Can Cricket Overtake Football?

[TORY]

I hope cricket becomes a world sport like football.my personal view is that cricket has a lot going for it but it needs to be spread carefully. Specially, ICC should play a more significant role. I dont think that there are much hurdles in making cricket the game of as many nations. the conditions of different countries may vary, but still, it s possible. It may not be the game of 100 nations, but the current number of nations will definitely increase in the future.

 

[Richard]

I dont think that there are much hurdles in making cricket the game of as many nations.

Trust me, there are. Many.

 

[TORY]

Trust me, there are. Many.

In Bangladesh football was the number one sport in the 80s, now people are crazy about cricket in Bangladesh so if cricket can take over footbal over there it can be popular elsewhere. The same thing is happening in Nepal, football still being the no1 sport but cricket rapidly growing

 

[Richard]

Because something has happened on 2 occasions doesn't mean it is remotely likely to do so on another 50. Or even 10. Each case can only be assessed on its own merits.

 

[laksh_01]

I guess Cricket can overtake football in Asia & suites a lot of asian nations but tough in Europe & Americas... Africa again may be cricket can step in with some hard work. Practicaly if cricket has to compete with football it will be T20. Am a fan of Tests & 50 - 50 too but guys sorry to say a lot of people wont have so much time...

 

[Redbacks]

I posted this previously, but just the link. I think this is a good analysis of the T20 potential although some things I dont agree on. This could be Cricket's strategic move to win the summer over soccer in Australia
Australia 20/20 cricket league

Cricket is quite an odd sport in that it has massive global appeal, but relatively little economic power. The principle reason for the unusual mix is that there are few successful domestic leagues around the world and without domestic leagues, each country only has one team (the national team) to extract money. This is particularly the case in Australia. Arguably, cricket is Australia's most popular sport, but it is also one of Australia's most economically vulnerable and one with little market power compared to football, rugby league and even soccer.

20/20 cricket is likely to change the situation. If the new version develops as many commentators expect, there will be a proliferation of domestic leagues around the world, and cricket may end up being the most powerful sport in the world. 20/20 cricket is the first version of cricket that is suitable to a home and away format run along the lines of a football competition. A typical game starts at 5.30pm and is over by 8pm. Fans could watch the game after work, or as part of their weekly routine.

Like baseball in America, 20/20 is also a version of sport that can be played more than once a week. Potentially, a team in a domestic 20/20 cricket league could play 3 to 4 times a week, and pull annual crowds three times more than that of the football codes.

At present, Australia has been relatively inactive on the 20/20 front. It is in India and the West Indies where most of the revolutions are going on. In the West Indies, an American, Alan Stanford, has seen the potential 20/20 to form a bridge between South and North America. With more than 20 countries involved, Stanford's 20/20 tournament is numerically the largest tournament in the Americas. Admittedly, the largest countries of the region, such as Brazil and the United States, are not represented. However, teams could be contrived relatively simply and if so, both would be fertile markets for television. If so, a small sport could grow in a very rapid pace.

In India, two rival leagues have long-term plans to create a league format similar to America's NBA or major league baseball. The Indian Premier League (IPL) is sanctioned by boards around the world. The ICL is a "rebel" league that is not sanctioned by cricket boards. Both leagues are bidding for players from around the world.

The Indian leagues are going to set cricket in Australia on a path of turmoil. In the short term, Cricket Australia will find that it won't be able to sell India television rights to its state cricket competition that is traditionally used to train Australian players for test cricket. Furthermore, more Australian players will play in India and forget about state cricket. Inevitably, state cricket, as it is played today, will no longer be economically viable.

Even if state and test cricket were able to survive in Australia, the Indian developments are going to weaken Australia's competition to such an extent that Australia just won't have teams to play against. International cricket against New Zealand will be one of the first casualties. New Zealand's cricket team was never strong to begin with, and now it has lost half of its players to India. It is unlikely the New Zealand public will tolerate Australia regularly thrashing it even more than it does already, and test cricket in New Zealand will further decline in popularity.

How Cricket Australia reacts to this period of turmoil will ultimately determine whether cricket grows in popularity or falls into insignificance. If Cricket Australia does nothing, there is a small chance that soccer could exploit the chaos in its ranks to become a dominant force in the Australian summer. The only real option available to cricket is to create a national domestic 20/20 league run along the lines of a football competition. Such a competition would not leave much room for training players for test cricket or even one-day cricket. Furthermore, it probably would not have much scope for paying tribute to cricket Australia's traditions and heritage.

Understandably, not everyone in Australia is enthused by 20/20 cricket. That said, these critics are not bothered by the completely empty stadiums that Australia's state cricketers play in front of. Ultimately, the voices of 40,000 spectators paying to watch a game, whatever its format, mean more than a bitter old fogey complaining about traditions being disrespected.

