Why the current T20 franchise based model is unsustainable and what do do about it!

[msb314]

Lets face it - the current T20 franchised based model utilized by PSL, IPl, CPL, BPL etc. is unsustainable in the long run and will fail to generate interest beyond local T20 purist fans.

For one - these T20 leagues are far too short and it is hard to develop team bonding, strategy, tactical changes when you only play for a month - this is exacerbated by the fact that many players come and go due to international duty. The season's are far too short to watch a team develop over the course of a season. On top of that - there are far too many mercenaries which jump ship from team to team and league to league for money. I simply do not develop any attachment towards any player who will jump ship to another team in a different uniform as soon as the season is over - complete lack of respect for the badge and shirt they wear. The main reason however is that international cricket is by far the most prestigious form of the game and is the ultimate capstone for any aspiring cricketer - to don the national jersey. Franchised based T20 teams simply cannot match the nationalistic pride that has existed for more than 60 years.

However - all is not lost for these T20 leagues as discussed further.

For a starter - we must move away from the franchised based model for these leagues and establish them as legitimate clubs just like EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga etc. This is to establish their roots as a long term entity and to prevent relocation of franchises which completely and utterly destroys team loyalty and fan support - it is the worst thing for a fan to watch their team get defunct or relocated like the Deccan Chargers or the Kerala Tuskers.

Every countries league must establish a minimum of 8 teams per league - preferably more. The talent pool may be stretched thin but that is completely acceptable to me if younger players are developing and getting constant chances to prove themselves (they will also have LOYALTY towards the teams that developed them). A format of home and away games between each team should be encouraged and with 8 teams or more - the league will be sufficiently long to maintain interest.

Now the most important part is to establish a specific T20 league window for about 6 months where every countries T20 leagues will be in action. The remaining 6 months should be used for ICC tournaments, bilateral series, domestic cricket etc. This should be done to prevent international duty and T20 league cricket from interfering with each other and teams should play on weekends like most other sports with training sessions on weekdays or friendlies if they desire. It is desirable to stretch the season out and maintain longer period of time to develop a team and squad. The t20 players should be encouraged to reside in the local cities where their team has their home ground.

ICC MUST mandate the players can only play for ONE team per season. This is vital to encourage player loyalty and attachment. If Mumbai Indians wants to buy Afridi from Zalmi at the end of a season- they must buyout his contract like other sports teams do and pay a transfer fee. If a players contract expires - he is eligible to be purchased at any time during the season as long as contract terms are agreed upon with the player.

Finally, the Champions League T20 cricket must be restarted and done PROPERLY this time. That means the 4 highest placed teams in each league should qualify for the Champions League. Hence 4 x 8 Full Members = 32 teams for the CL. They should play a format similar to the Uefa Champions League with 8 groups of 4 teams with the top 2 teams from each group qualifying for the knockout stage. The KO stage should be played on a home and away basis with NRR over the 2 legs deciding who should progress if both teams win a game a piece and the final should be in a neural venue. The home and away format is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or otherwise playing in a random country is a recipe for disaster as fans will simply be uninterested if their local team is not playing. I would say play CL matches on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and play league games on the weekends.

I would also encourage local knockout tournaments like the equivalent for FA Cup to provide an additional trophy and income source.

Discuss!

 

[Pakpak]

Lets face it - the current T20 franchised based model utilized by PSL, IPl, CPL, BPL etc. is unsustainable in the long run and will fail to generate interest beyond local T20 purist fans.

For one - these T20 leagues are far too short and it is hard to develop team bonding, strategy, tactical changes when you only play for a month - this is exacerbated by the fact that many players come and go due to international duty. The season's are far too short to watch a team develop over the course of a season. On top of that - there are far too many mercenaries which jump ship from team to team and league to league for money. I simply do not develop any attachment towards any player who will jump ship to another team in a different uniform as soon as the season is over - complete lack of respect for the badge and shirt they wear. The main reason however is that international cricket is by far the most prestigious form of the game and is the ultimate capstone for any aspiring cricketer - to don the national jersey. Franchised based T20 teams simply cannot match the nationalistic pride that has existed for more than 60 years.

However - all is not lost for these T20 leagues as discussed further.

