India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[G.I.Joe]

I never disagreed with that. You are the one displaying a lazy mentality by making that assumption.

My entire point, which you quoted was that the market forces are weak for cricket and the outlook is not looking good.

So blame the market forces, not the convenient bogeyman. We could be talking about hunger in Africa and you'd find a way to blame the Big 3 for it. You could have presented the argument based on the actual causes for the situation, but yet you chose to shove in an irrelevant Big 3 angle into it. That's not healthy discourse; that's an agenda.

Now here's the situation.

Market facts:
England and Australia only care about the Ashes
Both these countries have a significant Indian diaspora who love cricket.
India loves cricket.

There are two ways of responding to this.
1) Let's just exploit whatever life the market has by playing the Ashes every 2 years and having India come over in between so we just play each other which is what we know as the Big 3. You are absolutely right, it is a response to the market forces.

My point is it is not a very sustainable response and will ultimately prove to be devastating for cricket in the future.

Now here's the second response.

2) Ok, it's time to develop emerging markets, grow the game in new/emerging markets to create a more long term sustainable future for the game.
Let's develop the game in Afghanistan, Nepal. Let's try to get into China. Let's try to revive cricket in Kenya. Let's try to increase some interest in Ireland and Netherlands.


Both these are responses to market forces, one focused on short term gains which will ultimately not last, and the other focused on long term.

You neglect point (3) which proposes that the existence of a Big 3 is in no way mutually exclusive to growing the game in emerging markets. The Small 7 are free to arrange series with emerging nations. The Small 7 aren't opposed to the Big 3 because it supposedly hurts the growth of the game in emerging markets. They're opposed to the Big 3 because it is not aligned optimally with their own self interests. This is a fact that will not change even if the Big 3 reverts to a Big 10. It's a lazy "Will somebody please think of the children" argument.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But they aren't emerging markets as such. Very little revenue generating potential. No company would expand into these markets.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The fact that the Small 7 do not arrange regular tours to emerging markets is an indicator that the Big 3 aren't the sole limiting factor in the growth of the game. The small 7 want a piece of the Big 3 pie, just as the Big 3 themselves do.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

What is big 3 though?

 

[Jono]

To be honest, I don't know where this gloom and doom is regarding Australian cricket.

Cricket is the number one sport participation sport in Australia and has been steadily increasing over the past few years.

The biggest problem, as far as I see, is the inability of teams to play away from home. This just results in continuous one sided boring affairs. A highly competitive NZ and West Indies team, with drawcard players, would change everything.

Is that true?

 

[Black_Warrior]

So blame the market forces, not the convenient bogeyman. We could be talking about hunger in Africa and you'd find a way to blame the Big 3 for it. You could have presented the argument based on the actual causes for the situation, but yet you chose to shove in an irrelevant Big 3 angle into it. That's not healthy discourse; that's an agenda.




You neglect point (3) which proposes that the existence of a Big 3 is in no way mutually exclusive to growing the game in emerging markets. The Small 7 are free to arrange series with emerging nations. The Small 7 aren't opposed to the Big 3 because it supposedly hurts the growth of the game in emerging markets. They're opposed to the Big 3 because it is not aligned optimally with their own self interests. This is a fact that will not change even if the Big 3 reverts to a Big 10. It's a lazy "Will somebody please think of the children" argument.

No it is absolutely mutually exclusive when Bangladesh haven't toured England since 2010 and India and Australia have played in England twice in the same period.
Bangladesh have only played Australia twice ( 1 home and 1 away) since gaining test status.

Sri Lanka have played in Australia only twice in the last 10 years.

When test playing nations barely get games against Australia, what makes you think Afghanistan will get a game?

You could have presented the argument based on the actual causes for the situation

I have already stated clearly the causes for this situation. I have stated how cricket is on a decline in Australia and England and I have NOT blamed the Big 3 for that. It's just that there always were more popular sports in these nations and in today's time, cricket is just unattractive when competing with rugby or footy or football.

The Big 3 is to blame for their short term approach to this situation.

It is absolutely non sensical to say that small 7 can play each other as many times as they want when some of them are unable to pay their own players sufficiently. That's why I am talking about developing the game in those markets, so that Afghanistan can be a self sufficient cricket board, so that some African nations can develop. In long run, you can then have these teams playing each other in a way that is financially sustainable.

It becomes extremely difficult to have a rational conversation when you get defensive. That's why I clarified at the onset that unlike a lot of people, I do NOT hold BCCI or India responsible for this nor do I have any specific agenda. If it wasn't the BCCI, ECB and CA, it would have been someone else who has the clout. The reason the other boards did not do something like this is not because of principle but because they lacked the clout and financial might pull of such a stunt. I have said this in various topics on numerous occasions. In fact I did not even talk about BCCI or India in my original post. I was talking about these very market forces in England and Australia. You were the one who brought India into the topic because you assumed that just because I was critical of Big 3, I must have an agenda against India. In fact I hold ECB and CA far more responsible for the current situation because they have been running the game for much much longer. They only begrudgingly accepted BCCI into the private club because they had to thanks to the change in financial equations in the last decade.

If you can go beyond the "people have an agenda against your nation' and look at this matter objectively, I am sure you will understand why it is reasonable to take a critical position on this matter. I have not blamed the Big 3 for creating the market forces. I have only criticised the ICC which in turn is run by the Big 3 for their response to the market forces. They have self appointed themselves as the custodians of the game, hence they have a far larger role to play on the way the game develops than a BCB or WICB. In fact this is precisely the reason they believe they deserve a larger chunk of the pie. Fair enough but then they should also be open to greater criticism for their actions if deemed to be hurting the game, over a BCB or ZC. You can't say I am entitled to a larger chunk of the pie but I am unwilling to take any added responsibility that comes with it. That's like saying I have a right to drive when it's green but I am not sure I'll stop when it's red. You have a right to drive when it's green because you have an obligation to stop when it's red.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is that true?

The second half of the sentence is definitely true!

I think swimming and athletics are more popular participation sports though and association football runs it too close to definitively say either way. In recent years it's overtaken Aussie rules, tennis and basketball though.

 

[Jono]

Pretty sure soccer is way higher, and basketball pips it too.

The Top 20 sports played by Aussies kids and adults - Roy Morgan Research

Yep

 

[Prince EWS]

Interesting. I saw a list at the end of last year that was pretty different to that; I'll try to find it.

The key is that it's on the rise though, really.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No it is absolutely mutually exclusive when Bangladesh haven't toured England since 2010 and India and Australia have played in England twice in the same period.
Bangladesh have only played Australia twice ( 1 home and 1 away) since gaining test status.

Sri Lanka have played in Australia only twice in the last 10 years.

When test playing nations barely get games against Australia, what makes you think Afghanistan will get a game?

When the Small 7 do not play the emerging markets regularly now, what makes you think a reversion to the Pre-Big 3 structure will get Afghanistan/Nepal/Ireland etc games? What's stopping them from playing them now? Surely if they're not getting enough games against the Big 3, it means they've got plenty of time to spare for those nations now.

I have already stated clearly the causes for this situation. I have stated how cricket is on a decline in Australia and England and I have NOT blamed the Big 3 for that. It's just that there always were more popular sports in these nations and in today's time, cricket is just unattractive when competing with rugby or footy or football.

The Big 3 is to blame for their short term approach to this situation.

It is absolutely non sensical to say that small 7 can play each other as many times as they want when some of them are unable to pay their own players sufficiently. That's why I am talking about developing the game in those markets, so that Afghanistan can be a self sufficient cricket board, so that some African nations can develop. In long run, you can then have these teams playing each other in a way that is financially sustainable.

You're conflating the situation with emerging markets with that of Bangladesh, which is not an emerging market. The Big 3 have been negligent towards a lesser Test nation like Bangladesh. However Afghanistan et al will not be self sufficient even if the ICC reverts to a Big 10 organization for the simple reason that none of the 10 Test nations have demonstrated a sustained willingness to play them under either ICC regime. The Big 3 rejig is not the reason the emerging markets don't get any games. The blame for that lies at the feet of all 10 Test playing nations regardless of the organizational status of the ICC.

It becomes extremely difficult to have a rational conversation when you get defensive. That's why I clarified at the onset that unlike a lot of people, I do NOT hold BCCI or India responsible for this nor do I have any specific agenda. If it wasn't the BCCI, ECB and CA, it would have been someone else who has the clout. The reason the other boards did not do something like this is not because of principle but because they lacked the clout and financial might pull of such a stunt. I have said this in various topics on numerous occasions. In fact I did not even talk about BCCI or India in my original post. I was talking about these very market forces in England and Australia. You were the one who brought India into the topic because you assumed that just because I was critical of Big 3, I must have an agenda against India.

If you can go beyond the "people have an agenda against your nation' and look at this matter objectively, I am sure you will understand why it is reasonable to take a critical position on this matter. I have not blamed the Big 3 for creating the market forces. I have only criticised the ICC which in turn is run by the Big 3 for their response to the market forces. They have self appointed themselves as the custodians of the game, hence they have a far larger role to play on the way the game develops than a BCB or WICB. In fact this is precisely the reason they believe they deserve a larger chunk of the pie. Fair enough but then they should also be open to greater criticism for their actions if deemed to be hurting the game, over a BCB or ZC. You can't say I am entitled to a larger chunk of the pie but I am unwilling to take any added responsibility that comes with it. That's like saying I have a right to drive when it's green but I am not sure I'll stop when it's red. You have a right to drive when it's green because you have an obligation to stop when it's red.

This isn't defensiveness. Since the undesirable situation of emerging nations lacking game time has existed both in the pre-Big 3 and the Big 3 regimes, that indicates that the organizational rejig has not been the sole reason for the pre-existing pathology. At most that indicates that the Big 3 have not taken steps to address it, and it definitely suggests that a reversion to the previous regime would make no difference to that particular issue. Perhaps a reversion is desirable for other reasons, but not in the context of increased game time for Afghanistan. Please explain to me what part of that seems irrational to you. Please explain to me why the small 7 would suddenly grow a conscience and play Afghanistan more instead of hankering for more games against the Big 3.

 

[GotSpin]

Is that true?

Cricket Australia's Most Popular Sport With 1.2 Million 'Players' - Cricket News

National participation hits one million | cricket.com.au

Census results reveal cricket's changing face | cricket.com.au

Cricket emerges as highest participation sport in Australia

Either way, cricket is hardly in an unhealthy situation in Australia.

 

[GotSpin]

Interesting. I saw a list at the end of last year that was pretty different to that; I'll try to find it.

The key is that it's on the rise though, really.

Yeah, Ive seen a bunch of reports that say something completely different.

But most importantly cricket is back on the rise after being at serious risk a few years ago.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's just that I am not interested in any conversation with you in particular. You have tried to attack me in the past and I know you are not actually interested in the topic, you're looking to pick on me no matter what the topic and my policy is to avoid such situations.

So don't make outlandish bull**** comments like "Cricket is dead in England apart from the Ashes" then

 

[Camo999]

You neglect point (3) which proposes that the existence of a Big 3 is in no way mutually exclusive to growing the game in emerging markets. The Small 7 are free to arrange series with emerging nations. The Small 7 aren't opposed to the Big 3 because it supposedly hurts the growth of the game in emerging markets. They're opposed to the Big 3 because it is not aligned optimally with their own self interests. This is a fact that will not change even if the Big 3 reverts to a Big 10. It's a lazy "Will somebody please think of the children" argument.

Is Black Warrior really arguing for a return of the 'Big 10' though? Surely an ICC independent of any particular individual member interests is the preferred option, with accountability for all stakeholders, not just the full members as was recommended in the Woolf report:

As the game has developed, the increase in the scale and complexity over the past decade have emphasised the
need for clarity of the role of the ICC. For example, one critical issue is whether or not the individuals on the
Board of the ICC should be seen as doing no more than be the representatives of their respective Member
Boards. Such a role might just be possible if the ICC was limited to supporting cricket in the countries in which
it is played. Then the ICC would be little more than acting as a service company for the various Boards of
Members.
In this first scenario, the Member Boards would be using the ICC as a ‘club for Members’, with new Full
Members being admitted at the discretion of the existing Full Members.
A second scenario is quite different. The role of the ICC is more far reaching. Its role would be to act in the best
interests of cricket generally and promote, lead and develop the international game. It would be held
accountable to all its 105 Members, not just the existing 10 Full Members.
In the past, the first scenario might have been appropriate but that is no longer the case. If cricket is to be a
truly international game, it is essential that a body exists that is responsible for, and in charge of, the global
game. The ICC has reached a point in its development where only the second scenario can be appropriate.
Therefore it is critical that the ICC acknowledges that it is the body to lead the global game and Member Boards
and the Members of the ICC accept that is the position. This does not mean it cannot continue in its role to
support the Full Member Boards.


At present The Big Three, with a permanent seat on the Exec Committee do seem to act in their own self interests ahead of than the long term future of the game - greater share of revenue than previous, contracting the World Cup, Giles Clarke opposing Olympic participation because it will impact the English season etc.

 

[Camo999]

The West Indies is an interesting scenario. In Aus they were pivotal in the commercialisation of the game here – World Series cricket etc and were the biggest drawcards well into the ‘90s. It seems West Indies cricket didn’t get any of these benefits financially though. A year ago you have the ridiculous situation in India of the Windies, on the verge of bankruptcy pulling out of a tour over disputes involving (extremely modest) player payments while the very matches they were taking part in were generating tens of millions for the BCCI.

It seems West Indies cricket is unable to share in the spoils regardless of their on-field results just because their own population is relatively small. They have helped CA, ECB, BCCI become financially strong but there doesn’t seem to be any inclination to return the favour. Ultimately all cricket fans lose out and we have even fewer viable teams to watch.

 

[Furball]

Would you care to explain why the West Indies got the prime time Test series over New Zealand this summer then, or why as recently as 2007 it was the West Indies and not India who got 4 Tests in England's home summer?

 

[Camo999]

I think NZ host their own internationals over that prime Christmas / NY period which may have been a factor. Windies getting 4 test series until 07 is probably just a hangover from when they were a big drawcard. It's not so much specific fixtures to be honest. There is a ridiculous amount of money in the game but financially most of the boards are tiny and struggle to pay their 1st XI players but are expected to compete as equals on the field.

I'd be interested to know how the distribution of funds works for these sorts of tours. WI occasionally do still get some high profile touring slots in Aus / Ind / Eng but how much money do WICB and WI players actually get out of it? I think BCCI were suing WICB for $40million odd for pulling out of a number of games. That's way more than the entire annual turnover of the WICB.

Anyway I think the major focus should be on having an independent ICC with a duty to cricket worldwide as opposed to any particular board. Whilst international cricket is the pinnacle of the game, I reckon as a fan its most interesting to have as many competitive teams as possible rather than endless Aus v Ind bi-lateral one-day series.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Is Black Warrior really arguing for a return of the 'Big 10' though? Surely an ICC independent of any particular individual member interests is the preferred option, with accountability for all stakeholders, not just the full members as was recommended in the Woolf report:

As the game has developed, the increase in the scale and complexity over the past decade have emphasised the
need for clarity of the role of the ICC. For example, one critical issue is whether or not the individuals on the
Board of the ICC should be seen as doing no more than be the representatives of their respective Member
Boards. Such a role might just be possible if the ICC was limited to supporting cricket in the countries in which
it is played. Then the ICC would be little more than acting as a service company for the various Boards of
Members.
In this first scenario, the Member Boards would be using the ICC as a ‘club for Members’, with new Full
Members being admitted at the discretion of the existing Full Members.
A second scenario is quite different. The role of the ICC is more far reaching. Its role would be to act in the best
interests of cricket generally and promote, lead and develop the international game. It would be held
accountable to all its 105 Members, not just the existing 10 Full Members.
In the past, the first scenario might have been appropriate but that is no longer the case. If cricket is to be a
truly international game, it is essential that a body exists that is responsible for, and in charge of, the global
game. The ICC has reached a point in its development where only the second scenario can be appropriate.
Therefore it is critical that the ICC acknowledges that it is the body to lead the global game and Member Boards
and the Members of the ICC accept that is the position. This does not mean it cannot continue in its role to
support the Full Member Boards.


At present The Big Three, with a permanent seat on the Exec Committee do seem to act in their own self interests ahead of than the long term future of the game - greater share of revenue than previous, contracting the World Cup, Giles Clarke opposing Olympic participation because it will impact the English season etc.

I do agree with the second scenario there. IMO the problem is that such a proposal would not be palatable to the small 7 simply because it would dilute their power and influence even more than under a Big 3 regime. They've vaguely been offered a minimum return for their support now. They won't have that in a truly egalitarian ICC. The Small 7 do not care a hoot for the 90 odd associates; all their pontification and hand wringing is solely aimed at maximizing their own revenue and opportunities, which is why their preference goes Big 10 > Big 3 > True federation of 105 boards.

 

[honestbharani]

TBH though Joe, tomm if this were to become the big 2 and England lose their own stronghold, Giles Clarke will sing the very same song that BW is currently doing...

 

[Chrish]

Cricket isn't actually that popular in England.

Is it popular enough to survive next few decades?

 

[Chrish]

Cricket is pretty much dead in England other than the Ashes.

Cricket is pretty much dead in Australia other than the home Ashes ( and sometimes other home games)

And even with the Ashes popularity, what's worrying is that it's mostly among a slightly older generation (say 30 +) who are aware of the legacy and care enough to watch.

This is exactly why cricket so badly needs newer nations and markets and which is why this Big 3 thing is so devastating for cricket because it is solely based on short term gains, without much care of how sustainable it is. What happens in a few decades when cricket is hardly watched in England and Australia?

And there are markets emerging. Look at the way Afghanistan treated it's cricket team after beating Zimbabwe. Look at Nepal after the ICC trophy and they didn't even win it.

But we are hellbent on keeping it a private club and are actively doing everything to restrict the growth into newer nations.

I don't know about Australia man.. From what I know, that's the only place where test cricket is safe for now.

SC countries are crazy mainly about OdI and t20. Casual fan from these counties normally doesn't give a damn about test as reflected by poor attendance (most recent game was an exception)

I don't know much about cricket state in SA.. That's why I would like to know from any saffer poster here