-
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.
India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket
- Thread starter Fusion
- Start date
There is nothing free market about the franchise model. It's anything but. An approach to sport from a free market perspective a lot more resembles the Barcleys Premier League than the NFL.
If you want to fix test cricket - just bring in a tier system. You really don't have to do anything else. The market will sort itself out.
If you want to fix test cricket - just bring in a tier system. You really don't have to do anything else. The market will sort itself out.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Meh, with the exception of New Zealand every other 'minor' board has taken the piss out of cricket in one way or another over the last 5 years. Frankly anything that takes power out of the hands of dysfunctional ****wits like the PCB or WICB is a good thing for the world game.
Pakistan and the West Indies cancelled a Test Series last summer. That's much, much worse for the long term health of the game than England, India and Australia trying to wrestle ppwer out of the hands of boards that are incompetent and not fit for purpose.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
What is old is new again. Next stop is to give veto power to the BCCI.
Ludicrously myopic changes. If this is what passes for governance, Test cricket probably should be allowed to wither away and die.
Ludicrously myopic changes. If this is what passes for governance, Test cricket probably should be allowed to wither away and die.
Muloghonto
U19 12th Man
The tier system will die instantly when one of England, India or Australia gets 'relegated'. And to get a 'protected tier system' is not fixing the problem, its further murkifying the situation.
By Barclay's Premier League i assume you mean English Premier League ? if so, how are they not a franchise model ? ManU is a franchise, no different than the Denver Broncos.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
BCCI is not competent- they just have a cash cow on their hands. They just have money. If the BCCI had the revenue of the PCB or WICB to work with, they'd be worse than either of them.
Like how Serie A died when Juventus was relegated? Or how about when English Football died when Newcastle was relegated? Or Leeds. Or how ManU was relegated in the 60s?
Your assertion is ****ing ridiculous. The health of English football is due to the pyramid. Go educate yourself a bit: The Pyramid.info Also read up about teams like Wimbledon that made it all the way to the top.
Nobody is protected in the top tier of football. Nobody should be here either. Free market will dictate where teams end up.
Jesus Christ. Manchester United is a football club, not a franchise. No league organizer auctioned the club to the highest bidder.
Last edited:
Muloghonto
U19 12th Man
Your soccer relegation idea is irrelevant because there are no soccer teams that generate 50% of the revenue for the entire sport. You are advocating relegation scheme that may see the teams that earn 50%, 20% and 25% of the revenues for the whole sport ? That is utterly ridiculous, since that will kill the money in the sport instantly.
Why would networks and sponsors pay top money to see their product advertised amongst a 2nd tier system ? No money equals no sport.
To have a market-driven pyramid scheme of sporting excellence, you need the VOLUME of teams to make it viable. You don;'t have a pyramid scheme involving 10 team. Thats just stupid, there isn't enough of a 'base' for the pyramid to exist!
If Juventus or ManU earned 50% of the league revenue, relegating them too would've lead to the instant demise of the league.
Semantics is the basis of your disagreement then ? You don't have to auction the club to the highest bidder to be a franchise. The governing body retains the trademark right to the club's name. Thats what makes ManU technically a franchise. ManU cannot deciede tomorrow to have the same shirt, logo and name and switch sport to cricket.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
Best part was this
I told you so. What rot. The whole point of sport is you're trying to make a fair playing field. Perhaps we should allow the big three to select players from other nations as well, So India could have Steyn nd Philander, Australia Chanderpaul, or England Taylor.
I told you so. What rot. The whole point of sport is you're trying to make a fair playing field. Perhaps we should allow the big three to select players from other nations as well, So India could have Steyn nd Philander, Australia Chanderpaul, or England Taylor.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Lol, this is a terrible idea.
To the guy saying crickets future is in franchise, no it isn't. Don't be blinded by other sports, sports rely on infrastructure being built up from the beginning. Cricket has always been about the international game, and will continue to be so. Soccer and American sports have always been about the franchise/club game, which is why they continue to be so.
Cricket fans will never care more about franchises than the international game, it won't happen, certainly in our lifetimes, I'm convinced.