For a starter - we must move away from the franchised based model for these leagues and establish them as legitimate clubs just like EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga etc. This is to establish their roots as a long term entity and to prevent relocation of franchises which completely and utterly destroys team loyalty and fan support - it is the worst thing for a fan to watch their team get defunct or relocated like the Deccan Chargers or the Kerala Tuskers.

Every countries league must establish a minimum of 8 teams per league - preferably more. The talent pool may be stretched thin but that is completely acceptable to me if younger players are developing and getting constant chances to prove themselves (they will also have LOYALTY towards the teams that developed them). A format of home and away games between each team should be encouraged and with 8 teams or more - the league will be sufficiently long to maintain interest.

Now the most important part is to establish a specific T20 league window for about 6 months where every countries T20 leagues will be in action. The remaining 6 months should be used for ICC tournaments, bilateral series, domestic cricket etc. This should be done to prevent international duty and T20 league cricket from interfering with each other and teams should play on weekends like most other sports with training sessions on weekdays or friendlies if they desire. It is desirable to stretch the season out and maintain longer period of time to develop a team and squad. The t20 players should be encouraged to reside in the local cities where their team has their home ground.

ICC MUST mandate the players can only play for ONE team per season. This is vital to encourage player loyalty and attachment. If Mumbai Indians wants to buy Afridi from Zalmi at the end of a season- they must buyout his contract like other sports teams do and pay a transfer fee. If a players contract expires - he is eligible to be purchased at any time during the season as long as contract terms are agreed upon with the player.

Finally, the Champions League T20 cricket must be restarted and done PROPERLY this time. That means the 4 highest placed teams in each league should qualify for the Champions League. Hence 4 x 8 Full Members = 32 teams for the CL. They should play a format similar to the Uefa Champions League with 8 groups of 4 teams with the top 2 teams from each group qualifying for the knockout stage. The KO stage should be played on a home and away basis with NRR over the 2 legs deciding who should progress if both teams win a game a piece and the final should be in a neural venue. The home and away format is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or otherwise playing in a random country is a recipe for disaster as fans will simply be uninterested if their local team is not playing. I would say play CL matches on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and play league games on the weekends.

I would also encourage local knockout tournaments like the equivalent for FA Cup to provide an additional trophy and income source.

Discuss!

I never agree with you, but a good written post. Well done. Though the crux of your idea is a competent ICC, BCCI would never be happy with any of this and as long as they have the bucks to offer $1 million plus to players they will hog all the best players in the world.

 

[Taaya]

Your model is unsustainable for international cricket. A 6 month window is unreasonable, especially for test cricket. Each country has their own home season, and you cannot fit that much cricket into a 6 month window without drastically reducing the amount of test/ODI matches played each year.

 

[Syed1]

Basically you want cricket to become soccer..

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Lets face it - the current T20 franchised based model utilized by PSL, IPl, CPL, BPL etc. is unsustainable in the long run and will fail to generate interest beyond local T20 purist fans.

True but already they're printing money and generally selling out. Natwest, BBL,IPL,PSL,BPL,CPL are all profitable if I'm not mistaken and garner large crowds.

For one - these T20 leagues are far too short and it is hard to develop team bonding, strategy, tactical changes when you only play for a month - this is exacerbated by the fact that many players come and go due to international duty. The season's are far too short to watch a team develop over the course of a season. On top of that - there are far too many mercenaries which jump ship from team to team and league to league for money. I simply do not develop any attachment towards any player who will jump ship to another team in a different uniform as soon as the season is over - complete lack of respect for the badge and shirt they wear. The main reason however is that international cricket is by far the most prestigious form of the game and is the ultimate capstone for any aspiring cricketer - to don the national jersey. Franchised based T20 teams simply cannot match the nationalistic pride that has existed for more than 60 years.

Disagree. how much longer can you expect fans to get excited over watching the same limited number of teams facing off constantly? PSL already had every team playing each other umpteen times, increasing its length only makes the fatigue grow.

