India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Muloghonto]

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.

I am sorry but you are completely clueless on what i am talking about. An IPL team does not hire Tikolo to break into the Kenyan market. They don't give two figs about the Kenyan market or the Aussie one for that matter. But they will hire a Steve Tikolo if they thought Steve Tikolo was good enough and pay half a million for him. This is what makes Steve Tikolo and his compatriots exponentially more interested in cricket and persue professional cricket- to make big bucks for their talent instead of playing for team kenya at ICC events that give free food and hotel only. Thats exactly how soccer works in Africa- Real madrid does not care about the African market. The africans care about real madrid because of the money they can make via Real madrid.


But you did inadvertantly hit the nail on the head when you said ' just because test cricket has zero chance of penetrating north american market'.
That is precisely the crux of the problem. Test cricket has a zero percent chance of penetrating any market where it isn't already established in, from the pre cable/sattelite tv age.
My position is not about having status quo ante bellum, it is about growth of the sport- which is patently impossible with the most unmarkatable and unlucrative form of the game hogging the schedule (test cricket). If you want a global sport which can one day rival soccer ( and cricket certainly can- it requires strategy and skill, not just skill like baseball, it requires a patch of dirt, a ball and 8 sticks to play!) then test cricket cannot have more than 2 months of the year dedicated to it. If you want the current status quo to prevail where cricket is essentially India plus a few anglophile countries of the former british empire that ultimately do not matter to the sport's finances or popular base, then carry on.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

In the last 5 years of IPL's existance i can safely say that there are already plenty of fans who care about their franchises as well. Fans will care more about the product that is more exciting, fits into their schedules better and of better quality. We are already in the process of 'wiping the traditionalist culture' in cricket by the center of gravity shifting more and more to IPL/BBL.
The franchising argument is towards growth of the game in a global context. No team sport has managed to expand globally without a franchise model.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I am sorry but you are completely clueless on what i am talking about. An IPL team does not hire Tikolo to break into the Kenyan market. They don't give two figs about the Kenyan market or the Aussie one for that matter. But they will hire a Steve Tikolo if they thought Steve Tikolo was good enough and pay half a million for him. This is what makes Steve Tikolo and his compatriots exponentially more interested in cricket and persue professional cricket- to make big bucks for their talent instead of playing for team kenya at ICC events that give free food and hotel only. Thats exactly how soccer works in Africa- Real madrid does not care about the African market. The africans care about real madrid because of the money they can make via Real madrid.


But you did inadvertantly hit the nail on the head when you said ' just because test cricket has zero chance of penetrating north american market'.
That is precisely the crux of the problem. Test cricket has a zero percent chance of penetrating any market where it isn't already established in, from the pre cable/sattelite tv age.
My position is not about having status quo ante bellum, it is about growth of the sport- which is patently impossible with the most unmarkatable and unlucrative form of the game hogging the schedule (test cricket). If you want a global sport which can one day rival soccer ( and cricket certainly can- it requires strategy and skill, not just skill like baseball, it requires a patch of dirt, a ball and 8 sticks to play!) then test cricket cannot have more than 2 months of the year dedicated to it. If you want the current status quo to prevail where cricket is essentially India plus a few anglophile countries of the former british empire that ultimately do not matter to the sport's finances or popular base, then carry on.

You can't choose to use the economic argument and then ignore it completely. If you think the franchise exists to make money, then why are they going to sign up Tikolo - who will sell no merchandise and gain the team no extra following, when they can sign up a player of equal ability from a country with an existing market. This is why T20 will not help cricket to penetrate North America either as the market needs to exist in order for players like Tikolo to become an attractive proposition to the "free market" which you are using as the sole basis to justify the death of Test cricket in favour of T20. In the "free market" argument, results are neither here nor there as long as you're increasing your economic return.

I am not the one completely clueless here. You can't pick and choose when you can use "free market economics" to justify your argument but dismiss the same economics when it doesn't suit you. Pshaw.

