- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,981
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t20-leag...c8sdb?shareToken=42b8e015cf0c718c2cbfb2d85790
It seemed an odd time and place to launch a new competition. A day after the end of the Champions Trophy, and two days before the start of the second leg of this summer’s internationals, Cricket South Africa launched its new franchised T20 league in London. The two England contracted players who are marquee names for it, Eoin Morgan and Jason Roy, were not allowed to attend.
Finding a day to squeeze in a suitably glitzy launch with enough star quality could be seen as symptomatic of the cricket calendar itself, so crammed is it. Still, maybe Haroon Lorgat, the chief executive of CSA, saw London as an entirely appropriate place for a launch, given the name of his organisation’s new competition is the T20 Global League, as opposed to anything parochially South African.
The eight franchises certainly had a global feel. South African businessmen bought two; the rest went elsewhere. Shah Rukh Khan, the Bollywood actor-cum-business mogul, who already owns one team in the Indian Premier League and one in the Caribbean Premier League, continued to expand his cricketing empire by purchasing Cape Town, the most sought-after franchise. The holding company of the Delhi Daredevils bought another. Two owners from the Pakistan Super League got in on the act, as did businessmen from Hong Kong and Dubai.
That there is a parallel system within cricket is not news. The juxtaposition of the just-concluded Champions Trophy and the start of the T20 series against South Africa, with the launch of the new T20 Global neatly encapsulated that. It is perhaps cricket’s greatest challenge: as Brendon McCullum, the former New Zealand captain, said during the launch: “All of us are unashamed T20 mercenaries, now.” The players will go where the opportunities present themselves, which may not always be where administrators would like. But there is also a parallel universe within the domestic T20 competitions — which, taken together, will take up much of the year — that is worth exploring. Essentially, there are two distinct ownership structures: in India, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Caribbean, private money fuels the franchises (although, with the exception of the Caribbean, ultimate ownership of the competition rests with the governing body).
In Australia (the Big Bash League), and eventually in England (yet to be named, but scheduled to start in 2020), the governing body owns the competition in its entirety. When the new T20 gets under way here, the ECB will own the new teams, the ticketing, the marketing, the television revenues and, crucially, the data, which will allow them to have a much more direct relationship with their “customers”.
In asking the question about private or public ownership, it might be said that cricket is attuned to the big political questions of the moment. Initially, Australia thought about private ownership for its franchises and, whether through a lack of interest or second thoughts, they moved away from that. The ECB, surely aware that they would not get the new competition voted through were private money enlisted, never entertained the idea. Although there are attractions of having private investors involved, I think competitions such as in England and Australia that are owned for the greater good with profits channelled back into the game, have the better model.
There are some advantages to encouraging private investment: initial revenue comes with little risk to the governing body; the ready supply of money allows for speed and nimbleness in setting things up, and allows for more rapid expansion, whereas the ECB, trying to innovate within the established boundaries, is still two-and-a-half years away from launch. Lorgat was quick to appreciate the advantages for his South African league during the launch, when he outlined the “extracurricular” responsibilities that the franchise owners in South Africa will be forced to buy into. All will have to set up hubs in disadvantaged areas, so helping to promote the game at grassroots level.
Yet there are potential disadvantages, too. A cautionary tale is sitting in splendid isolation in London right now, facing a second extradition request from India, mulling over just how quickly fortunes can change. Vijay Mallya, the self-styled “King of Good Times”, has fallen on hard times, as the banks chase him for debts owed and the courts for alleged fraud linked to the collapse of his airline in 2012, both of which he denies.
Mallya was one of a clutch of wealthy individuals who jumped at the chance to get into cricket. His modus operandi is similar to other flamboyant businessmen who are, from time to time, deliberately outrageous and provocative to bring attention to the brand. And nothing grabs the attention more easily in India than an alliance with cricket.
But since the collapse of his Kingfisher airline, Mallya has become the unacceptable face of capitalism, since his penchant for promoting his brand through his own lavish lifestyle jarred at a time when his employees were not being paid.
Mallya’s involvement with cricket was not limited to India. He also bought the Barbados franchise in the Caribbean Premier League and because he has been trying to distance himself from criticisms of his lifestyle, the nature of that deal was made apparent about a year ago. Private ownership may not always be what it seems.
Emphasising how little of his own money he used, he was quoted as saying: “I went to the Barbados government saying I need government support. I met the prime minister and the government agreed to support but I paid only $100 [now about £77] to buy the team. Running the team will cost about $2 million but the government is granting subsidies to the franchise.” Potential for private profit with public money in other words.
There are other reasons why cricket should be wary of private ownership. First, international cricket will come under greater threat. Private ownership is likely to drive up the cost of doing business, ramping up the bids necessary to attract players as a result, so increasing the disparity in pay between T20 and Tests.
It is not difficult to draw a comparison between, say, what Shah Rukh Khan is trying to do in cricket, and what others are doing in football, building brands in a single sport that cross national boundaries and continents. As a result, it may be very difficult to scale down the ambitions of owners who are motivated by profit margins, and therefore are likely to want to expand their competitions, putting them at odds with the rest of the cricket calendar. This will increase the likelihood of a fallout between players and boards.
The ECB has struggled long and hard to get its new T20 competition off the ground, and the Big Bash is said to be running at a loss (recent figures put losses at about £19.4 million over the first five years) but nevertheless these governing bodies have an element of control that can only be beneficial in the long run. Any profits can be channelled back into the game itself, so nurturing the stars of the future.
