Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Err... I$C$C don't cover the costs of every game of cricket. The large majority of money which flows into I$C$C's coffers goes into black-holes - either being wasted on the "development" (which has seen countless millions of dollars thrown into what has so far produced one thoroughly dubious case, Kenya) or just lining the pockets of executives, lawyers, etc.I agree, they are all about the money...
However.. is there anything wrong with that? Whats so bad about making lots of money and pumping 100% of it back into the game? If they wernt making money the game would basically become an amateur sport and test matches would very quickly disapear as they are basically subsidised by this money.
It's the National Boards that need to make money to stage cricket. And in the vast majority of cases, they do. But not with I$C$C events - only a tiny proportion gets passed-down from World Cups, Champions Trophies, etc.
And all this meantime, one of I$C$C's supposed Full Member countries, Zimbabwe, continues to have something like 90% on the edge of starvation...
Eh? If burn-out really does take hold, there is no healthy state. The game will crumble to ruins. Burn-out is a massive danger at the current time.I say make as much money as they can!
Ok there has been the whole player burnout issue, but its a small price to pay for a healthy state of the international game.
It certainly isn't the only way for it to survive - were cricket to retain the same 8 countries playing that it currently has, I'm absolutely certain it'd survive in perfectly rude health for the next 100 years. Yes, it'd be nice, if possible, to spread the Gospel to as many Churches as possible, but if it happens it happens, if not, not.As i say, the whole point of the professional game should be to make loads of money to better improve and spread the game as much as possible. It is the only way for it to survive.