting standards and boosting the ICC Test Match Fund.

However the Inept Cricket Council have failed as a governing body hence why we keep having these endless debates.

Not really. I'm just saying you're not qualified enough to be making judgments on complex financial models you have no knowledge of besides a couple of statements from a few interviews. You would have to be working within those organizations to know everything going on there.

And you're completely wrong when you say that boards do not make money from home series except India. They all do. Some just make more than others because they have lucrative broadcasting deals. Fact is that they all make money from advertising deals. And for a board like Zimbabwe that has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for years a home series against Pakistan can bring in some much-needed money through advertising revenue which is certainly better than not making any money at all.

 

[Last Monetarist]

The hundred in isolation itself is projected to be profit making. Like you say it's the funding the counties have been guaranteed in return to help prop up the domestic FC game (the majority from the profits of the hundred) that drags it down into a projected loss which kind of proves my point?

The point that the counties voted for the Hundred because they were guaranteed a higher payout? Yes, but that higher payout is being propped up by the ECB's other sources (i.e. surplus funds from international cricket).

I remain to be convinced that the Hundred will turn a profit in the first few years (even as a standalone competition) especially if full capacity crowds remain an issue due to the virus. There's definitely a lot of sunk costs that have to be written off due to the postponement last year.

 

[Gayle_Force]

As expected people have singled out one or two points from my post and turned it into a 'revenue' debate eventhough I'm fairly certain that most people here don't know the first thing about the actual costs involved in hosting series and are just writing something they read in an article.

But that wasn't even the central point of my post. One major point was that ICC has a responsibility to expand the game. No matter how bad current circumstances may be, that doesn't change the fact that ICC has done nothing to bring more teams into the fold. If anything they have done everything to keep emerging teams out. And no, saying its a colonial sport doesn't give you the right to not even try to expand the game even when there is clearly great passion for the sport in countries like Nepal, PNG, Afghanistan among others.

And if playing home series against lesser teams really isn't as financially profitable than they can just tour those countries and help them make money, but they rarely even do that.

I could care less how badly England, India and Australia were affected by the pandemic because its nothing compared to what other boards like South Africa had to endure, especially after Australia's 11th hour abandonment of their South African tour.

I realize that cricket needs to expand but I don’t think there is anyway that ‘test cricket’ can expand. It’s time that there is a realization that test cricket is a dying sport and there is really no way it will attract new countries/players towards this format. Focus should be to make a universal shorter format that attracts new countries and realistically provide a chance for them to be somewhat competitive.

I would also say it’s high time existing countries like Westindies, Srilanka, Bangladesh,SouthAfrica and even Pakistan try to focus their resources on one format of cricket and build a competitive team rather than split the already thin resource amongst multiple formats.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I realize that cricket needs to expand but I don’t think there is anyway that ‘test cricket’ can expand. It’s time that there is a realization that test cricket is a dying sport and there is really no way it will attract new countries/players towards this format. Focus should be to make a universal shorter format that attracts new countries and realistically provide a chance for them to be somewhat competitive.

I would also say it’s high time existing countries like Westindies, Srilanka, Bangladesh,SouthAfrica and even Pakistan try to focus their resources on one format of cricket and build a competitive team rather than split the already thin resource amongst multiple formats.

Ahan. And based on what are you saying that? Did you make an effort to expand the game in other countries or generate interest? Or are you, like all the others also operating on a whim? Everyone says test cricket is dying therefore it must be true. When the reality is that practically no one here has access to concrete data that proves that test cricket is 'dying' with little to no viewership in countries other than India, England, Australia.

Nobody is denying that those 3 countries bring in the bulk of viewership. But the way in which people overstate things they have no knowledge of, in unison surprises me.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Ahan. And based on what are you saying that? Did you make an effort to expand the game in other countries or generate interest? Or are you, like all the others also operating on a whim? Everyone says test cricket is dying therefore it must be true. When the reality is that practically no one here has access to concrete data that proves that test cricket is 'dying' with little to no viewership in countries other than India, England, Australia.