Agree with you re: the player loyalty, but there's no way you can regulate this. Virtually every country has employment laws that allow workers to switch workplace if they want, and even if there weren't just look at the Premier League, players sign big contract then want out 6 months later, clubs can't do anything as they can't well force a player to play if he's acting stubborn (though they should do this, but its better financially for them to just get rid and make a profit). You can't just ban transfers,

However - all is not lost for these T20 leagues as discussed further.

For a starter - we must move away from the franchised based model for these leagues and establish them as legitimate clubs just like EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga etc. This is to establish their roots as a long term entity and to prevent relocation of franchises which completely and utterly destroys team loyalty and fan support - it is the worst thing for a fan to watch their team get defunct or relocated like the Deccan Chargers or the Kerala Tuskers.

I hate franchises just like virtually every European sports fan for the record, but you can't implement this idea lol. People have paid big bucks for these teams, unless you have all franchise licences end in lets say 4 years then have clubs established how do you go about this? Also, if Mumbai Indians were to be scrapped and replaced by just Mumbai or something, what would stop the current MI chairperson from buying a majority stake of the club and just rebranding it back to the old name and logo etc??

Your idea requires a passion for the game that extends beyond money, all the major clubs in European football started off dirt poor and were founded purely based off of a passion for the game, over time they developed into financial powerhouses. Current cricket boards and team owners and quite clearly the fans themselves (looking at attendances) don't give a damn about this, they just want flashy cricket with production value. I'm different, lol look at the teams I support in all sports, I follow for passion and love, but I'm a minority I'm afraid, most people just want success and if a Mumbai team brings success whether it be Mumbai club or Mumbai Indians they'll back it.

Not just an Asian thing either. Here in Germany I've read lots about RasenBallSport Leipzig. Back 6 years ago they had barely any fans, Red Bull stepped in, franchised the club made it successful now the average home crowd is 41,000.

Every countries league must establish a minimum of 8 teams per league - preferably more. The talent pool may be stretched thin but that is completely acceptable to me if younger players are developing and getting constant chances to prove themselves (they will also have LOYALTY towards the teams that developed them). A format of home and away games between each team should be encouraged and with 8 teams or more - the league will be sufficiently long to maintain interest.

8 team thing is absolutely unfeasible sorry. India,England,Australia,SA (at a push), Pakistan (also at a push) could maybe manage this without major quality differences. WI/NZ/ZIM/BD the quality would take a huge hit and these teams would become less competitive and would probably harm the national team in time.

Now the most important part is to establish a specific T20 league window for about 6 months where every countries T20 leagues will be in action. The remaining 6 months should be used for ICC tournaments, bilateral series, domestic cricket etc. This should be done to prevent international duty and T20 league cricket from interfering with each other and teams should play on weekends like most other sports with training sessions on weekdays or friendlies if they desire. It is desirable to stretch the season out and maintain longer period of time to develop a team and squad. The t20 players should be encouraged to reside in the local cities where their team has their home ground.

The 6 month thing, how do you decide this? It's not possible really unless you're splitting it into two 3 month blocks. If its just 1 six month block then half the international teams will have their home season's curtailed or totally blocked by the leagues. Simple fact is there are too many t20 leagues at the moment IMO for any designated slot to be given, if it was reduced I could support it, but if every tom,dick and harry league got its own slot we'd have barely any international cricket in the year.

Also, you're demanding a hell of a lot off overseas players. Lets say Morgan for example gets an IPL,PSL,BBL gig. You're expecting him to have a residence in India,Pakistan and Australia for a long period of time as each league is now longer in your plan, on top of one in England where he'll train,play domestic cricket etc and then further than that he'd have to also tour abroad with England. Not possible really. Weekend only would also cause problems in wetter climates, 2-3 bad weekends of weather and a league could go a month with nothing but postponed games.

ICC MUST mandate the players can only play for ONE team per season. This is vital to encourage player loyalty and attachment. If Mumbai Indians wants to buy Afridi from Zalmi at the end of a season- they must buyout his contract like other sports teams do and pay a transfer fee. If a players contract expires - he is eligible to be purchased at any time during the season as long as contract terms are agreed upon with the

OK this solves some of the issues I mentioned e.g the Morgan example but its not possible to implement as it goes against employment law I'd argue. You can't just lock players into a team and not allow them to play elsewhere in the off-season if they want to. Also, the franchises/clubs will not want to fork out the extra salary the players would demand due to getting only 1 t20 gig a season now as opposed to several.