 

[Muloghonto]

You can't choose to use the economic argument and then ignore it completely. If you think the franchise exists to make money, then why are they going to sign up Tikolo - who will sell no merchandise and gain the team no extra following, when they can sign up a player of equal ability from a country with an existing market. This is why T20 will not help cricket to penetrate North America either as the market needs to exist in order for players like Tikolo to become an attractive proposition to the "free market" which you are using as the sole basis to justify the death of Test cricket in favour of T20. In the "free market" argument, results are neither here nor there as long as you're increasing your economic return.

I am not the one completely clueless here. You can't pick and choose when you can use "free market economics" to justify your argument but dismiss the same economics when it doesn't suit you. Pshaw.

Private clubs do not care about the nationality of their players. If Tikolo is a success for say Mumbai Indians, he would sell Tikolo shirts to Mumbai Indian fans. The market in North America already exists because Canada has been an associate nation for ages and there are too many South Asian and Carribean people in USA. The incentive has not existed because playing international cricket is scraping the bottom of the barrel of professional sportsmenship in North America- why would you if you can make more money being the manager of a gas station ?
But the opportunity for this grassroot interest in North America, to crack it big in the IPL or BBL league is what would make 20/20 succeed in north america.

it is the same reason why soccer succeded in Africa as a profession. Not because soccer clubs in Europe want to sell merchendise to Africa but because the interest exists in Africa and coupled with opportunity in Europe, served as incentive for talented african soccer players to persue careers in Europe.
The dominance of a franchise model in cricket will do the same for cricket- it will give viable career options to people who like the sport or have been exposed to the sport and have the talent for it outside of the top 9 nations.

I am not dismissing or picking and choosing anything- it is you who is fundamentally failing to understand how the franchise model is far better suited at breaking into a new market than the national model. Thats because the franchise is a corporation at the end of the day, the national team is not.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

That's just plain wrong. You've used soccer as a bastardised example, so I will too. The number of teams in the Premier League who have signed South East Asian players in the past 10-15 years in order to tap into the lucrative South East Asian market is not nil, you realise. The number is significant as they know that even if that player is marginally inferior, it benefits their bottom line substantially if they can sell their franchise into new markets.

That incentive does not exist for franchises in cricket as the markets are tiny outside of the establishment. This means that in order to get signed up, an associate player has to be superior in skill and prowess to existing players from the big players rather than just their equal. Steve Tikolo has never been a superior player to those from the big established countries.

So, again, unless a player from an associate is superior, how does the franchise break into new markets. And, by new market I actually mean a NEW market - not an existing market of expats that live overseas. Asians and Caribbean diaspora in North America is not a new market. Tell me how franchise cricket through the Mumbai Indians will appeal to your average American hispanic when there isn't someone that they can look at in the product and go "Yes, that could be me." - whereas they can clearly do that with baseball.

 

[NasserFan207]

In the last 5 years of IPL's existance i can safely say that there are already plenty of fans who care about their franchises as well. Fans will care more about the product that is more exciting, fits into their schedules better and of better quality. We are already in the process of 'wiping the traditionalist culture' in cricket by the center of gravity shifting more and more to IPL/BBL.
The franchising argument is towards growth of the game in a global context. No team sport has managed to expand globally without a franchise model.

Actually its a lot harder to 'wipe culture' than how you describe it, at least in somewhere like the UK. People aren't going to be persuaded by bright lights and dancing girls, at least here. The main difference between the subcontinent and England or Australia, is that the former does not have a 'franchised based sport' in place yet, whereas the latter does. I guarantee that 1% of cricket fans in England want cricket to resemble football, there's just zero demand for it. Australia is similar, they have plenty of franchise based sports already. Of course there is in India, but does that translate to global cricket? No, and you need to recognize that.

As far as competing with soccer etc, well cricket will never compete with soccer or basketball primarily because it requires so much more money to play, and speaking from my and many others perspective we don't want to compete with soccer anyway.

As to franchise systems making more money by default, yes they do but only if there is fan interest, if there isn't fan interest then the system won't work, and you only build a franchise system like that over decades of culture and infrastructure. Its just not going to happen in England, Australia, NZ etc. Walking in with bags of cash won't do anything to change it, you'd be tossing money into the abyss. The only thing which would change it would be demand and time.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Whatever the motives, Tests in June are better than May. Just weather wise like. Clashing with the WC not so good from a public interest POV though.