Nobody is denying that those 3 countries bring in the bulk of viewership. But the way in which people overstate things they have no knowledge of, in unison surprises me.

You're just trying to be churlish here. Most of the boards publish their financial statements online, and in the case of CA and ECB, provide detailed commentary on financial performance. Unless you're calling their auditors a liar and have got proof to that end, I don't see the real point in shutting down debate.

To clarify, I don't subscribe to the view that test cricket is dying and white ball cricket is flourishing. The existential threat to international cricket applies to every format.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

You're just trying to be churlish here. Most of the boards publish their financial statements online, and in the case of CA and ECB, provide detailed commentary on financial performance. Unless you're calling their auditors a liar and have got proof to that end, I don't see the real point in shutting down debate.

To clarify, I don't subscribe to the view that test cricket is dying and white ball cricket is flourishing. The existential threat to international cricket applies to every format.

Did you bother to read what I wrote because it doesn't seem like you did.

I'm saying people here are vastly overstating the notion that test cricket is only watched in those three countries. Unless there are concrete numbers that show how many people watch test cricket in countries that aren't Australia, England or India its all just hearsay based on educated guesses.

Accusing me of shutting down debate is quite poor on your part. All I am doing is advocating my point of view. It may be forceful and you may not agree with it but I am not shutting down any debate.

 

[Markhor]

Not really. I'm just saying you're not qualified enough to be making judgments on complex financial models you have no knowledge of besides a couple of statements from a few interviews. You would have to be working within those organizations to know everything going on there.

I quoted the people HEADING those organisations. By your logic we should shut down conversation on everything related to cricket administration including this thread because we don't work for the organisations involved.

The only thing we can do is discuss in good faith these matters based on the publicly available information. Also unsure what complex financial models you're on about, you can read the balance sheets published on the websites of the Boards for yourself and see exactly how much it costs to stage an international series.

And you're completely wrong when you say that boards do not make money from home series except India. They all do. Some just make more than others because they have lucrative broadcasting deals.

Perhaps this was lost in translation - by making money I mean making a profit. Cricket boards do not generate enough revenue to cover their expenses to stage a home Test series bar a few exceptions like an India tour or an Ashes series.

Fact is that they all make money from advertising deals.

And is that enough to cover the home board's costs to stage a Test series ?

If you weren't so bent on picking an argument, you'd realise I AGREED with what's a well intentioned thread with a premise I support but to demand us to divorce revenue and business considerations from the subject of unfair international scheduling and the ICC's global mission is like asking to discuss war without the combat.

 

[Gayle_Force]

Ahan. And based on what are you saying that? Did you make an effort to expand the game in other countries or generate interest? Or are you, like all the others also operating on a whim? Everyone says test cricket is dying therefore it must be true. When the reality is that practically no one here has access to concrete data that proves that test cricket is 'dying' with little to no viewership in countries other than India, England, Australia.

Nobody is denying that those 3 countries bring in the bulk of viewership. But the way in which people overstate things they have no knowledge of, in unison surprises me.

No disrespect but really doesn’t need a genius to figure it out. Can you tell me what features of test cricket would attract a new player towards this format? It’s expensive, time consuming and really not lucrative compared to other formats.

In India, Australia, and England there is a historical significance and rivalries that keeps this format alive but for other nations that’s not really so much the case.

A genuine question, how many people would sit through a 5 day test match between Pak and WI? My bet is that it will only be those that have an historical attachment with Test Cricket.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Did you bother to read what I wrote because it doesn't seem like you did.

I'm saying people here are vastly overstating the notion that test cricket is only watched in those three countries. Unless there are concrete numbers that show how many people watch test cricket in countries that aren't Australia, England or India its all just hearsay based on educated guesses.

Accusing me of shutting down debate is quite poor on your part. All I am doing is advocating my point of view. It may be forceful and you may not agree with it but I am not shutting down any debate.

The idea that people should be insiders within cricket administration to be able to comment on the game's finances is akin to demanding that only ex-cricketers should be allowed an opinion on how it is played. It's a reasonable interpretation that you were trying to shut down debate.