OK players can be bought but again, why would the franchises,cricket boards or the players themselves want this? Players = they get less earning opportunities in this system. Clubs = gotta pay extra wages as they'll need to compensate players as they'll now be their sole t20 league income. Boards = hassle, will impact their scheduling ability, their domestic season gets curtailed, international season gets curtailed, ICC gets no money off domestic t20 competitions I'd imagine, so their ability to schedule ICC events will also be impacted and in WC years 1/2 of the international cricket for that year will be gone on warm ups, the competition itself and then giving the players some rest.

Finally, the Champions League T20 cricket must be restarted and done PROPERLY this time. That means the 4 highest placed teams in each league should qualify for the Champions League. Hence 4 x 8 Full Members = 32 teams for the CL. They should play a format similar to the Uefa Champions League with 8 groups of 4 teams with the top 2 teams from each group qualifying for the knockout stage. The KO stage should be played on a home and away basis with NRR over the 2 legs deciding who should progress if both teams win a game a piece and the final should be in a neural venue. The home and away format is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or otherwise playing in a random country is a recipe for disaster as fans will simply be uninterested if their local team is not playing. I would say play CL matches on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and play league games on the weekends.

Lol man 32 teams - 15 players per squad equals about 500 cricketers. The talent pool in half of those FM's would already be paper thin so one sided games galore, not to mention the astronomical costs of transporting players regularly around the world from India to WI and so on for 1 game and back again. Also, how does this fit in any calendar? 6 months for every domestic league is already tight, now you want to schedule in a global t20 league?? Not possible and man, the players would be worked to death under this schedule.

I would also encourage local knockout tournaments like the equivalent for FA Cup to provide an additional trophy and income source.

Lol, a knock out cup in leagues of 8 teams is absolutely worthless, win 3 games boom you win hooray.

 

[Big Mac]

What a load of rubbish.

Let's expand T20 competitions so they last 6-8 months and make sure their schedules all clash with each other, turn international cricket into something that only happens during the offseason and the occasional weekend ODI and tell players "Yeah, you've got to move your family from Sydney to Mumbai".

All in the name of brand loyalty?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0MRmxfLuNto" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[msb314]

True but already they're printing money and generally selling out. Natwest, BBL,IPL,PSL,BPL,CPL are all profitable if I'm not mistaken and garner large crowds.




Disagree. how much longer can you expect fans to get excited over watching the same limited number of teams facing off constantly? PSL already had every team playing each other umpteen times, increasing its length only makes the fatigue grow.

Agree with you re: the player loyalty, but there's no way you can regulate this. Virtually every country has employment laws that allow workers to switch workplace if they want, and even if there weren't just look at the Premier League, players sign big contract then want out 6 months later, clubs can't do anything as they can't well force a player to play if he's acting stubborn (though they should do this, but its better financially for them to just get rid and make a profit). You can't just ban transfers,




I hate franchises just like virtually every European sports fan for the record, but you can't implement this idea lol. People have paid big bucks for these teams, unless you have all franchise licences end in lets say 4 years then have clubs established how do you go about this? Also, if Mumbai Indians were to be scrapped and replaced by just Mumbai or something, what would stop the current MI chairperson from buying a majority stake of the club and just rebranding it back to the old name and logo etc??

Your idea requires a passion for the game that extends beyond money, all the major clubs in European football started off dirt poor and were founded purely based off of a passion for the game, over time they developed into financial powerhouses. Current cricket boards and team owners and quite clearly the fans themselves (looking at attendances) don't give a damn about this, they just want flashy cricket with production value. I'm different, lol look at the teams I support in all sports, I follow for passion and love, but I'm a minority I'm afraid, most people just want success and if a Mumbai team brings success whether it be Mumbai club or Mumbai Indians they'll back it.

Not just an Asian thing either. Here in Germany I've read lots about RasenBallSport Leipzig. Back 6 years ago they had barely any fans, Red Bull stepped in, franchised the club made it successful now the average home crowd is 41,000.