 

[Muloghonto]

The franchise model is more favourable towards global expansion than national model. Why ? Because it is lot harder to assemble 11 cricketers from Canada that would be competetive enough to attract network time and sponsorship money in Canada, when Canada plays the big boys.
But with franchise model, all it takes is one 'George Weah' of Canada- one supremely talented canadian cricketer to make it big in an Indian or Australian franchise for interest to explode here as a viable career path. It definitely does more to get associate members and non-members interested in persuing cricket as a career than in the current national setup.

As for what the English fans want, once a franchise system is in place, it too will attract following- just like it does in India and is beginning to do so in Australia. You cannot dismiss the franchise system as 'zero interest' when its being proven as we speak that the franchise system is rapidly gaining popularity. It already competes with total market revenue of international cricket based on six weeks of IPL alone and BBL already earns more money for CA than test cricket does in all but the Ashes series.

I disagree that cricket is more expensive to play than basketball (well everything is more expensive to play than soccer) because in basketball at the end of the day you need money to put up the baskets, which in most countries require permits and money- far more money than you'd imagine. Whereas in cricket, you need 8 sticks ( 6 for the stumps, 2 for the bat), a ball and six sets of pads to get the game up and running.

And as to what may be valid in India is not that relevant, i am sorry but how can that not be a jingoistic/nepotistic position ? What makes most sense for the team that is contributing 80% of the sport's finances and fanbase is, by default, what matters the most to the sport.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But with franchise model, all it takes is one 'George Weah' of Canada- one supremely talented canadian cricketer to make it big in an Indian or Australian franchise for interest to explode here as a viable career path. It definitely does more to get associate members and non-members interested in persuing cricket as a career than in the current national setup.

Well, this is in theory the key, but until that happens there is still no significant growth under a franchise model. And who's to say that such a player is ever going to emerge, certainly from outside expat communities. You're pinning your hopes on a shot in the dark. Soccer was big in Africa before George Weah - meaning more kids were playing the game, making the chances of a "George Weah" much more likely to appear in Africa than such a cricketer in North America.

 

[Muloghonto]

That's just plain wrong. You've used soccer as a bastardised example, so I will too. The number of teams in the Premier League who have signed South East Asian players in the past 10-15 years in order to tap into the lucrative South East Asian market is not nil, you realise. The number is significant as they know that even if that player is marginally inferior, it benefits their bottom line substantially if they can sell their franchise into new markets.

That incentive does not exist for franchises in cricket as the markets are tiny outside of the establishment. This means that in order to get signed up, an associate player has to be superior in skill and prowess to existing players from the big players rather than just their equal. Steve Tikolo has never been a superior player to those from the big established countries.

So, again, unless a player from an associate is superior, how does the franchise break into new markets. And, by new market I actually mean a NEW market - not an existing market of expats that live overseas. Asians and Caribbean diaspora in North America is not a new market. Tell me how franchise cricket through the Mumbai Indians will appeal to your average American hispanic when there isn't someone that they can look at in the product and go "Yes, that could be me." - whereas they can clearly do that with baseball.

Again, merchendizing income is a tiny share of the pie. What matters more is television rights & sponsorship. Those two combined contribute between 60-75% of a sport's revenue, with 15-20% or so made up by merchendising and the rest, by ticket sales.

You are also incorrect in stating that the merchendising incentive does not exist outside of the big nations in cricket due to a tiny market. Its the tiny market where the growth potential is the greatest, which is why merchendising is of interest to these 'new places'. it requires far less marketing to sell a George Weah shirt in Liberia than it does to sell a Lionel Messi shirt in spain. Why ? because there are 50 other merchendising brandname (players in this case) options in Spain while Weah is the only one in Liberia.

Asians and caribbeans living in north america are a new market because this market is untapped as far as persuing cricketing careers and network times go.