I totally respect your opinion, which is well-intentioned and something that I broadly agree with as well. However, as I stated earlier, anyone can access the public financial statements of most cricket boards around the world and assess the long-term health of the sport. It's bad form to accuse other posters of making up stuff on hearsay and assumptions found on the back of a fag packet.

 

[Itachi]

So big 3 has the responsibility of betterment of cricket, responsibility towards smaller nation etc etc....

Then why the heck ICC is needed? What is their role?

 

[HitWicket]

The point that the counties voted for the Hundred because they were guaranteed a higher payout? Yes, but that higher payout is being propped up by the ECB's other sources (i.e. surplus funds from international cricket).

I remain to be convinced that the Hundred will turn a profit in the first few years (even as a standalone competition) especially if full capacity crowds remain an issue due to the virus. There's definitely a lot of sunk costs that have to be written off due to the postponement last year.

Half of the payout to the counties (that they wouldn't be getting if the hundred wasn't formed) is still coming from the projected hundred profits though.

Also it looks likely there'll be full crowds in well before the start of the hundred. Added to that the ECB were insured against the pandemic for ticket sales last summer, whether that insurance covered this summer as well I don't know.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I quoted the people HEADING those organisations. By your logic we should shut down conversation on everything related to cricket administration including this thread because we don't work for the organisations involved.

The only thing we can do is discuss in good faith these matters based on the publicly available information. Also unsure what complex financial models you're on about, you can read the balance sheets published on the websites of the Boards for yourself and see exactly how much it costs to stage an international series.

Perhaps this was lost in translation - by making money I mean making a profit. Cricket boards do not generate enough revenue to cover their expenses to stage a home Test series bar a few exceptions like an India tour or an Ashes series.


And is that enough to cover the home board's costs to stage a Test series ?

If you weren't so bent on picking an argument, you'd realise I AGREED with what's a well intentioned thread with a premise I support but to demand us to divorce revenue and business considerations from the subject of unfair international scheduling and the ICC's global mission is like asking to discuss war without the combat.

I wasn't bent on picking an argument, you were the one who quoted my reply automatically assuming it was directed at you when it was a general response to what alot of people were saying.

Well why don't you quote some of those numbers and prove me wrong then? Instead of talking in vague terms and insinuating that all the other boards are somehow on equal footing? And are you really going to tell me that a board like Zimababwe Cricket is better off not hosting any cricket at all rather than trying to make whatever money it can by hosting home series?

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

No disrespect but really doesn’t need a genius to figure it out. Can you tell me what features of test cricket would attract a new player towards this format? It’s expensive, time consuming and really not lucrative compared to other formats.

In India, Australia, and England there is a historical significance and rivalries that keeps this format alive but for other nations that’s not really so much the case.

A genuine question, how many people would sit through a 5 day test match between Pak and WI? My bet is that it will only be those that have an historical attachment with Test Cricket.

I don't know, seeing as I don't actually have any access to concrete viewership numbers that would make me say something like this. Nor have I conducted a survey of people's homes to find out how many of them would be interested in watching Pakistan play West Indies in a test series.

Which is why it would be fairly ridiculous if I presented an opinion or a perception I had, as a fact.

 

[Titan24]

Interesting topic and I also had a bird eye view of the Forbes article you referred to.

Just recently in franchise/club football I guess there was a case of European Football League (EFL) which for now has been debunked due to the opposition from different corners and maybe other structural issues. The idea was pretty much the same that certain elite clubs with high fan following will generate more money than leagues which have lower ranked and less attractive teams as well. However, them not being national teams and rather club they were openly opting for it unlike the "big 3" countries in cricket which they show in terms of their action but cricket supposedly still includes everybody on the face value.

No match in every sport is going to create same amount of interest, revenue or following but, that doesnt mean that other "International" sporting bodies or the big teams in those sports are allowed to completely alienate other lower ranked teams. Even in commercial leagues, lower ranked teams are still respected and are treated equally in terms of the fixtures. Yes the fixtures of lower ranked teams even in franchise leagues dont individually create as much of revenue as supposedly the top 2 teams but, still the whole league carries on treating everybody equally in the model in terms of fixtures as well as revenue incase it is shared.