8 team thing is absolutely unfeasible sorry. India,England,Australia,SA (at a push), Pakistan (also at a push) could maybe manage this without major quality differences. WI/NZ/ZIM/BD the quality would take a huge hit and these teams would become less competitive and would probably harm the national team in time.





The 6 month thing, how do you decide this? It's not possible really unless you're splitting it into two 3 month blocks. If its just 1 six month block then half the international teams will have their home season's curtailed or totally blocked by the leagues. Simple fact is there are too many t20 leagues at the moment IMO for any designated slot to be given, if it was reduced I could support it, but if every tom,dick and harry league got its own slot we'd have barely any international cricket in the year.

Also, you're demanding a hell of a lot off overseas players. Lets say Morgan for example gets an IPL,PSL,BBL gig. You're expecting him to have a residence in India,Pakistan and Australia for a long period of time as each league is now longer in your plan, on top of one in England where he'll train,play domestic cricket etc and then further than that he'd have to also tour abroad with England. Not possible really. Weekend only would also cause problems in wetter climates, 2-3 bad weekends of weather and a league could go a month with nothing but postponed games.



OK this solves some of the issues I mentioned e.g the Morgan example but its not possible to implement as it goes against employment law I'd argue. You can't just lock players into a team and not allow them to play elsewhere in the off-season if they want to. Also, the franchises/clubs will not want to fork out the extra salary the players would demand due to getting only 1 t20 gig a season now as opposed to several.

OK players can be bought but again, why would the franchises,cricket boards or the players themselves want this? Players = they get less earning opportunities in this system. Clubs = gotta pay extra wages as they'll need to compensate players as they'll now be their sole t20 league income. Boards = hassle, will impact their scheduling ability, their domestic season gets curtailed, international season gets curtailed, ICC gets no money off domestic t20 competitions I'd imagine, so their ability to schedule ICC events will also be impacted and in WC years 1/2 of the international cricket for that year will be gone on warm ups, the competition itself and then giving the players some rest.





Lol man 32 teams - 15 players per squad equals about 500 cricketers. The talent pool in half of those FM's would already be paper thin so one sided games galore, not to mention the astronomical costs of transporting players regularly around the world from India to WI and so on for 1 game and back again. Also, how does this fit in any calendar? 6 months for every domestic league is already tight, now you want to schedule in a global t20 league?? Not possible and man, the players would be worked to death under this schedule.




Lol, a knock out cup in leagues of 8 teams is absolutely worthless, win 3 games boom you win hooray.

Spread the season out - let them play each other only on the weekends as it is in EPL.

The 6 month window ( maybe should be 5 or 4 months - who knows) should be scheduled so that all T20 leagues play simultaneously. They would compete in their local league and also the T20 Champions League.

The 32 team idea is feasible if all countries will be on board with it - a 500 player pool seems like a lot but that is how every league works and that many players in a league is expected. EPL, MLB and NHL would probably have a lot more players IMO.

Regarding your point about employment laws - doesn't IPL already lock their players to prevent them from playing in other leagues? It may be possible if the ICC mandates it. The economic forces would balance out right? Kohli would rather play for 6 months for RCB where he would get paid millions rather than jump around from league to league all year round. Of course I am talking about the cream of the crop but the top players would obviously get the more lucrative deals and transfer fees.

 

[msb314]

I never agree with you, but a good written post. Well done. Though the crux of your idea is a competent ICC, BCCI would never be happy with any of this and as long as they have the bucks to offer $1 million plus to players they will hog all the best players in the world.

Thanks!

 

[Slog]

Finally, the Champions League T20 cricket must be restarted and done PROPERLY this time. That means the 4 highest placed teams in each league should qualify for the Champions League. Hence 4 x 8 Full Members = 32 teams for the CL. They should play a format similar to the Uefa Champions League with 8 groups of 4 teams with the top 2 teams from each group qualifying for the knockout stage. The KO stage should be played on a home and away basis with NRR over the 2 legs deciding who should progress if both teams win a game a piece and the final should be in a neural venue. The home and away format is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or otherwise playing in a random country is a recipe for disaster as fans will simply be uninterested if their local team is not playing. I would say play CL matches on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and play league games on the weekends.

I would also encourage local knockout tournaments like the equivalent for FA Cup to provide an additional trophy and income source.