How will franchise cricket through MI appeal to the average American hispanic ? the answer is simple- if we find one decent american hispanic that can play for MI, it leads to the 'it could be me too, go to India and earn millions' syndrome.
In the current setup, that will never ever happen because in the current setup you need to find 15 worldclass american cricketers right off the bat to make it a competetive enough sport to get enough money involved for the average american to go 'it could be me'. In the current national setup, it is all about getting just your hotel and food paid for. Who would just want that for a career ?
This is why franchising is far more successful in breaking into newer markets than national model. In the franchise model, you only need one role model playing for a foreign club making big bucks.
This is how baseball became popular in Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Those places do not matter to the networks, they have no franchises and a full baseball squad from those nations are not that good. But why do they manage to stay interested in baseball ? because of the Sami Sosas and the likes of the world- the one success story who went overseas (to the US) to play in a foreign league and is making millions.

 

[Muloghonto]

Well, this is in theory the key, but until that happens there is still no significant growth under a franchise model. And who's to say that such a player is ever going to emerge, certainly from outside expat communities. You're pinning your hopes on a shot in the dark. Soccer was big in Africa before George Weah - meaning more kids were playing the game, making the chances of a "George Weah" much more likely to appear in Africa than such a cricketer in North America.

Soccer was *NOT* big in Africa before the 1950s, when European clubs started taking black Africans in their starting eleven. It exploded in Africa since the days of Eusibio i believe, who was one of the first Africans to make it big in an European franchise.
The interest was there but the career options were not because playing for the African national teams meant no more than food and lodging- it still is that way for many african national teams.

And yes, i'd rather pin my hopes on finding one Virender Sehwag of Canada to crack the IPL and give the sport huge exposure in Canada than try and unearth the entire Australian team from the get-go to be competetive enough to earn more than just a sandwich and free bedding.
The former model is a shot in the dark that works sometimes and sometimes it doesnt ( but with enough time, it works most of the time). The latter model is nearly an impossibility in reality, which is why cricket on a national competition template has utterly failed to expand its market to beyond ten teams in over a century.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

How will franchise cricket through MI appeal to the average American hispanic ? the answer is simple- if we find one decent american hispanic that can play for MI, it leads to the 'it could be me too, go to India and earn millions' syndrome.
In the current setup, that will never ever happen because in the current setup you need to find 15 worldclass american cricketers right off the bat to make it a competetive enough sport to get enough money involved for the average american to go 'it could be me'. In the current national setup, it is all about getting just your hotel and food paid for. Who would just want that for a career ?
This is why franchising is far more successful in breaking into newer markets than national model. In the franchise model, you only need one role model playing for a foreign club making big bucks.
This is how baseball became popular in Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Those places do not matter to the networks, they have no franchises and a full baseball squad from those nations are not that good. But why do they manage to stay interested in baseball ? because of the Sami Sosas and the likes of the world- the one success story who went overseas (to the US) to play in a foreign league and is making millions.

I agree with this, but how does a franchise help to create the one world class player required to achieve this? On it's own, it won't because the risk is far too high.

But I'm glad you now agree that it requires a franchise to invest in a player from an emerging market and effectively underwrite that player through reduced team performance. Which is why they'd never invest in Steve Tikolo (unless he was good enough to improve the team), but they would invest in the American or Chinese equivalent.

 

[NasserFan207]

The franchise model is more favourable towards global expansion than national model. Why ? Because it is lot harder to assemble 11 cricketers from Canada that would be competetive enough to attract network time and sponsorship money in Canada, when Canada plays the big boys.
But with franchise model, all it takes is one 'George Weah' of Canada- one supremely talented canadian cricketer to make it big in an Indian or Australian franchise for interest to explode here as a viable career path. It definitely does more to get associate members and non-members interested in persuing cricket as a career than in the current national setup.

As for what the English fans want, once a franchise system is in place, it too will attract following- just like it does in India and is beginning to do so in Australia. You cannot dismiss the franchise system as 'zero interest' when its being proven as we speak that the franchise system is rapidly gaining popularity. It already competes with total market revenue of international cricket based on six weeks of IPL alone and BBL already earns more money for CA than test cricket does in all but the Ashes series.

I disagree that cricket is more expensive to play than basketball (well everything is more expensive to play than soccer) because in basketball at the end of the day you need money to put up the baskets, which in most countries require permits and money- far more money than you'd imagine. Whereas in cricket, you need 8 sticks ( 6 for the stumps, 2 for the bat), a ball and six sets of pads to get the game up and running.

