India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[jan]

Imo most of the fans realize cricket is gonna end up as Mulgo suggests, turning into yet another footballized sport.

Great thread so far.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

The only reason there is some interest in cricket in Ireland is because 'if you are decent, some English county club will give you a 50-70K contract, which is pretty decent'.
Their main reason to pick up cricket as a career is not to represent Ireland and be penniless, its to play in English county system and make a decent living. Which is, indirectly pandering to the franchise system and not the nation vs nation system!

I don't see how you can say it won't get further than what we have currently or that it won't become dominant when in less than 5 years the franchise model is rocketing through the popularity charts wherever its been tried and six weeks of IPL is starting to generate comparable revenue as the rest of the international schedule minus India does in 12 months!
Yes, they are not there yet to supplant the national model, nowhere close infact but thats because of the infancy of the system. But how can you be so skeptical about a system that is showing astronomical growth rates in the few years its existed ?

 

[NasserFan207]

The only reason there is some interest in cricket in Ireland is because 'if you are decent, some English county club will give you a 50-70K contract, which is pretty decent'.
Their main reason to pick up cricket as a career is not to represent Ireland and be penniless, its to play in English county system and make a decent living. Which is, indirectly pandering to the franchise system and not the nation vs nation system!

I don't see how you can say it won't get further than what we have currently or that it won't become dominant when in less than 5 years the franchise model is rocketing through the popularity charts wherever its been tried and six weeks of IPL is starting to generate comparable revenue as the rest of the international schedule minus India does in 12 months!
Yes, they are not there yet to supplant the national model, nowhere close infact but thats because of the infancy of the system. But how can you be so skeptical about a system that is showing astronomical growth rates in the few years its existed ?

Yes you are correct on Ireland, but this more an indictment on cricket's old boys club than the fact that we prefer the international game. Speaking as an Irishman of course.

You are right though, franchise cricket would help associate cricketers make money, but its separate to the main point I was making, in that there is no demand for franchise cricket to 'supplant' international cricket in certain countries. And that this is unlikely to change, at least for a long, long time. Thats all I'm saying. I'm just talking from my experiences as a cricket fan in these circles.

 

[Muloghonto]

Yes you are correct on Ireland, but this more an indictment on cricket's old boys club than the fact that we prefer the international game. Speaking as an Irishman of course.

It is more than that, is what i am saying. Say if the old boys club were not there anymore and Ireland was a test nation. What would that do ? A team of Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin and a couple of other FC players from County cricket would do might well to not get whitewashed inside of 3 days by Sri Lanka.
That would mean very little interest from the networks and sponsors to throw money into Irish cricket. This is the same problem with Bangladesh cricket and why the revenue sharing program exists in the fist place. Even with revenue sharing, the likes of Sakib Al Hasan are making less than 50K a year playing for their national team.

Now, in 3rd world countries, this is a good wage but if we are to break into the 1st world markets of North America, Europe or even semi-industrialized markets of Latin America, this type of income potential will get you nowhere. It will lead to legions of very good highschool players who became 'sports journalists' by the age of 23.
Because at the end of the day, networks and advertisers wont throw good money at a bad product, which all start-up national teams are. its extremely hard to assemble 15 competent cricketers from a nation where cricket is barely on the map. Its not that hard to find one or two (like Ireland have done) and provide further incentive for development by providing a viable avenue for furthering one's career in the franchise model.

You are right though, franchise cricket would help associate cricketers make money, but its separate to the main point I was making, in that there is no demand for franchise cricket to 'supplant' international cricket in certain countries. And that this is unlikely to change, at least for a long, long time. Thats all I'm saying. I'm just talking from my experiences as a cricket fan in these circles.

How do you know there is no demand, when its been launched and gobbled up by the masses in Australia and India in no time ? Sure, franchise 20/20 will not smash through the ashes rating the very year it starts. but like any business, it needs to get off its feet, up and running and establish a client base. And from all indications we have so far, the client base exists, due to the stunning success of the 20/20 format in India, Australia and South Africa compared to their international/domestic FC setup.
Sure, they are not anywhere close to eclipsing the international setup, but why would you conclude that there is no demand, when its showing double digits growth rates in terms of pulling in the revenue and making itself more and more lucrative to the players with every passing season ?

Can you tell me what i am missing here, from a marketing/growth/business perspective here ? For whichever way i look at it, it seems like the IPL/BBL are the new cash-cows of cricket. To be that, in an entertainment industry (which is what sports is), it *must* garner huge following for the ratings, as everything network & advertisement related money is tied to ratings ?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I take it you're an economist Muloghonto?

 

[NasserFan207]

It is more than that, is what i am saying. Say if the old boys club were not there anymore and Ireland was a test nation. What would that do ? A team of Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin and a couple of other FC players from County cricket would do might well to not get whitewashed inside of 3 days by Sri Lanka.
That would mean very little interest from the networks and sponsors to throw money into Irish cricket. This is the same problem with Bangladesh cricket and why the revenue sharing program exists in the fist place. Even with revenue sharing, the likes of Sakib Al Hasan are making less than 50K a year playing for their national team.