Discuss!

The problem is that you are assuming that these other leagues will even remotely be able to compete with the IPL in terms of offering big contracts and size of the competition.

Actually what you are proposing is probably a wet dream for the IPL organizers.

They will be able to gobble every other league down to a size where they become irrelevant. As is the teams in it offer more money to overseas players not even getting games than other leagues normally do to stars of the league.

Franschise T20 cricket is not at a level where overseas players will take game time over money.

 

[msb314]

The problem is that you are assuming that these other leagues will even remotely be able to compete with the IPL in terms of offering big contracts and size of the competition.

Actually what you are proposing is probably a wet dream for the IPL organizers.

They will be able to gobble every other league down to a size where they become irrelevant. As is the teams in it offer more money to overseas players not even getting games than other leagues normally do to stars of the league.

Franschise T20 cricket is not at a level where overseas players will take game time over money.

Yes - I expect IPL to monopolize many players but that is the harsh reality of professional sports teams e.g. New York Yankees, Golden State Warriors, Real Madrid, Manchester United etc.

You are right that overseas players will prefer sitting on the bench for money rather than game time but if I were a player - I would rather look to play in a team that regularly qualifies for the T20 Champions League and have an opportunity to make big bucks there and play in the most competitive T20 competition in the world rather than risk not qualifying for the CT in the saturated IPL environment.

Obviously for that scenario to happen - a lot of money must be invested as a prize for the Champions League and it must become THE premier T20 competition.

 

[cr7great]

agreed with [MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION]

 

[Convict]

Okay get rid of all the leagues that can't support themselves through domestic demand and just have IPL, BBL, CPL and maybe an English League.

 

[Slog]

Spread the season out - let them play each other only on the weekends as it is in EPL.

The 6 month window ( maybe should be 5 or 4 months - who knows) should be scheduled so that all T20 leagues play simultaneously. They would compete in their local league and also the T20 Champions League.

The 32 team idea is feasible if all countries will be on board with it - a 500 player pool seems like a lot but that is how every league works and that many players in a league is expected. EPL, MLB and NHL would probably have a lot more players IMO.

Regarding your point about employment laws - doesn't IPL already lock their players to prevent them from playing in other leagues? It may be possible if the ICC mandates it. The economic forces would balance out right? Kohli would rather play for 6 months for RCB where he would get paid millions rather than jump around from league to league all year round. Of course I am talking about the cream of the crop but the top players would obviously get the more lucrative deals and transfer fees.

Not true lol

IPL is bread and butter for Gayle, Pollard and majority of known overseas players in PSL, CPL

 

[Pakpak]

True but already they're printing money and generally selling out. Natwest, BBL,IPL,PSL,BPL,CPL are all profitable if I'm not mistaken and garner large crowds.




Disagree. how much longer can you expect fans to get excited over watching the same limited number of teams facing off constantly? PSL already had every team playing each other umpteen times, increasing its length only makes the fatigue grow.

Agree with you re: the player loyalty, but there's no way you can regulate this. Virtually every country has employment laws that allow workers to switch workplace if they want, and even if there weren't just look at the Premier League, players sign big contract then want out 6 months later, clubs can't do anything as they can't well force a player to play if he's acting stubborn (though they should do this, but its better financially for them to just get rid and make a profit). You can't just ban transfers,




I hate franchises just like virtually every European sports fan for the record, but you can't implement this idea lol. People have paid big bucks for these teams, unless you have all franchise licences end in lets say 4 years then have clubs established how do you go about this? Also, if Mumbai Indians were to be scrapped and replaced by just Mumbai or something, what would stop the current MI chairperson from buying a majority stake of the club and just rebranding it back to the old name and logo etc??

Your idea requires a passion for the game that extends beyond money, all the major clubs in European football started off dirt poor and were founded purely based off of a passion for the game, over time they developed into financial powerhouses. Current cricket boards and team owners and quite clearly the fans themselves (looking at attendances) don't give a damn about this, they just want flashy cricket with production value. I'm different, lol look at the teams I support in all sports, I follow for passion and love, but I'm a minority I'm afraid, most people just want success and if a Mumbai team brings success whether it be Mumbai club or Mumbai Indians they'll back it.