It seemed an odd time and place to launch a new competition. A day after the end of the Champions Trophy, and two days before the start of the second leg of this summer’s internationals, Cricket South Africa launched its new franchised T20 league in London. The two England contracted players who are marquee names for it, Eoin Morgan and Jason Roy, were not allowed to attend.
Finding a day to squeeze in a suitably glitzy launch with enough star quality could be seen as symptomatic of the cricket calendar itself, so crammed is it. Still, maybe Haroon Lorgat, the chief executive of CSA, saw London as an entirely appropriate place for a launch, given the name of his organisation’s new competition is the T20 Global League, as opposed to anything parochially South African.
The eight franchises certainly had a global feel. South African businessmen bought two; the rest went elsewhere. Shah Rukh Khan, the Bollywood actor-cum-business mogul, who already owns one team in the Indian Premier League and one in the Caribbean Premier League, continued to expand his cricketing empire by purchasing Cape Town, the most sought-after franchise. The holding company of the Delhi Daredevils bought another. Two owners from the Pakistan Super League got in on the act, as did businessmen from Hong Kong and Dubai.
That there is a parallel system within cricket is not news. The juxtaposition of the just-concluded Champions Trophy and the start of the T20 series against South Africa, with the launch of the new T20 Global neatly encapsulated that. It is perhaps cricket’s greatest challenge: as Brendon McCullum, the former New Zealand captain, said during the launch: “All of us are unashamed T20 mercenaries, now.” The players will go where the opportunities present themselves, which may not always be where administrators would like. But there is also a parallel universe within the domestic T20 competitions — which, taken together, will take up much of the year — that is worth exploring. Essentially, there are two distinct ownership structures: in India, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Caribbean, private money fuels the franchises (although, with the exception of the Caribbean, ultimate ownership of the competition rests with the governing body).
In Australia (the Big Bash League), and eventually in England (yet to be named, but scheduled to start in 2020), the governing body owns the competition in its entirety. When the new T20 gets under way here, the ECB will own the new teams, the ticketing, the marketing, the television revenues and, crucially, the data, which will allow them to have a much more direct relationship with their “customers”.
In asking the question about private or public ownership, it might be said that cricket is attuned to the big political questions of the moment. Initially, Australia thought about private ownership for its franchises and, whether through a lack of interest or second thoughts, they moved away from that. The ECB, surely aware that they would not get the new competition voted through were private money enlisted, never entertained the idea. Although there are attractions of having private investors involved, I think competitions such as in England and Australia that are owned for the greater good with profits channelled back into the game, have the better model.
There are some advantages to encouraging private investment: initial revenue comes with little risk to the governing body; the ready supply of money allows for speed and nimbleness in setting things up, and allows for more rapid expansion, whereas the ECB, trying to innovate within the established boundaries, is still two-and-a-half years away from launch. Lorgat was quick to appreciate the advantages for his South African league during the launch, when he outlined the “extracurricular” responsibilities that the franchise owners in South Africa will be forced to buy into. All will have to set up hubs in disadvantaged areas, so helping to promote the game at grassroots level.
Yet there are potential disadvantages, too. A cautionary tale is sitting in splendid isolation in London right now, facing a second extradition request from India, mulling over just how quickly fortunes can change. Vijay Mallya, the self-styled “King of Good Times”, has fallen on hard times, as the banks chase him for debts owed and the courts for alleged fraud linked to the collapse of his airline in 2012, both of which he denies.
Mallya was one of a clutch of wealthy individuals who jumped at the chance to get into cricket. His modus operandi is similar to other flamboyant businessmen who are, from time to time, deliberately outrageous and provocative to bring attention to the brand. And nothing grabs the attention more easily in India than an alliance with cricket.
But since the collapse of his Kingfisher airline, Mallya has become the unacceptable face of capitalism, since his penchant for promoting his brand through his own lavish lifestyle jarred at a time when his employees were not being paid.
Mallya’s involvement with cricket was not limited to India. He also bought the Barbados franchise in the Caribbean Premier League and because he has been trying to distance himself from criticisms of his lifestyle, the nature of that deal was made apparent about a year ago. Private ownership may not always be what it seems.
Emphasising how little of his own money he used, he was quoted as saying: “I went to the Barbados government saying I need government support. I met the prime minister and the government agreed to support but I paid only $100 [now about £77] to buy the team. Running the team will cost about $2 million but the government is granting subsidies to the franchise.” Potential for private profit with public money in other words.
There are other reasons why cricket should be wary of private ownership. First, international cricket will come under greater threat. Private ownership is likely to drive up the cost of doing business, ramping up the bids necessary to attract players as a result, so increasing the disparity in pay between T20 and Tests.
It is not difficult to draw a comparison between, say, what Shah Rukh Khan is trying to do in cricket, and what others are doing in football, building brands in a single sport that cross national boundaries and continents. As a result, it may be very difficult to scale down the ambitions of owners who are motivated by profit margins, and therefore are likely to want to expand their competitions, putting them at odds with the rest of the cricket calendar. This will increase the likelihood of a fallout between players and boards.
The ECB has struggled long and hard to get its new T20 competition off the ground, and the Big Bash is said to be running at a loss (recent figures put losses at about £19.4 million over the first five years) but nevertheless these governing bodies have an element of control that can only be beneficial in the long run. Any profits can be channelled back into the game itself, so nurturing the stars of the future.
Last edited:
