The pandemic has brought into sharper focus the issues that already plague cricket. Club versus country, for one (IPL or World T20?), rich versus poor, for another (Big Three or the ‘lesser’ teams?), and white ball cricket versus red ball, for a third.
All international sports must now prepare two sets of strategies, when competition returns. There is the short-term matter of getting over the initial hump following the cancellations, and then the long-term one of making structural changes to the way they are played.
Planning it out
It would be interesting to know if the International Cricket Council has worked out both immediate and overall future plans. Leaving it to the market will mean the future will be much like the past, only more so.
It is not difficult to envisage shorter tours in the future, a revival of the four-day Test, and a greater focus on the more profitable competitions. Perhaps even emphasis on white ball cricket to the detriment of the longer format.
Clearly India will have the key role to play, for a series against India is the most lucrative for the teams. As the body that will be paying the piper, the Board of Control for Cricket in India will be calling the tune. No surprises here. That’s been the case for about a quarter century now.
Change in fan engagement
The virus which has halted all sporting events might also change the manner in which fans consume the activity. While in the short term there might be a great hunger for any form of competition, anything live on television, we can’t be so sure of the long term.
The new normal, as the new cliché goes, might just as easily see a decline in viewership. Priorities change when real life crashes into sport with such force. It is impossible to say now which way the wind will blow.
What is likely, however, in the short term is that cricket’s missionary zeal to spread the gospel (so to speak) will get much weaker. Forget the non-Test nations, even many of the Test nations will find themselves out of the loop as the emphasis shifts to the top four or five teams that can bring in the moolah.
The caste system which already exists will thus be endorsed. The ‘lesser’ associate members will find even less encouragement than they do now. It is possible that the caste system will be sanctified by dividing teams into two groups with promotions and relegations.
Annual world tournaments?
The emphasis on white ball cricket to bring in the money might see the ICC insisting on a world tournament every year. This was already on the anvil — an annual tournament every year from 2023 to 2031 — the keenness explained by the fact that the money from these went into the ICC’s account, unlike in a bi-lateral series.
The Big Three (India, England, Australia), meanwhile had planned an annual four-team Super series of One-Day Internationals where the money went to the respective boards. This was proposed by the then recently-elected BCCI president Sourav Ganguly, and called “innovative” by Australia.
And now Ganguly seems to be the favourite to take over from Shashank Manohar as Chairman of the ICC. His competition is likely to be England’s Giles Clarke, so in a sense it’s all within the family. Unless, of course, all other candidates pull out and the election is unanimous. The ICC’s objectives are obviously different from the BCCI’s, a distinction Manohar made clear.
But the question remains: Who will take care of developing the game worldwide? Will stronger boards be given the responsibility at least in their geographical areas? Where does self-interest meet global need?
This is not to say that the poorer cricket boards are all angels and the rich ones all devils. Recently Michael Holding alleged that the half a million dollars the BCCI had given the West Indies board had been misused.
Spectre of corruption
Corruption is an issue with many boards. Last year the ICC called the Sri Lanka board the most corrupt in the world. Zaheer Abbas recently accused the Pakistan board of being soft on corruption. When the ICC banned Zimbabwe, it had as much to do with political interference as corruption.
Against this background, the BCCI might have an argument for not only claiming the lion’s share of the money in cricket (after all they generate the lion’s share too), but hanging on to it for the growth of the game in this country.
In October, the BCCI and the ICC are set to come into conflict (which will, of course, be resolved much earlier). The IPL might be scheduled then, leading to the postponement of the World T20 in Australia. The cancellation of the IPL will mean a loss of $530 million, the BCCI has said; even without Ganguly in the ICC, therefore, it is likely that a World championship will make way for a domestic club tournament.