Not just an Asian thing either. Here in Germany I've read lots about RasenBallSport Leipzig. Back 6 years ago they had barely any fans, Red Bull stepped in, franchised the club made it successful now the average home crowd is 41,000.



8 team thing is absolutely unfeasible sorry. India,England,Australia,SA (at a push), Pakistan (also at a push) could maybe manage this without major quality differences. WI/NZ/ZIM/BD the quality would take a huge hit and these teams would become less competitive and would probably harm the national team in time.





The 6 month thing, how do you decide this? It's not possible really unless you're splitting it into two 3 month blocks. If its just 1 six month block then half the international teams will have their home season's curtailed or totally blocked by the leagues. Simple fact is there are too many t20 leagues at the moment IMO for any designated slot to be given, if it was reduced I could support it, but if every tom,dick and harry league got its own slot we'd have barely any international cricket in the year.

Also, you're demanding a hell of a lot off overseas players. Lets say Morgan for example gets an IPL,PSL,BBL gig. You're expecting him to have a residence in India,Pakistan and Australia for a long period of time as each league is now longer in your plan, on top of one in England where he'll train,play domestic cricket etc and then further than that he'd have to also tour abroad with England. Not possible really. Weekend only would also cause problems in wetter climates, 2-3 bad weekends of weather and a league could go a month with nothing but postponed games.



OK this solves some of the issues I mentioned e.g the Morgan example but its not possible to implement as it goes against employment law I'd argue. You can't just lock players into a team and not allow them to play elsewhere in the off-season if they want to. Also, the franchises/clubs will not want to fork out the extra salary the players would demand due to getting only 1 t20 gig a season now as opposed to several.

OK players can be bought but again, why would the franchises,cricket boards or the players themselves want this? Players = they get less earning opportunities in this system. Clubs = gotta pay extra wages as they'll need to compensate players as they'll now be their sole t20 league income. Boards = hassle, will impact their scheduling ability, their domestic season gets curtailed, international season gets curtailed, ICC gets no money off domestic t20 competitions I'd imagine, so their ability to schedule ICC events will also be impacted and in WC years 1/2 of the international cricket for that year will be gone on warm ups, the competition itself and then giving the players some rest.





Lol man 32 teams - 15 players per squad equals about 500 cricketers. The talent pool in half of those FM's would already be paper thin so one sided games galore, not to mention the astronomical costs of transporting players regularly around the world from India to WI and so on for 1 game and back again. Also, how does this fit in any calendar? 6 months for every domestic league is already tight, now you want to schedule in a global t20 league?? Not possible and man, the players would be worked to death under this schedule.




Lol, a knock out cup in leagues of 8 teams is absolutely worthless, win 3 games boom you win hooray.

PSL teams faced each other only twice.

 

[USofA]

Yes - I expect IPL to monopolize many players but that is the harsh reality of professional sports teams e.g. New York Yankees, Golden State Warriors, Real Madrid, Manchester United etc.

You are right that overseas players will prefer sitting on the bench for money rather than game time but if I were a player - I would rather look to play in a team that regularly qualifies for the T20 Champions League and have an opportunity to make big bucks there and play in the most competitive T20 competition in the world rather than risk not qualifying for the CT in the saturated IPL environment.

Obviously for that scenario to happen - a lot of money must be invested as a prize for the Champions League and it must become THE premier T20 competition.

I am sorry but the Champions League will never happen. Look at the current situation. When the BCCI got out of CL there was a great opportunity for someone to pick it up and run it the "right" way. But no one stepped up. Which is one of the reasons it died.

 

[samiakh]

The biggest drawback at least with the PSL is that the franchises are leased not owned. This diminishes the desire of "owners" to invest in building a brand. Why build a brand when it may not be yours in 10 years. The 2nd point about Windows will only be resolved once the ICC realises that ODI is finished as a format. If you look at crowd attendance and TV ratings for bilateral ODI series it's clear that this format is dead. Bilateral series should only be for tests. T20's should be played on a league basis. With international tournaments being held every 4 years and regional ones like Asia cup etc. Also every 4 years. Once you get to that format you will have more time for sustainable windows.