To the guy saying crickets future is in franchise, no it isn't. Don't be blinded by other sports, sports rely on infrastructure being built up from the beginning. Cricket has always been about the international game, and will continue to be so. Soccer and American sports have always been about the franchise/club game, which is why they continue to be so.
Cricket fans will never care more about franchises than the international game, it won't happen, certainly in our lifetimes, I'm convinced.
Last edited:
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Muloghonto's argument holds no water anyway in certain areas.
Look at NZ for example. This week, we've had an international T20 and last night the Semi Final of our equivalent of the Big Bash League. The attendance for the T20 international was about 50% at most (15,000 maybe) and for the Semi Final maybe 500 spectators. Contrast that with the attendances for last summer's Test matches versus England - sell outs at Dunedin and Wellington for the majority of the Test - and the attendances we'll get this summer for playing India and you can see that if it was down to pure economics for the NZ board, we'd only play series against England and India. I doubt we'd get such good attendances versus Australia even. In fact, given the tourist $ income to NZ when England in particular tours, I'd think the government and our erstwhile Minister for Tourism (Prime Minister John Key) might be a little bit perturbed by the idea that we'd never see foreign teams tour these shores. Sure, in a franchise model we'd get foreign players, we already do, but who in their right mind would come to NZ to see Jos Buttler or equivalent playing for Wellington Windsocks against the Napier Nuggets? If they were interested, they'd watch it on the telly.
Ergo from an economic point of view a franchise model in NZ would not maximise economic income for players.
Hence, you end up having a combination of successful T20 leagues (Big Bash, IPL) alongside equally financially viable Test series. England in particular must make an absolute packet on Test matches given ticket prices there and sold out venues all over the country. To suggest Test cricket in itself is uneconomic at the present time and doesn't contribute a massive chunk to a cricketer's pay packet is a fallacy.
Look at NZ for example. This week, we've had an international T20 and last night the Semi Final of our equivalent of the Big Bash League. The attendance for the T20 international was about 50% at most (15,000 maybe) and for the Semi Final maybe 500 spectators. Contrast that with the attendances for last summer's Test matches versus England - sell outs at Dunedin and Wellington for the majority of the Test - and the attendances we'll get this summer for playing India and you can see that if it was down to pure economics for the NZ board, we'd only play series against England and India. I doubt we'd get such good attendances versus Australia even. In fact, given the tourist $ income to NZ when England in particular tours, I'd think the government and our erstwhile Minister for Tourism (Prime Minister John Key) might be a little bit perturbed by the idea that we'd never see foreign teams tour these shores. Sure, in a franchise model we'd get foreign players, we already do, but who in their right mind would come to NZ to see Jos Buttler or equivalent playing for Wellington Windsocks against the Napier Nuggets? If they were interested, they'd watch it on the telly.
Ergo from an economic point of view a franchise model in NZ would not maximise economic income for players.
Hence, you end up having a combination of successful T20 leagues (Big Bash, IPL) alongside equally financially viable Test series. England in particular must make an absolute packet on Test matches given ticket prices there and sold out venues all over the country. To suggest Test cricket in itself is uneconomic at the present time and doesn't contribute a massive chunk to a cricketer's pay packet is a fallacy.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
The only aspect he's correct in is that 20/20 is more popular in the subcontinent which is true, however the international game still rules regardless of whether its 20/20, people want to watch India play Australia or Pakistan in 20/20 over IPL nonsense.
Franchise is not about to overtake international cricket, its just a fact.
Fusion
Global Moderator
Oh please. How about when India recently reduced the South Africa test series for no great reason? How about when England recently moved the May Test matches against Sri Lanka to June (and of course reduced it to a 2 test series) to avoid conflict with the IPL? This is not about who’s more “competent” to run the game, but rather who’s more powerful.
Muloghonto
U19 12th Man
Test cricket does not contribute the majority of money in cricket. That is a fact.
Modern sports do not rely on ticket sales for revenue- they are a tiny fraction of revenue, they rely on network deals and advertisement revenues.