And as to what may be valid in India is not that relevant, i am sorry but how can that not be a jingoistic/nepotistic position ? What makes most sense for the team that is contributing 80% of the sport's finances and fanbase is, by default, what matters the most to the sport.

Ok, I take your point on Basketball! Lets face it though, basketball is ****ing awesome to watch, thats why its popular, cricket can't compete with that spectacle.

As to the rest of your post, eh, you are kind of losing me. Perhaps you could backtrack a bit and consolidate your arguments into 1) What you want for cricket and 2) What you believe will happen, there's a little confusion here.

Of course 20/20 is going to be dominant, and IPL will be huge in India, but I don't see how that will 'kill' the other formats, in fact it may help them. Franchise cricket will also never overtake international cricket in the UK/Australia/NZ in terms of popularity.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The latter model is nearly an impossibility in reality, which is why cricket on a national competition template has utterly failed to expand its market to beyond ten teams in over a century.

The latter model seems to be working well enough for Ireland and Afghanistan at the moment. The former having a historic aversion to cricket (c.f. Éamon de Valera not wanting to be photographed holding a cricket bat for fear it would damage his reputation:

: Cricket in Ireland, former Ireland head of government Éamon de Valera was at a cricket game once when he picked up a cricket bat and showed some decent cricket skills. A photographer ran over with a camera. The Fianna Fáil** founder dropped the bat straight away. He knew that a photo like that would mean he wouldn't be invited to Croke Park, the home of Gaelic football.

...and the latter having made giant strides forward in a very short time. Similarly with Nepal. None of those 3 countries are wholly reliant on expats.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Yea, the whole plan is terrible, and incidentally ignores virtually every single recommendation made by ICCs own independent governance report, but that's the worst. Next step is logically that bcci get veto power over selection of other countries as India losing in less than five days is detrimental to the primary purpose of this body, the revenue stream.

 

[Muloghonto]

I agree with this, but how does a franchise help to create the one world class player required to achieve this? On it's own, it won't because the risk is far too high.

Because that 1 worldclass player that exists in the current setup, would be keen to persue a career overseas for his talents making millions. That same worldclass player that exists under the national system in the associate nation, will persue a different career ultimately because virtually anything pays more than playing cricket for Canada or any associate nation.
This one worldclass player gaining exposure and making millions is all that would take to inspire 30 others to play cricket as a career.

I will give you an example: Nikolai Khabibulin. A Kazakh goalkeeper (Ice Hockey), who intitially played for team Russia (before CIS being dissolved). He got drafted in the NHL. First Kazakh to play in the NHL. Got drafted as a backup by the Jets (who became Phoenix Coyotes with the relocation). Made league minimum or thereabouts salary (back then, around 400K), since he was unproven and Phoenix was a broke team. Moves to Tampa Bay in 2000. Again, league minimum salary. Then wins the Stanley Cup in 2004. His value shoots up to over 5 million per season.
Prior to 2004, # of Kazakh players drafted in the NHL: 1 ( Khabibulin).
Since 2004, # of Kazakh players drafted in the NHL: over 10.

This is the power of the franchising model. All it takes, is one high profile case for the sport to gain popularity in a market. This would've never happened if Hockey, like cricket stuck to the national model because Kazakh team would've been creamed by the top 7 teams 5-0 every single time and the Bulin wall (as Khabibulin was nicknamed) would've earned peanuts.

But I'm glad you now agree that it requires a franchise to invest in a player from an emerging market and effectively underwrite that player through reduced team performance. Which is why they'd never invest in Steve Tikolo (unless he was good enough to improve the team), but they would invest in the American or Chinese equivalent.

A franchise does not need to underwrite any player for the sport to gain following in the home of the said player. All it requires, is the sport to have some grassroot presence and one player striking it big to make it a viable career option for legions of others. THat is something that a nation vs nation setup can never afford, without unearthing a worldclass team right off the bat- a practical impossibility in pro sports.