 

[Convict]

The biggest drawback at least with the PSL is that the franchises are leased not owned. This diminishes the desire of "owners" to invest in building a brand. Why build a brand when it may not be yours in 10 years. The 2nd point about Windows will only be resolved once the ICC realises that ODI is finished as a format. If you look at crowd attendance and TV ratings for bilateral ODI series it's clear that this format is dead. Bilateral series should only be for tests. T20's should be played on a league basis. With international tournaments being held every 4 years and regional ones like Asia cup etc. Also every 4 years. Once you get to that format you will have more time for sustainable windows.

Why should teams be owned?

Private owners have different desires to the cricket board and that will create conflict in the future.

 

[Kakar]

Not worth wasting six months just for the sake of franchise loyalty.

 

[Cosmic]

Very good written. But let's break down the game of cricket and soccer/

Cricket 4 hr T-20s Soccer Maximum : 2hrs

Soccer is watch by almost 80 to 90 % of the world, and cricket might be less then 60 ish %

Soccer is played mostly played in peaceful European countries; and cricket is played in INDIA, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri-lanka mostly affected by terrorism. and let add England and New Zealand, Australia.. which Geography lmpossible for people to travel around..

logistically it's so expensive as well. there are many other things which is against your idea !!!. so Bhai IPL,CPL,PSL,BBL and are good leagues to survive the game of cricket as well.. Or india is keeping this game alive,

Pakistan, Sri lanka, Bangladesh are all playing bad cricket; not much great sponsorship

 

[Syed1]

Okay get rid of all the leagues that can't support themselves through domestic demand and just have IPL, BBL, CPL and maybe an English League.

I wonder why you leave out the PSL, when it has the second highest tv viewership amongst all T20 leagues.


28% of the online viewership of the PSL came from neighbouring India, highest from any country (even higher than Pakistan itself, granted most people in Pakistan watch it on the telly).

 

[msb314]

Not true lol

IPL is bread and butter for Gayle, Pollard and majority of known overseas players in PSL, CPL

I was referring to the indian players - they are only allowed to play in the IPL and not in any other league.

Since the IPL is only played once a season - by default they only play for one team per season.

 

[msb314]

I am sorry but the Champions League will never happen. Look at the current situation. When the BCCI got out of CL there was a great opportunity for someone to pick it up and run it the "right" way. But no one stepped up. Which is one of the reasons it died.

No one picked it up because it had just gone defunct and sponsors were not willing to pay for it and neither was Star Sports who had lost $100M per year on it.

Hence - it has be revamped completely like the Uefa Champions League was and start afresh with the format that I proposed.

 

[Rayyman]

T20 is the way to go. More fun than boring Tests. Which are just for the oldies.

 

[BeautifulGame]

I wonder why you leave out the PSL, when it has the second highest tv viewership amongst all T20 leagues.


28% of the online viewership of the PSL came from neighbouring India, highest from any country (even higher than Pakistan itself, granted most people in Pakistan watch it on the telly).

View attachment 73147

Well considering no TV picked up the rights because of lack of interest in India , its natural any Indian would contribute to online viewership.It would be more meaningful to guage Indian interest if they show actual figures rather than percentages

 

[Syed1]

Well considering no TV picked up the rights because of lack of interest in India , its natural any Indian would contribute to online viewership.It would be more meaningful to guage Indian interest if they show actual figures rather than percentages

PAKISTAN Super league's success isn't based on the number of Indians watch it..

 

[BeautifulGame]

PAKISTAN Super league's success isn't based on the number of Indians watch it..

Ofcourse it isn't .Where did I say it is ?

The point is 28% Indian viewership of PSL is completely misleading and pointless unless there is actual figures.

 

[amit]

Worst post ever. Also I do agree on a window part. There should be a 2.5 month long window for all T20 leagues to be held, something like 1 March - 15 May so that all countries can host their T20 league and also 1 player plays for only 1 franchise. 6 month window is overkill and will destroy cricket

The remaining 9.5 months should be for international cricket, tests, ODIs, ICC tournaments, etc. Domestic cricket can be held during the T20 window too as many players miss out on T20, but the main domestic matches will happen in the remaining 9.5 months