The average ODI and the average 20/20 match not only attracts significantly bigger crowds on average ( I am yet to see a single ODI played in a stadium with 20 people sitting in it, there are plenty of such examples in test cricket).
Bear in mind, test cricket has boosted attendance records by having 'free student pass on final day' and such gimmicks.
It is also a known fact that networks and sponsors have trashed the Test championship idea because test cricket eats up too much network time and is too hit and miss for network advertisements.
it is also a known fact that the networks such as ESPN and major sponsors have aggressively pushed for a minimum number of ODIs/ T20 matches per series or per calendar years.
Therefore, test cricket is simply not viable. It has patchy attendance record for all but the top teams and the home team. Even home teams like New Zealand and England stuggle to sell out test matches against the lesser teams like Bangladesh or West Indies. Yet they sell significantly more tickets for the ODI game, that is a fact.
The players from lesser teams and associate teams will have infinitely more opportunities to further their professional careers in leagues like BBL or IPL. The furtherment of these leagues is what will make cricket popular and actually a profession for people outside of the top 9 countries, because the nation vs nation setup is extremely difficult to finance and find support for at the grassroot levels for nations where cricket is not an established sport. But if individual merit can earn top dollars, such as in these leagues, we will see a significant interest in cricket from associate nations and the world beyond, because now its not a matter of getting paid food and hotel expenses for all your life playing cricket for Kenya. If you are that good (and Steve Tikolo was), you would be making half a million in IPL. Far more incentive in the franchising model than in the national model, which has a proven track record of stagnancy and failure to provide quality performances in budding nations.
Modern sports do not rely on ticket sales for revenue- they are a tiny fraction of revenue, they rely on network deals and advertisement revenues.
The average ODI and the average 20/20 match not only attracts significantly bigger crowds on average ( I am yet to see a single ODI played in a stadium with 20 people sitting in it, there are plenty of such examples in test cricket).
Bear in mind, test cricket has boosted attendance records by having 'free student pass on final day' and such gimmicks.
It is also a known fact that networks and sponsors have trashed the Test championship idea because test cricket eats up too much network time and is too hit and miss for network advertisements.
it is also a known fact that the networks such as ESPN and major sponsors have aggressively pushed for a minimum number of ODIs/ T20 matches per series or per calendar years.
Therefore, test cricket is simply not viable. It has patchy attendance record for all but the top teams and the home team. Even home teams like New Zealand and England stuggle to sell out test matches against the lesser teams like Bangladesh or West Indies. Yet they sell significantly more tickets for the ODI game, that is a fact.
The players from lesser teams and associate teams will have infinitely more opportunities to further their professional careers in leagues like BBL or IPL. The furtherment of these leagues is what will make cricket popular and actually a profession for people outside of the top 9 countries, because the nation vs nation setup is extremely difficult to finance and find support for at the grassroot levels for nations where cricket is not an established sport. But if individual merit can earn top dollars, such as in these leagues, we will see a significant interest in cricket from associate nations and the world beyond, because now its not a matter of getting paid food and hotel expenses for all your life playing cricket for Kenya. If you are that good (and Steve Tikolo was), you would be making half a million in IPL. Far more incentive in the franchising model than in the national model, which has a proven track record of stagnancy and failure to provide quality performances in budding nations.
Muloghonto
U19 12th Man
In a free market system, the international game would've already been sidelined by the IPL. The amount of money generated by six weeks of IPL rivals that is generated by 12 months of international cricket from outside India.
franchising is already well on its way to becoming the dominant form of the sport- it is in every single team sport i know of. Rome wasn't built in a day and i don't expect a new format that is franchise-friendly will kill off test cricket overnight, but give it a decade or so and it will.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Even if it becomes dominant, it won't 'kill it off'. Test cricket will always have an audience, even if they don't make the money IPL players make. Most players prefer it as a format anyway, the longer format is better for testing your skill. I couldn't care less what format is dominant tbh.
And your example just doesn't work for England, Australia, SA etc. People don't care about the club/franchise aspect at all in the UK. Its the international game above everything.
Last edited:
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You're making broad brush assumptions based on your own experience in a North American context.