Now, in 3rd world countries, this is a good wage but if we are to break into the 1st world markets of North America, Europe or even semi-industrialized markets of Latin America, this type of income potential will get you nowhere. It will lead to legions of very good highschool players who became 'sports journalists' by the age of 23.
Because at the end of the day, networks and advertisers wont throw good money at a bad product, which all start-up national teams are. its extremely hard to assemble 15 competent cricketers from a nation where cricket is barely on the map. Its not that hard to find one or two (like Ireland have done) and provide further incentive for development by providing a viable avenue for furthering one's career in the franchise model.




How do you know there is no demand, when its been launched and gobbled up by the masses in Australia and India in no time ? Sure, franchise 20/20 will not smash through the ashes rating the very year it starts. but like any business, it needs to get off its feet, up and running and establish a client base. And from all indications we have so far, the client base exists, due to the stunning success of the 20/20 format in India, Australia and South Africa compared to their international/domestic FC setup.
Sure, they are not anywhere close to eclipsing the international setup, but why would you conclude that there is no demand, when its showing double digits growth rates in terms of pulling in the revenue and making itself more and more lucrative to the players with every passing season ?

Can you tell me what i am missing here, from a marketing/growth/business perspective here ? For whichever way i look at it, it seems like the IPL/BBL are the new cash-cows of cricket. To be that, in an entertainment industry (which is what sports is), it *must* garner huge following for the ratings, as everything network & advertisement related money is tied to ratings ?

I would say that its more 20/20 cricket which is the cash cow, not the franchise system though.

 

[Fusion]

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.

I can buy that. However, the fact remain the Tests were shortened from 3 to 2. I was just making a counter to Furbal's ridiculous point about how Pak/WI/SL don't deserve to be in power because they had the gall to eliminate Tests in the recent past. Never mind the fact that these are all cash-starved boards (partly because they don't get to play the Big 3 that often) and must make whatever money they can from ODI's and Twenty20.

 

[Binkley]

You are right though, franchise cricket would help associate cricketers make money, but its separate to the main point I was making, in that there is no demand for franchise cricket to 'supplant' international cricket in certain countries. And that this is unlikely to change, at least for a long, long time. Thats all I'm saying. I'm just talking from my experiences as a cricket fan in these circles.

Franchise cricket has so far had zero appeal to NZ fans, and I can't see that changing. If the only cricket we were to see involving national players is some franchise game in a different timezone then the game would die here. It is dying already thanks to the failure to enforce the FTP, meaning restricted summer series.

In addition, T20 may have appeal in some markets, but not in all. Cricket is not a success because of T20, T20 is a success because of the basis provided by over 100 years of the international game that lies behind it.

And finally, the proposal completely fails to acknowledge what makes a franchise system work - which is an equal basis for each team. That is why MLB is a success, and the SPL is not. Teams on an equal financial footing generates a better contest, generates better interest, generates more money.

Anyway, in my opinion the point is entirely moot. The proposal is simply a negotiating ploy. It is the big boys saying "here is the alternative" when pressing the ICC for concessions.

 

[harsh.ag]

Good stuff, Mulog. We need a lot more franchise teams at the T20 level for the sport to expand in the long run, and the ODI model definitely needs to be scaled down. Unfortunately, this is not what ECB, BCCI and CA are planning right now, and it would be better if this thread remains about what they have actually suggested.

CA and ECB will assure three tests and five ODIs per four years to the top 8 members (while BCCIs "assurance" has not been defined yet). They will nominate the non-permanent basis on an annual basis. They will also get to keep more of the revenue generated.

Demeaning to other teams, and the sport in general. Very, very bad proposal.

No World Test Championship either. Probably because SA will win it and make the overlords look bad Meritocracy but for the overlords. Go communism.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'll just say that I despise franchised sport and all it represents. I don't see that soccer is franchised sport - though I guess Wimbledon picking up sticks and moving to Milton Keynes shows some of the similar qualities that might be seen when the Springfield Isotopes think of moving to (hot dog, jumping frog) Albuquerque.

It's just so plastic and manufactured. Why does every team have to be associated with some animal or inanimate object? Are we that really short of attention and nous that we associate more with an inanimate object than we do with our own home town? It makes me sick. Franchising also has massively reduced the likelihood of home town players turning out for your team. I love the way that I can be at my cricket clubrooms one week sharing a yarn with Mark Houghton or Henry Walsh and next week they might take to the field for Wellington. It wouldn't be the same if they had to opt to play for Nelson or Dunedin because Wellington had filled their roster with Siddons-imports. Maybe I'm the one who's anachronistic, but it'll be a sad, sad day when every sport is a different shade of the same old polystyrene ****.