Franchise cricket can be used to make as much revenue as the administrators possibly can but, international cricket needs to be treated like international sport where the financial aspect cant be ignored but there needs to be a better balance in terms of how much cricket and against which countries other teams are getting.

So ICC and Big 3 are not supposed to treat an international sport like franchise cricket. There are many numerous ways that even other international sports can make more money but, the priority of sporting bodies is to run it in a way an international sport is supposed to be run.

As I have maintained previously as well that ICC is one of the most unprofessional sporting bodies of the world as these are the kind of things which the sporting bodies are supposed to regularize and to create that particular balance in any sport.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The idea that people should be insiders within cricket administration to be able to comment on the game's finances is akin to demanding that only ex-cricketers should be allowed an opinion on how it is played. It's a reasonable interpretation that you were trying to shut down debate.

I totally respect your opinion, which is well-intentioned and something that I broadly agree with as well. However, as I stated earlier, anyone can access the public financial statements of most cricket boards around the world and assess the long-term health of the sport. It's bad form to accuse other posters of making up stuff on hearsay and assumptions found on the back of a fag packet.

OP never bothered to quote any financial figures and was arguing on the basis of a couple of statements made in a couple of interviews which is quite ridiculous. I welcome people to quote financial figures and prove me wrong but fact of the matter is that most people on this thread don't have any idea of what they are talking about and are simply echoing the majority view. It obviously goes without saying that they are welcome to do so, but I too am welcome to point that out.

And fact of the matter is that even financial statements do not give you the entire picture. For instance, every board has different value for broadcasting rights. So low numbers on the balance sheet don't necessarily mean that very few people are watching cricket.

Well you're welcome to think what you want to think but I don't think it was a reasonable interpretation in any way whatsoever.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Interesting topic and I also had a bird eye view of the Forbes article you referred to.

Just recently in franchise/club football I guess there was a case of European Football League (EFL) which for now has been debunked due to the opposition from different corners and maybe other structural issues. The idea was pretty much the same that certain elite clubs with high fan following will generate more money than leagues which have lower ranked and less attractive teams as well. However, them not being national teams and rather club they were openly opting for it unlike the "big 3" countries in cricket which they show in terms of their action but cricket supposedly still includes everybody on the face value.

No match in every sport is going to create same amount of interest, revenue or following but, that doesnt mean that other "International" sporting bodies or the big teams in those sports are allowed to completely alienate other lower ranked teams. Even in commercial leagues, lower ranked teams are still respected and are treated equally in terms of the fixtures. Yes the fixtures of lower ranked teams even in franchise leagues dont individually create as much of revenue as supposedly the top 2 teams but, still the whole league carries on treating everybody equally in the model in terms of fixtures as well as revenue incase it is shared.

Franchise cricket can be used to make as much revenue as the administrators possibly can but, international cricket needs to be treated like international sport where the financial aspect cant be ignored but there needs to be a better balance in terms of how much cricket and against which countries other teams are getting.

So ICC and Big 3 are not supposed to treat an international sport like franchise cricket. There are many numerous ways that even other international sports can make more money but, the priority of sporting bodies is to run it in a way an international sport is supposed to be run.

As I have maintained previously as well that ICC is one of the most unprofessional sporting bodies of the world as these are the kind of things which the sporting bodies are supposed to regularize and to create that particular balance in any sport.

Thank you. I'm glad someone actually bothered to read the article.

Many people on this thread have been arguing from the stand-point that Big 3 has been backed into a corner and has no choice but to peruse these predatory tactics and policies, which couldn't be further from the truth. They have many options that they just choose not to explore because they are only looking out for themselves.

The IPL is already talked about in comparison to the biggest sports leagues in the world in terms of broadcasting rights. The Hundred has a high probability of being highly successful and if CA pay more attention to the BBL than they can turn it into an even bigger cash-cow than it already is. But clearly that isn't what this is about. Its about turning international cricket into a cash-cow too because greed has no end.