Why don't you reference your "known facts" and demonstrate how they apply to all current cricket jurisdictions? NZ TV has just started showing the Sri Lanka vs. Pakistan Test Series. They've never shown such a supposedly niche Test series in the past, but they are doing so now. Despite the "known fact" that Test cricket eats up too much network time. In fact, they've shown this instead of bothering to provide coverage of all domestic T20 games or any domestic one day games. Yes, the Test cricket coverage was (presumably) a cheaper option, but they still wouldn't show it if the demand was zero.
Test cricket is viable. I was just at a world record attendance Test match at the MCG. The attendance was up on any other Test match held there since the MCG's current expansion was completed (early 2000s?) and would also have been watched by multitudes on TV in Australia and England, as well as a good number elsewhere - like myself in NZ if I hadn't been at the game. Just because there's no chance of Test cricket ever making any inroads into the North American market doesn't give you the right to dictate that based on that evidence, it is a "non viable" form.
Steve Tikolo is a bizarre example as he'd have never fetched half a mil in the IPL. John Davison based on his World Cup exploits, perhaps. How many associate players are making their way in BBL/IPL at the moment? Ryan ten Doeschate - a South African by birth and education, Dirk Nannes - an Australian. These franchise leagues pay the big bucks for players who will attract more viewers and more $$$. You think that they're interested in signing up Tikolo to penetrate the "lucrative" Kenyan market? Not a chance - they'll keep signing up guys in the main countries in order to penetrate the existing big money markets there.
Why don't you reference your "known facts" and demonstrate how they apply to all current cricket jurisdictions? NZ TV has just started showing the Sri Lanka vs. Pakistan Test Series. They've never shown such a supposedly niche Test series in the past, but they are doing so now. Despite the "known fact" that Test cricket eats up too much network time. In fact, they've shown this instead of bothering to provide coverage of all domestic T20 games or any domestic one day games. Yes, the Test cricket coverage was (presumably) a cheaper option, but they still wouldn't show it if the demand was zero.
Test cricket is viable. I was just at a world record attendance Test match at the MCG. The attendance was up on any other Test match held there since the MCG's current expansion was completed (early 2000s?) and would also have been watched by multitudes on TV in Australia and England, as well as a good number elsewhere - like myself in NZ if I hadn't been at the game. Just because there's no chance of Test cricket ever making any inroads into the North American market doesn't give you the right to dictate that based on that evidence, it is a "non viable" form.
Steve Tikolo is a bizarre example as he'd have never fetched half a mil in the IPL. John Davison based on his World Cup exploits, perhaps. How many associate players are making their way in BBL/IPL at the moment? Ryan ten Doeschate - a South African by birth and education, Dirk Nannes - an Australian. These franchise leagues pay the big bucks for players who will attract more viewers and more $$$. You think that they're interested in signing up Tikolo to penetrate the "lucrative" Kenyan market? Not a chance - they'll keep signing up guys in the main countries in order to penetrate the existing big money markets there.
Muloghonto
U19 12th Man
Test cricket is more fun to play but I've known plenty of players-mostly ex players- who'd happily trade the 'more fun' aspect of test cricket for the tonnes of more money in 20/20 if it were around.
Test cricket will always have an audience when England plays Australia or India plays the big teams (or Pakistan). outside of them, test cricket will always require CPR.
And how many people attend the stadiums is largely irrelevant because revenue in modern sports is dictated by how many people you can appeal to on television over other sports. For, every 1 person in attendance, even in a full capacity MCG, there are 100 people sitting around on tv watching it. Those 100 people and how to appeal to them and their time matters more- both financially and for the health of the game.
And this is where Test cricket fails miserably.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Of course plenty of players would rather earn more money, but that won't stop tests from being played at some level. So your 'kill off' argument is just incorrect. A lot of test players do great.
Besides which, the subject of tests vs 20/20 is separate to the franchise vs international argument. We will likely disagree on test cricket but you are talking about the franchise system from the North American perspective. You can't just wipe culture, fans care about internationals more than clubs, deal with it.
Last edited: