The Olympics and cricket have become multibillion-dollar enterprises through TV broadcast rights, sponsorship and ticketing. Those commercial imperatives are now pushing for a rapprochement that would see the sport rejoin the "greatest show on earth".
David Richardson, chief executive of the International Cricket Council, the sport's governing body, said recently that the "time is right" to apply to enter the games in 2024. The International Olympic Committee, the games organisers, would welcome such a move.
"The one geographical region that the Olympics is not delivering upon is the subcontinent of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and that is one-sixth of the world's population," says Michael Payne, a former marketing head at the IOC. "Put cricket on [the schedule], you solve that overnight."
The calculation is clear: by generating interest in South Asia, the IOC would hope to increase the value of broadcasting rights and sponsorship deals for the games, which added up to $5.6bn in revenues in the four years up to last summer's Rio games. But with potential host cities withdrawing their bids, due to the cost of staging the event, some in cricket fear the sport is only being pursued because of the IOC's desperate search for new sources of revenue.
The idea divides cricket. Traditionalists, like national and local administrators that have ruled over the sport for decades, see little appeal in changing the global cricket calendar and surrendering power to Olympic officials. But modernisers believe entry to the games is crucial to efforts to "globalise" the sport, allowing it to reach into new countries such as the US and China. At the moment it remains largely dependent on income from its three biggest markets: India, England and Australia.
"More exposure makes the sport more commercially viable," says Kevin Pietersen, the former England captain. "Any sport would appreciate and benefit from more exposure and the players would no doubt see the rewards of that."
Internal politics may yet scupper a bid. India's cricket board, considered the most powerful voice in the world game, is yet to give its consent. But there is a growing sense that India, which has only won nine gold medals, and eight of those were in hockey, may jump at the opportunity that Olympic glory could provide: a jolt of national pride and an enhanced global image.
Cricket will need to move fast. IOC officials say the best hope of any new sport entering the games comes in September, at a meeting in the Peruvian capital of Lima where members will vote on a host for the 2024 Olympics. Sports can be approved at a later stage, but that possibility dwindles over time.
Not all are convinced that inclusion in the games would guarantee global success. "Look at softball and baseball: they got into the Olympics decades ago and just went nowhere," says Stefan Szymanski, a sports industry academic at the University of Michigan. "In cricket's case, you're trying to rebrand a sport that's been around for decades. That's difficult. I'm not so sure it will work."
Cricket is in the midst of a reinvention. Any Olympic tournament would feature the Twenty20 version of the sport, a shorter form launched in 2003 to appeal to a new, younger audience. The bite-size matches are made to be consumed on TV, requiring less attention than test cricket or one day matches. Other sports, from American football to NBA basketball, are also in the process of speeding up, concerned that they are failing to hook impatient millennials .
But it is Twenty20's commercial success, rather than its format, that may prove a greater attraction for the IOC. The Indian Premier League, a Twenty20 competition founded in 2008, has become a money-spinner. According to Indian media reports, it pulled in revenues of $378.8m in 2016, largely through broadcast and sponsorship deals. The 60 matches attracted more than 1bn viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Council, India's TV ratings agency.
Australia has launched its own version, the "Big Bash League" while England's cricket authorities have a plan to create a new Twenty20 tournament in 2020 to generate new revenue.
Star players in the IPL, subject to bidding wars between teams, can earn large sums. The batsman Virat Kohli reportedly made $1.9m with the Royal Challengers Bangalore last year, earning more from appearing in the two-month tournament than from his role as captain of the Indian national team. He also earns millions of dollars from endorsing the likes of Puma and Pepsi.
Still, the sums made by cricketers are small relative to other sports. None of them appear in the Forbes list of the top 100 highest paid athletes, which is topped by the Real Madrid and Portugal footballer Cristiano Ronaldo who earned $88m in 2016. Believing the Olympics will help grow their personal "brand", cricketers are willing to overlook concerns that packing another tournament into the international calendar risks "burnout".
"Yes, the schedule's busy right now and in many ways too busy but, put simply, the sport needs growing," says Mr Pietersen, who has played in both the IPL and the Big Bash. "Participation figures are down [globally]. Viewing figures are down. Cricket needs something new and an influx of new fans."
James Sutherland, chief executive of Cricket Australia, says the Olympics can provide a path to an unlikely expansion. "You do need the game to be growing in markets that can provide economic returns for it [and where]that can be invested back into the game," he says. "The two primary markets - the US and China - are close to the top of the list."
He insists the idea of cricket gaining appeal in the world's two largest economies, which have shown little interest in the sport, is not fanciful and argues that greater money and participation flows from being an Olympic sport.
IOC bosses also look approvingly on cricket's attempts to promote the women's game. In Australia, players such as Ellyse Perry are among the country's best known sportswomen. "We would be looking for a men's and women's competition," says Kit McConnell, the IOC's sports director. "Gender equality is very important to us."
But for the IOC to accept any proposal, it demands unanimity of support from within the sport's governing body. In the past, this has proved impossible.
Two years ago, Giles Clarke, president of the England and Wales Cricket Board, described applying for entry to the Olympics as a "complete non-starter", arguing that it would interrupt the domestic season and block a number of international matches costing $160m.
Others in English cricket have grown more open to the idea. "The concerns about the impact of an Olympics are real," says Tom Harrison, the ECB's chief executive. "If they can be managed with enough foresight and enough work around the details . . . the chance to get into new areas of the world is compelling."
Much will depend on the stance taken by India. For years, the Board of Control for Cricket in India has blocked any attempt to apply to enter the games. Several people close to the organisation say its reluctance has been due to fears of a loss of control, domestic and international, over the sport. The BCCI did not respond to requests for comment for this story but after discussions on Wednesday, the ICC said the BCCI had committed to "reconsidering the matter in the near future", in a sign of softening opposition to the Olympic idea.
India's importance cannot be underestimated. Between 2015 and 2023, the BCCI is set to receive up to $260m as its share of the ICC's expected gross revenues of $2.5bn. The figure is at least double that of any other national board, reflecting the importance of deals made with Indian broadcasters and sponsors.
Optimists believe the Indian concerns can be resolved. They say that some of the opponents to an Olympics bid are among those being purged from the BCCI as part of a power struggle. India's Supreme Court has removed some of the most senior officials at the organisation in recent months, over their resistance to court-ordered reforms in response to allegations of corruption.
One person with knowledge of the ICC's deliberations with India says: "The feeling internally is that the reasons for opposition are not insurmountable."
Other influential figures within Indian cricket are believed to be Olympic converts. Sachin Tendulkar, widely considered India's finest batsman, attended the Rio Games to watch the Rugby Sevens tournament. "It was not innocent that he was out there," says Brett Gosper, chief executive of World Rugby.
A second potential power broker is Nita Ambani. Part of India's richest family, her husband, Mukesh Ambani, is chairman and the largest shareholder in petrochemicals group Reliance Industries. She became a member of the IOC last year and is a co-owner of the Mumbai Indians cricket team.
Another factor weighing on Indian officials is the embarrassment about the country's poor Olympic showing. India, with a population of 1.2bn, sent 117 athletes to Rio, its largest ever squad, and won two medals - neither gold.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has suggested the country wants a "bigger role" on the world stage. Ayaz Memon, an influential sports columnist, argues that Olympic medals would help that. "India wants to flex its muscles in a soft power situation. That seems pretty much in the minds of young Indians: 'let's go and prove ourselves'."
But, he warns: "Indian cricket needs to be reassured that their position as the biggest force in the game has not diminished." Without that, Britain's 117-year reign as Olympic cricket champions may continue indefinitely.
The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017