 

[Last Monetarist]

And fact of the matter is that even financial statements do not give you the entire picture. For instance, every board has different value for broadcasting rights. So low numbers on the balance sheet don't necessarily mean that very few people are watching cricket.

I'm not qualified to answer on tv ratings as these aren't typically published outside the UK and Australia. The only thing that I have been stressing is that the game's financial model is broken and needs to change drastically for the game to develop outside the Big 3 countries. As much as anyone detests the idea, professional sport cannot survive if the numbers don't add up.

The ideas in the OP are broadly correct that the Big 3 need to stop acting like wanton crooks and start thinking about the wider future of the game. However, that equitable treatment can only happen if bilateral cricket is structured on a revenue sharing model and broadcasting contracts are re-jigged to ensure that the value of an individual board's tv rights deal isn't solely linked to the incidence of an Indian tour. It's a difficult fix, but it'll need to happen eventually for international cricket to survive. I'm not sure there's the political will (even among the smaller countries) to achieve it though.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I'm not qualified to answer on tv ratings as these aren't typically published outside the UK and Australia. The only thing that I have been stressing is that the game's financial model is broken and needs to change drastically for the game to develop outside the Big 3 countries. As much as anyone detests the idea, professional sport cannot survive if the numbers don't add up.

The ideas in the OP are broadly correct that the Big 3 need to stop acting like wanton crooks and start thinking about the wider future of the game. However, that equitable treatment can only happen if bilateral cricket is structured on a revenue sharing model and broadcasting contracts are re-jigged to ensure that the value of an individual board's tv rights deal isn't solely linked to the incidence of an Indian tour. It's a difficult fix, but it'll need to happen eventually for international cricket to survive. I'm not sure there's the political will (even among the smaller countries) to achieve it though.

Yeah I agree. I never disagreed with any of that. My entire view is that eventhough the system is broken and fixes are needed especially for the others; it isn't as bad for the Big 3 as we are led to believe. The potential for them to make money from franchise is immense, so much so that they can use some of that money to make international cricket more equitable or help out others. But they just won't eventhougb it is their responsibility, which is highly condemnable and my biggest gripe.

That ofcourse doesn't mean boards shouldn't try to adopt the measures you proposed which sound quite logical. My feeling its a case of both lack of political will, as you mentioned and that may of them are all hoping that franchise cricket will pay them greater dividends in the future which they can then use to off-set the losses from other areas. But I don't see that happening for most boards.

 

[Hasan123]

Mismanagement does not change the financial realities of staging Test cricket. Again, it costs around a $1m to host a Test complying with international broadcasting requirements - whether you are a well or poorly managed board.

Now if you make a paltry $15m a year from TV rights like CWI - after paying your players, marketing costs, accomodation, production costs etc - how much money is left to stage Test cricket ?

The ICC or touring teams aren't required to share the costs. Then when you tour overseas you don't earn a penny as the home board keeps all the revenues.

Does mismanagement exist ? Of course, but it doesn't tell the whole story. No business in the real world will willingly make themselves bankrupt. So ICC must sit down and work out a sustainable financial model for Test cricket - that's why I say relax the minimum broadcasting requirements, waive the five star hotel requirement, introduce cost sharing etc.

So ICC need to sort out test cricket and distribution. Ain't the big 3s fault that ICC can't be bothered to do anything about test cricket. But let's not act like none big 3 boards care about test cricket and care about spreading the game.

 

[Rana]

Only the big 3 play the best quality of cricket when they play each other. Only Big 3 Cricket should Count as international cricket, the rest shouldn’t I’m afraid.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

IPL can make there own stars with international cricketers. Thats how nobody's like Rashid Khan made there name. The brand of IPL is so huge that it gets people valuing unknown stars.

There you go again. IPL can make their own stars lol.

IPL depends on International stars. Without them it will be just another challenger trophy type tournament. Some people rate IPL too much. In reality it is a low quality and good for nothing tournament where money is the only focus.

 

[Gayle_Force]

I don't know, seeing as I don't actually have any access to concrete viewership numbers that would make me say something like this. Nor have I conducted a survey of people's homes to find out how many of them would be interested in watching Pakistan play West Indies in a test series.

Which is why it would be fairly ridiculous if I presented an opinion or a perception I had, as a fact.

But you are in the OP? You clearly say that the Big 3 are being greedy and not wanting to share revenue because they make so much money and they are running this like a business instead of a sport. You are presenting these statements as facts without actually showing any numbers or how profitable these boards actually are. It could very well be that these boards, especially England and Australia might be running on thin margins themselves.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

But you are in the OP? You clearly say that the Big 3 are being greedy and not wanting to share revenue because they make so much money and they are running this like a business instead of a sport. You are presenting these statements as facts without actually showing any numbers or how profitable these boards actually are. It could very well be that these boards, especially England and Australia might be running on thin margins themselves.

Here you go:

https://www.financialexpress.com/op...tenniss-book-to-maintain-equilibrium/1939689/

https://www.crictracker.com/new-tale-old-saga-the-big-three-hegemony/

https://www.sacricketmag.com/big-three-stole-cricket-2/

When you're done reading these and looking at the concrete revenue numbers please do take the time to present some viewership numbers to me. An article or two would suffice aswell.

 

[Gayle_Force]

Here you go:

https://www.financialexpress.com/op...tenniss-book-to-maintain-equilibrium/1939689/

https://www.crictracker.com/new-tale-old-saga-the-big-three-hegemony/

https://www.sacricketmag.com/big-three-stole-cricket-2/

When you're done reading these and looking at the concrete revenue numbers please do take the time to present some viewership numbers to me. An article or two would suffice aswell.

None of the three(poorly sourced) articles you have provided show that the Big 3 are heavily profitable. In fact, one of your own listed articles clearly mentioned that Eng and Aus were forced into this to maintain their own survival.

 

[Gilly]

So whats the plan here gentlemen, take away all the earnings from the countries that are running successful competition and give it to countries that cannot build on it. If Australia had a five test series against Ireland (home or away) it would not attract any TV rights and would be played in empty stadiums.

So we destroy the only money making series and put all the money into series that will lose money so now we have no money being made and series after series of losses and this will make cricket stronger.

Who come up with this ingenious plan.

If cricket is going to grow then you need successful teams.

 

[Rana]

I don't see league cricket survive anywhere outside the subcontinent.

Also to fans in England cricket is basically the Ashes, you take that away and cricket will finish in England. Aus is very proud of their NATIONAL team and care more about their team rather than any individual players. Take away internationals and cricket popularity will finish in Australia.

Take away international cricket from NZ and SA, cricket will not exist even on the domestic level. Rugby satiates their sporting needs.

Cricket is just not a popular enough sport to be played "domestically" in these countries. Even if it is a T20 format. Cricket will however survive in the subcontinent because this is basically the only sport we are good at lol.

No chance. Test cricket has a massive audience in England. England v Bangladesh would also draw 85%+ capacity on most days if Bangladesh are ever invited. People could care less about the match itself and enjoy the social aspect of the game.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

As an Indian I feel absolutely awful that BCCI does not do more, to improve cricket in other neighbouring smaller nations. Also that we are bracketed as 'big 3' .
I did hear recently that we helped cricket Nepal with financial aid. But off course, this will never be mentioned, acknowledged or praised....ye perception ke baat hai-will never change.
If the BCCI has the financial clout, I wish they'd be more responsible with this. I wish we'd earn the respect with our deeds rather than the amount of money.
I am not a huge fan of BCCI at all. I get it that the BCCI was pushed around a lot till about the 2000's but surely we should not be doing the same, or possibly what we are doing is perceived to be the same by the others.
That said, I also feel the BCCI gets a lot of unwanted flak for all there is ill and bad in international cricket.
For starters, the BCCI is not to blame for your country's ranking on the ICC ladder. Nor for any other country's ranking. And regarding the DRS and the umps call, hawk eye reliability-they bcci got unwated flak from 2008 onwards when they system still is not perfect. Yes, where they could improve is communication and telling exactly where they felt the system was not perfect.
Unfortunately, communication and transparency were never the forte of the bcci.
The one thing that people who keep harping around about BCCI, big 3 etc - did anyone bother to see the amount of innovation, effort, ingenuity, sheer hard work and determination that we put, to get to where we are or the mythical 'big 3'? And we got there by our own efforts, not by conquering or invading someone else or taking what was not ours....
Have you asked whats stopping you from doing the same? After all, BCCI was not part of the 'mythical big 3' not part ago....plz analyse how did they become stronger ....instead of just pouring the blind vitriol and blaming BCCI for all that's wrong in cricket.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

None of the three(poorly sourced) articles you have provided show that the Big 3 are heavily profitable. In fact, one of your own listed articles clearly mentioned that Eng and Aus were forced into this to maintain their own survival.

If you can't even read than than really that's not my problem.

Also, which one is it? Are they poorly sourced articles or are they credible articles? Because you can't call something poorly sourced and than cherry pick one line from them that suits you argument.

And atleast I have something to back my argument unlike whatever arrow you're shooting in the wind on viewership, backed by absolutely nothing.

 

[Gayle_Force]

If you can't even read than than really that's not my problem.

Also, which one is it? Are they poorly sourced articles or are they credible articles? Because you can't call something poorly sourced and than cherry pick one line from them that suits you argument.

And atleast I have something to back my argument unlike whatever arrow you're shooting in the wind on viewership, backed by absolutely nothing.

I don’t want to argue just for the sake of it and certainly don’t want to google search to try and find sources like crictracker.com?? to back my claims after I have made them. (Again, your sources did not show that these boards are making a lot of money, they just provided a revenue figure without really diving into the expenses).

I, like you and most others on this forum, am making my statements based on educated guess, largely based on watching the game for multiple decades. You don’t have to agree with me and I am ok with that.

Viewership numbers are not really publicly shared, so no point finding random articles just to prove my point. However, I have seen enough test matches with empty stands(pre-Covid) to see the declining level of interest overtime especially when a test match does not involve India (or the top 3/4 teams playing against each other).

 

[U$ofA]

So whats the plan here gentlemen, take away all the earnings from the countries that are running successful competition and give it to countries that cannot build on it. If Australia had a five test series against Ireland (home or away) it would not attract any TV rights and would be played in empty stadiums.

So we destroy the only money making series and put all the money into series that will lose money so now we have no money being made and series after series of losses and this will make cricket stronger.

Who come up with this ingenious plan.

If cricket is going to grow then you need successful teams.

In a lot of test playing nations, test cricket has been in a pandemic state for a while. No one in the stadium. So there is no difference between Pre-Covid and now!

 

[Gilly]

In a lot of test playing nations, test cricket has been in a pandemic state for a while. No one in the stadium. So there is no difference between Pre-Covid and now!

Giving money to the boards of these nations is not going to bring in crowds and or bring in bigger TV rights. Money does not make a country successful.

If countries want to have the same success as the big three then they need to have a grassroots level interest in the game. They have to build a successful domestic system that can provide the quality of cricket needed for international cricket. The big three only become rich because of decades of development, here are no shortcuts to being a strong cricket nation, you cant just hand over millions of dollars and think that will mean people will come to watch cricket.

 

[OMB]

Cricket is being played in grassroots level in most test playing nations. It is just that the financial acumen of these boards are poor due to various reasons that is why the grassroots are drying.

Interference from Government, mismanagement of funds by boards, Political appointees at crucial coach and selectors level, General lack of market growth (sponsors, TV rights, advertisers etc). All of them are solvable only if the appointed board members find a way out and bring money in somehow. Maybe corporates should run the board and not the government.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Cricket is being played in grassroots level in most test playing nations. It is just that the financial acumen of these boards are poor due to various reasons that is why the grassroots are drying.