If Cricket Australia maintains its traditionalist position, it may end up suffering the same fate as traditionalists in other industries that put them offside from market pressures. Cricket could die, or their control of cricket could be taken away from them.

In regards to Cricket Australia losing control, it is quite possible that a "rebel" Australian league could be established by the players who want to expose themselves for greater riches in India or the Americas. At present, only a very limited number of players get Cricket Australia contracts and most are underpaid for what they do. Furthermore, many players have been unfairly overlooked for selection, or dropped from the team. Such players would welcome a new cricketing format that would not only provide them with more remuneration but also give them some bargaining power. They would also welcome the opportunity to show themselves in the format where the big money is.

If a domestic league is established, soccer's niche in summer time will close. Furthermore, oval stadiums that can also be used by football will become more viable.

Potential cities for a cricket league:
Brisbane
Cairns
Gold Coast
Sydney
Newcastle
Melbourne
Geelong
Hobart
Adelaide
Auckland
Wellington
Canberra

 

[TORY]

I like this guy Stanford as he appears to be genuinely interested in promoting the sport. If cricket promotes itself in the USA and if it becomes really big in China and takesover football in Asia footy cricket could be the world's # 1

 

[TORY]

Generally, the recognised numer of countries in the World is 195. It is possible to give or take a few (adding in Scotland, Bermuda etc) but not come up with 227 + all the other countries where football is not #1

Actually there is. That’s just the number of countries who are independent, but if you add all the dependencies on top like Greenland, The Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, New Caledonia, Puerto Rico, even the Easter Island and many more, it works out to be around 260+ countries.

The International Federation of Volleyball alone has 220 national members, Basketball Federation has 213. The ICC has 104 countries, but a fair bit of them are dependencies…. Even the Falkland Islands a member

England, Wales, N.I, Scotland form just the one country member (U.K) for Bball &Vball Im very sure not every country in the world plays volleyball or basketball.

 

[Cric123]

Cricket is way more popular in Australia than soccer among people of British descent. However, there is a growing immigration from traditionally non-cricketing countries there and soccer is way more popular with them, many of whom, sadly, probably do not like cricket at all. That said cricket is now a fast growing sport among people of Southern European extraction within Australia and New Zealnad, which is great to hear, but the big percentage rise isn't surprising given we are starting from a low base. In South Africa, cricket is far more popular with white people (interestingly, majority of white crickters now seem to be Afrikaaners rather than Anglos) but soccer is massively popular with the black people there.

Read an article about cricket in Nigeria, a traditionally non-cricketing country, and the subject in the article, a Nigerian, who is doing his bit to spread the game there had learned it in England where he was born, reckons the game is on the verge becoming really big there, potentially even overtaking football. He reckons there are easily more than a million people that follow the game there, but unfortunately the game is prohibitively expensive compared to soccer where you only need a ball to get a game going.

I reckon T20 cricket could explode in the US if its marketed within schools and colleges. Baseball is relatively sedate compared to a T20 game. ESPN now showing some cricket in the US is a start.

 

[Cric123]

Interestingly, with the exception of the UK, cricket is more popular than soccer in all the cricket playing countries.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Has football always been more popular than cricket in the UK, or did 1966 make a difference?

 

[Cric123]

Has football always been more popular than cricket in the UK, or did 1966 make a difference?

Roughly equal, maybe cricket was slightly more popular at one time but only fractionally. The two sports have taken over different seasons of the year, pretty much sharing the same fans on the whole. Today, football attracts the worst of the British, the hooligans, chavs. The dumbed-down public today doesn't appreciate cricket much.

 

[fredfertang]

Roughly equal, maybe cricket was slightly more popular at one time but only fractionally. The two sports have taken over different seasons of the year, pretty much sharing the same fans on the whole. Today, football attracts the worst of the British, the hooligans, chavs. The dumbed-down public today doesn't appreciate cricket much.

Nah, politics and UKIP in particular do that

 

[WalkingWicket]

Has football always been more popular than cricket in the UK, or did 1966 make a difference?

Football has always been more popular. Cricket is very much a middle/upper class pursuit, as it normally took days to play and thus you couldn't play unless you could afford not to work/feed your family.With your typical British class divide, Football is bound to be more popular, and it still is today.

 

[Rotkohl]

Jonathan Wilson reckons that cricket was toppled by football not in 1966 but in 1953. I think I've read mentions of 50000 attending random county matchdays in the preWW2 era, although I cannot quite remember where. IMO even if cricket wasnt no. 1, it couldn't have been by much


Although you say UK and not England. Then its been football for much longer I guess

 

[Furball]

Has football always been more popular than cricket in the UK, or did 1966 make a difference?

Massively so.