 

[silentstriker]

Also with the replacement of the ftp with bilateral tours, its going to be India touring NZ and WI once a generation, or whenever BCCI needs a vote.

 

[Muloghonto]

Ok, I take your point on Basketball! Lets face it though, basketball is ****ing awesome to watch, thats why its popular, cricket can't compete with that spectacle.

Are you taking the piss ? BB is the most boring sport to watch- atleast for me. There is hardly any variety and its the epitome of 'watch the highlights, times it by 20 and thats the whole sport' type.

As to the rest of your post, eh, you are kind of losing me. Perhaps you could backtrack a bit and consolidate your arguments into 1) What you want for cricket and 2) What
you believe will happen, there's a little confusion here.

Of course 20/20 is going to be dominant, and IPL will be huge in India, but I don't see how that will 'kill' the other formats, in fact it may help them. Franchise cricket will also never overtake international cricket in the UK/Australia/NZ in terms of popularity.

What i want for cricket: shifting of the game from a nation vs nation format being dominant form to the sport being franchise vs franchise format. The latter model will make it expand into the latent markets of the associate nations far more.

What i see happening in cricket: the abovementioned franchise vs franchise format being dominant, using 20/20 as the main vehicle for its propagation.

I dont see why franchise cricket will not overtake national format in popularity in UK/Australia etc. The proof is in the pudding- if BBL can gain so much popularity in so little time, then in a decade or two, it stands a genuine chance of eclipsing the national format as the most popular format.

The main reason why this will happen, is because in the franchise model, it is nearly impossible to cook up an 'ATG team plus 20 other mediocre teams' for any extended periods of time. True, 'soccer dynasties' have existed in the past but these dynasties, in the modern market have lasted less than 4 years, not entire careers like the Aussie cricket teams of 95 to 2007, West Indies from 76 to 91, etc.
This is because franchises are money driven and they are not restricted in their recruitment potential. As such, there will always be another franchise or two out there who will offer top dollars to the other players making up the top 1% of elite players, preventing the creation of a 'ATG career franchise', instead making 2-3 good/great franchises that are highly competetive with each other.

This will not only earn far more fans, it is also ultimately what the networks and advertisers want- close contests, not an ATG team beating the snot out of inferior teams which all but the most rabid fans of the ATG team will want to see.

 

[Muloghonto]

The latter model seems to be working well enough for Ireland and Afghanistan at the moment. The former having a historic aversion to cricket (c.f. Éamon de Valera not wanting to be photographed holding a cricket bat for fear it would damage his reputation:

How is it working well for Ireland when the Irish players are essentially trashing the nation vs nation model by changing nationalities ?
Afghanistan is an anomaly- that place is so riddled with violence and instabiity that market dyamics does not apply to them as stringently. If i were an Afghan, i too would rather be penniless holding a bat than risk being blown up by the taliban one fine day on my farm.

...and the latter having made giant strides forward in a very short time. Similarly with Nepal. None of those 3 countries are wholly reliant on expats.

And neither of these sides will be competetive or make anything more than chump change for the next 20 years, leading to stagnancy in growth of the sport in their home market, because none of those teams will compete with the average test teams nearly enough to attract enough sponsorship money.
They may fill up the stands but that does not matter.

 

[NasserFan207]

How is it working well for Ireland when the Irish players are essentially trashing the nation vs nation model by changing nationalities ?
Afghanistan is an anomaly- that place is so riddled with violence and instabiity that market dyamics does not apply to them as stringently. If i were an Afghan, i too would rather be penniless holding a bat than risk being blown up by the taliban one fine day on my farm.




And neither of these sides will be competetive or make anything more than chump change for the next 20 years, leading to stagnancy in growth of the sport in their home market, because none of those teams will compete with the average test teams nearly enough to attract enough sponsorship money.
They may fill up the stands but that does not matter.

The Irish players are doing that because they have no choice if they want to play test cricket, of course they would play for their country if it was possible.

I take your point on the current system and associates, and perhaps a franchise system would help. But I don't think it would go further than what we have currently and I don't see it becoming dominant in certain countries.

Guess we should agree to disagree on this aspect, guess we will find out for ourselves who is right.