Interference from Government, mismanagement of funds by boards, Political appointees at crucial coach and selectors level, General lack of market growth (sponsors, TV rights, advertisers etc). All of them are solvable only if the appointed board members find a way out and bring money in somehow. Maybe corporates should run the board and not the government.

Exactly. This isn't a bad idea at all.

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

It's the most useless sport in international arena.

It's called *international" but nothing to suggest that it's really INTERNATIONAL.

It's just a sport played by few colonisers and few colonised third world countries

The only thing which is keeping cricket alive is BCCI. That too because of its population.

 

[someone21]

The problem is other than WCs, it's always exhibition matches (tours). Senseless matches, no actual trophy, and players playing for their averages, stats.

Thus, when international cricket is majority based on "exhibition matches", it makes absolute sense to go with financial and marketing reasons for the schedule.

 

[Bhaijaan]

International cricket sucks today because of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and South Africa and Big 3 have nothing to do with it.

All of these nations have declined considerably compared to where they were back in the 1990s.

Cricket went from being an 8 nation competitive sport in the 1990s to a 4 nation competitive sport in the 2020s.

Don't intend to hurt anyone but Big 3, and then NZ, RSA is all the relevant cricket left to me now. Everything else is just there but I cannot bother to know about it. It's just so irrelevant now in the grand scheme of things.

Onus is on these 4 nations + Bangladesh, Ireland etc to spend more on their cricket infra and become a lot more.competitive on a regular basis otherwise threads like these will continue to serve for whoever wants to cry and moan about why the Big 3 don't think of them no more.

 

[U$ofA]

Giving money to the boards of these nations is not going to bring in crowds and or bring in bigger TV rights. Money does not make a country successful.

If countries want to have the same success as the big three then they need to have a grassroots level interest in the game. They have to build a successful domestic system that can provide the quality of cricket needed for international cricket. The big three only become rich because of decades of development, here are no shortcuts to being a strong cricket nation, you cant just hand over millions of dollars and think that will mean people will come to watch cricket.

Especially free money.

Just giving money is never good. It will more than likely be squandered. Will just disappear. Because the ones receiving it did not work for it.

 

[OMB]

We all agree that Big three should do more to support cricket in other countries and make this game grow internationally.

HOW? rather than why?
How do you propose big three do it?


1) Spread money around - will fail as it will make the other boards more relaxed and will set a bad precedent of lack of self reliance.

2) Stages matches and share media revenue - Yes. Although who would be interested in watching Aus-Ireland or India-Zim matches? How does revenue get realised?

3) IPL - the much maligned Pyjama league to be embraced more? Lets have a bigger IPL window and make it mandatory to have two overseas player from associates in every team.
It sounds impractical to me as this is a bit like expecting social service from franchisee who are already struggling with budget to buy crucial players. None of the associates (Rashid Khan or some being exception) are in demand.
Similar rule in other T20 leagues will have similar challanges.

4) Big three donate to ICC and make infrastructure ready in other parts of the world? - This partially looks at coaching camps and stadiums.

5) Privatise cricket boards in other countries - make it into corporation. leave the regulation to government and the operations to the corporations. This is something outside the power of ICC or big three.

6) Restrict bilaterals and have World test Championships with leagues matches and eliminators. This will ensure test match experience to all teams.

add your own ideas with a view to contributing positively.

 

[U$ofA]

To add to post #79:

I would say that the Big3 and ICC create a fund and an oversight committee to help the likes of CWI, SLC, Zim. Help create a path to self sufficiency.

The Big3/ICC committee should reach out to the struggling boards and help them come up with 5-7 year plan towards self sufficiency.

They should give them the money to get the ball rolling and carry out the plan. At end of one year, the committee goes and audits the progress made and help them tweak things if needed and give them more funds.

Do the same at the end of third and fifth years. If by the end of the fifth year if the board shows progress the committee extends their administrative and $$$ support one year at a time for years six and seven.

So by seven years the board should be fully self sufficient.

If they are not, then no point in keep giving them money.