RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I thought you hated this guy.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
ICC Finances 2024-2027
- Thread starter mackembhoy
- Start date
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That is a key difference between India and other countries, and also why I think a season-long league like some are foreseeing is more likely to NFL-ise the sport rather than still see the popularity maintained in the 'donor' countries as is the case for the EPL.
For football, a lot of the foreign EPL players are coming from Europe and N and W Africa where the matches are on at a good time, and though this is not the case for South America football has been established as the monopoly sport in those countries for many years (as it is in Africa and continental Europe).
In comparison while there is the summer/winter split (same as the one that allows baseball to keep trucking in the US, even if not as healthily as it could be), there are other sports in the countries outside the subcontinent that compete for athletic talent, principally multiple codes of football, and in the West Indies, the American sports. These countries do not have a cricket culture in the same way that India does. Here in Australia there is already the issue of AFL hoovering up potential talent, able to offer a more secure position at a younger age. If the best talent in playing in leagues that largely air after midnight rather
I'll analogise with motorcycle racing, albeit weakly as it's never been a mass-participation sport in most countries. Despite inexplicably having almost no top-level representation til the nineties it's far more popular and culturally accepted in Spain than most countries. Control of the GP competitions came under Spanish ownership around 1990 (with the rest more recently). From the mid-00s on up-and-coming riders decamped to Spain to compete there, made worse by the FIM's ridiculous (political) decision to turn the Spanish junior GP championships into 'world' championships. All the best young riders from other countries leave, hollowing out their own domestic competitions and then face a language and cultural barrier and a huge disadvantage of relocation costs and their opponents' home experience. Meanwhile it is hard to maintain interest and attract sponsors to grow the sport in those other countries. The result's been negative in most countries (even Italy, another traditionally strong country) with international pathways being worse than 25 years ago, and especially bad in the United States.
As bad as it is I don't think most cricket boards are as badly administered as motorcycle racing is in general (Sri Lanka might be an exception, but even the West Indies are better IMO) - it may be my personal attachment but I can't think of a sport so bad at growing itself even considering the hideous economic and cultural barriers it faces. But I can see an analogous situation developing. If the mooted all-year franchise contracts become a thing and top players abandon their countries then audience interest will decrease, followed by the value of media deals and sponsorship, which affects remuneration, and so on in a vicious spiral. WI and NZ are probably most at risk but I don't see England and Australia being immune, especially England where the grassroots are becoming increasingly unhealthy (and grounds are viewed for their real estate rather than sporting value).
This is perhaps an extreme scenario and while I don't think cricket would decline to complete irrelevance (the big subcontinent diasporas being an influence there) I could certainly see a situation where it is only a top sport in India plus some of the surrounding countries and it slipping down the totem pole elsewhere. Of course the other option is that all the leagues elsewhere bow to the omnipresence of Indian money, but either way the effect on the international game isn't hard to imagine.
Last edited:
Shri
Mr. Glass
i lost a lot of interest by the time all teams had played 10 games. it needs to shorter.
but ad deals require it to be longer. have junior franchises for all franchises and maybe have a junior tournament that runs alongside the main thing. u19 players from all around the world with full squads. top performers from junior sides can be called up to main squad at any point etc
Certainly for the likes of New Zealand, a franchise centred world would probably be the death of cricket.
Socerer 01
International Captain
are you the same dude on r/cricket?
Yup. I've been lurking around here for a while.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
People claiming there will be cricket fatigue with more IPL are living in an echo chamber. It tends to be CWers so…
Socerer 01
International Captain
welcome to the objectively superior cricket discussion place
Socerer 01
International Captain
it won’t die off like people here claim but there will be some form of fatigue. last season had poor viewership for many matches and this season viewership is also boosted by free broadcasting. it will eventually settle down at a high enough number but unless they expand the calendar to accommodate for more matches and future teams there will be a point where the fatigue will be real and people just follow the team(s) they like
Thank you. Nice to be here.welcome to the objectively superior cricket discussion place
I'm in the middle of a discussion about ICC revenue on other platforms, & I've been talking about the impact a competitive market can have on ICC revenue vs a broadcaster with a monopoly that has no interest in paying big money. I've used the example of NZ, where Sky TV wouldn't have paid any more than US$12 million (more than likely no more than US$5M), & for NZ to be a net contributor, Sky would have to pay the equivalent of NZ$180 million.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No one other than Indians cares a smidge about it as it is. That's not going to get better if there's even more of it.
Though it probably only really needs Indian audiences to survive so whether that really matters is debatable.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
Exactly.
Shady Slim
International Coach
wait but you've lurked here, and joined rather than been turned off by the rampant hivemind and bias against new posters who dare to challenge the zeitgeist of the cool group? next thing you're going to tell us people in south east asia have access to snack food!
(srslytho, welcome to the forum brother - hope that you enjoy having come here!!!!)
cnerd123
likes this
The ICC / BCCI / other boards are missing a big trick by not investing in the Emerging nations more.
They're so focused on trying to squeeze as much as they can out of existing markets that they're neglecting the potential that lies in growing new ones.
I think a lot of that has to do with not wanting to lose political clout. When Ireland and Afghanistan got accepted into Full Member status they did so with the blessings of the ECB and BCCI/ACC respectively, which probably means an understanding was reached where they were to vote in agreement with their sponsor board at ICC meetings. That's obviously not sustainable long term, and just means there's another vote on the table that needs lobbying for when regimes inevitably change.
Since then the Intercontinental Cup has been gutted and there are absolutely no plans in place to get any other nation playing Test cricket -and thus Full Member status- anytime soon. The ICC had a system in place that actually worked to make cricket professional in new regions and they killed it off because they did not want more votes at the table. We've probably witnessed the last generation of Associate cricketers who go to play International FC cricket.
This is quite different to FIFA's approach which, while corrupt, did actually bring professional football to a lot more countries around the world, and genuinely expanded the market for the sport beyond the handful nations that cared for it 70 years ago. Yes it means we get a world cup in Qatar, but I think that's better than every world cup for two decades being played within the same 3 regions.
I hope that professional T20 leagues + opening up T20I status + more frequent and larger T20 world cups (and all the qualifying tournaments associated with them) will actually serve as a catalyst to grow the game. Associates are already leveraging more game time on TV/streaming into making money, and many are snapping up contracts in low-level franchise tournaments. But there's still a long way to go till we have enough interest for the sport outside of India to feel secure in International cricket's future.
They're so focused on trying to squeeze as much as they can out of existing markets that they're neglecting the potential that lies in growing new ones.
I think a lot of that has to do with not wanting to lose political clout. When Ireland and Afghanistan got accepted into Full Member status they did so with the blessings of the ECB and BCCI/ACC respectively, which probably means an understanding was reached where they were to vote in agreement with their sponsor board at ICC meetings. That's obviously not sustainable long term, and just means there's another vote on the table that needs lobbying for when regimes inevitably change.
Since then the Intercontinental Cup has been gutted and there are absolutely no plans in place to get any other nation playing Test cricket -and thus Full Member status- anytime soon. The ICC had a system in place that actually worked to make cricket professional in new regions and they killed it off because they did not want more votes at the table. We've probably witnessed the last generation of Associate cricketers who go to play International FC cricket.
This is quite different to FIFA's approach which, while corrupt, did actually bring professional football to a lot more countries around the world, and genuinely expanded the market for the sport beyond the handful nations that cared for it 70 years ago. Yes it means we get a world cup in Qatar, but I think that's better than every world cup for two decades being played within the same 3 regions.
I hope that professional T20 leagues + opening up T20I status + more frequent and larger T20 world cups (and all the qualifying tournaments associated with them) will actually serve as a catalyst to grow the game. Associates are already leveraging more game time on TV/streaming into making money, and many are snapping up contracts in low-level franchise tournaments. But there's still a long way to go till we have enough interest for the sport outside of India to feel secure in International cricket's future.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Well, our biggest export continues to be PPL so maybe that won't be an issue at all. ?
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
@cnerd123 IMO while political clout may be a motivation the biggest is pretty simple - getting more money into the pockets of BCCI officials and people with connections - and soon, before terms expire and someone else takes up a role. The standard corporate governance these days.
The T20 leagues are not going to help grow either of the longer formats, they'll just encourage them to whither. And there is a limit to the number of leagues that can actually exist, certainly if they are to be of an acceptable quality.
Either way the BCCI does not need this money and it could easily have gone into extra for the associates, development etc., but greed wins out.
The T20 leagues are not going to help grow either of the longer formats, they'll just encourage them to whither. And there is a limit to the number of leagues that can actually exist, certainly if they are to be of an acceptable quality.
Either way the BCCI does not need this money and it could easily have gone into extra for the associates, development etc., but greed wins out.
cnerd123
likes this
Greed does win out but this is short term greed. This is where FIFA benefitted by having one individual/small circle helming the organisation over 10-15 years. They could be greedy in the long term, which meant building new markets to exploit. The nature of the ICC and all these cricket boards is that the leadership only lasts around 4/5 years at best, so all they care about is making the most money they can in that time frame, which means cash grab T20 leagues and hiding cricket behind paywalls. Not enough time to build new fans
I guess what I'm saying is that international cricket needs some greedy dictator style overlord to rule us for 15-20 years and then maybe we'll see it grow globally.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
this mf spittin