 

[hendrix]

1. There is no such thing as 'obscene amount of money'. What the market is willing to pay, is what the fair price is. Messi does not make obscene amount of money, he makes the fair market value.

no.

 

[Furball]

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.

How is that an issue?

By avoiding a clash with the IPL the ECB has ensured that Sri Lanka's top players aren't in a position where they have to give up earnings to play Test cricket. Had the ECB stuck to a May schedule we might have seen some Sri Lankan players not tour (understandable given SLC's risible record when it comes to paying its players) which would have both reduced the quality of cricket and undermined the international game.

As for 'reducing' it to a 2-Test series? No, there's no room in the schedule for anything else seeing as England host India for a 5 Test series later in the summer. England play 7 Tests in a home summer and logic dictates that if you're playing a 5 Test series against one side, that only leaves room for 2 Tests against the other. It's not ideal, of course it's not, but I think it's a reasonable trade off in order to play more 5 Test series.

 

[archie mac]

A reputation based on success in a league where the talent pool is global (not nationally restricted) and driven by financial incentive is the only reputation that matters in most team sports.
Messi is not evaluated by what he does or didnt do for Argentina. Its what he does for his club that matters. Crosby is considered the gretest hockey player in a generation not for winning gold in Vancouver, its for what he does for the Pittsburg Penguins.

cricket too will eventually follow this dictum.

20/20 is a different sport to cricket. So If their happy to be the best at a poor imitation of the real thing, then I suppose that's fair enough

 

[Fusion]

How is that an issue?

By avoiding a clash with the IPL the ECB has ensured that Sri Lanka's top players aren't in a position where they have to give up earnings to play Test cricket. Had the ECB stuck to a May schedule we might have seen some Sri Lankan players not tour (understandable given SLC's risible record when it comes to paying its players) which would have both reduced the quality of cricket and undermined the international game.

As for 'reducing' it to a 2-Test series? No, there's no room in the schedule for anything else seeing as England host India for a 5 Test series later in the summer. England play 7 Tests in a home summer and logic dictates that if you're playing a 5 Test series against one side, that only leaves room for 2 Tests against the other. It's not ideal, of course it's not, but I think it's a reasonable trade off in order to play more 5 Test series.

I’ll just take your word for ECB’s magnanimity about allowing the Sri Lankan players to participate in the IPL. That’s all the more impressive considering they don’t give the same consideration to their own players.

Why couldn’t the India series be a 4-test series, thus allowing the SL series to proceed with the originally scheduled 3 Tests? Could it be that ECB, just like any other board, realizes that there’s more money to be made against India? Your original point about faulting the Pak/WI/SL boards for cancelling Tests and thus deserving exclusion from power is really unfair Furball. The top 3 boards have not shown any decent concern for the well-being of Test cricket (case in point the much delayed Test Championship Series). They are no better in this regard than the other boards.

 

[Unomaas]

@Muloghonto

Totally agree with many of your posts. I just have to look at the history of Kerry Packer Cricket to understand that the idea's that you are putting forward are not outlandish and that there is precedent for many of your idea's.

 

[benchmark00]

ECB changing the schedule just to make sure the other team can play their full strength team. That's a new one.

 

[Ryan19]

Sport isn't about the money it's about the fans. Franchise cricket has had success in India and Australia yeah but not much elsewhere. If players want to earn millions of dollars then that really is their decision. If Kevin Pietersen and Chris Gayle want to ditch test cricket to play in the IPL then they are welcome to it. However, they are also ensuring that they will end up as nobodies. They will be filthy rich nobodies but nobodies all the same. All the famous cricketers in the world get their starts playing for their countries on the international stage. If you want a big IPL contract, then you better do well for your country. All I can say is that there will always be a market for test cricket and I will always watch it. There can be many thousands at plastic T20 leagues and they can be welcome to it. Test cricket will not die as long as there are people like Heath who are clearly passionate about it and won't let it die.

 

[marc71178]

A couple of points against this franchised system that's being praised as the future.

Firstly, if it's a proper franchise system then each player will only play for one team. This will make the overall standard pretty poor, which in turn will drive the tv deals etc. down to the point where it's unsustainable. There's not that many top class players and IMO the success of the current T20 comes from the big names playing in all the leagues, something that wouldn't happen in a proper formalised franchise system.

Secondly, all this talk about it only takes one player from a non-traditional cricketing area to get a big deal and all these kids will be queuing up to play cricket as it'll be seen as a major way of making money. How exactly is this one player going to get spotted? Only way that I can see is through playing for his nation.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Are you a Milton Friedman or a Paul Krugman man Muloghonto?

 

[harsh.ag]

Are you a Milton Friedman or a Paul Krugman man Muloghonto?

He is definitely a Paul Krugman man. Btw, aren't we all? Friedman a lot closer to Krugman than some people fathom though. Only real point of disagreement between the two would be on fiscal stimulus.