In his “Spirit of Cricket” lecture at the Marylebone Cricket Club at Lord’s last week, former England captain Sir Andrew Strauss addressed macho-male dressing room culture and language, women’s cricket and the evolution of T20 franchise cricket.
The annual lecture provides a focal point for reflection on the state of sport by an individual. There have been 20 lectures before, all by men, mainly by pre-eminent cricketers.
Strauss spoke positively about franchise cricket. He is of the view that it has “democratized” the sport, arguing that it has “never been more popular or diverse.” He suggested that “nobody controls the game anymore, not even the Board of Control for Cricket in India,” on the grounds that there are too many stakeholders.
Readers of previous columns will be aware that growth in the number and power of stakeholders is a recurring theme. The claim that democratization is the result of this demands a deeper look. It depends on one’s definition of democracy. Abraham Lincoln saw it as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. It is a concept that has been misused, misinterpreted, misrepresented and misused over time.
Among its myriad applications, it is generally believed that people should have some say, power, and authority in the political process. There is evidence all around that this privilege is under pressure.
In the world of cricket, it doesn’t seem like people ever have much power, apart from making the simple decision to pay for the opportunity to watch it on screen, either in person or afterwards. They may also decide to place bets on matches. Historically, power has been vested in unelected national cricket boards, unelected sponsors, unelected broadcasting and media companies and now unelected franchises.
Player’s remuneration has increased. The motivation is for them to perform well, so as to become attractive to other franchises in other tournaments. It is a selective process rather than a democratic process. Strauss seems to have fallen into a familiar trap, not to mention a paying spectator. For example, they show their potential in Ashes matches, in T20 and ODI World Cups and in India in the IPL. There is no doubt that players would love to play in front of packed houses, but this is not necessary in franchise tournaments as the income is generated from off-gates. Players don’t need the public paying for their salaries.
What a change since the days of poor Albert Trott. The only man to hit the ball over the pavilion at Lord’s, he was given a benefit match in 1907, of which he would keep a share of the proceeds from a packed house. It was a weekend, Monday being a public holiday. He ousted the opposition in two days, thereby depriving himself of the earnings of the third day and, in his own words, “throwing himself into the poorhouse.” He would have been both a star and a wealthy man in today’s cricketing world but, sadly, destitute and ill, he committed suicide in 1914.
When cricket depended on financially paid, personally attended public participation, the concept of democracy could have had validity. The people had a stake in the economic welfare of the game. Now that the chain of dependency is broken, the welfare of the game is controlled by wealthy stakeholders with profit motives, no matter how much they say they love cricket. Strauss’s claim to democratization refers to the widespread appeal that T20 has brought to cricket’s established bastions and to sections of the population in other countries where it has languished as a minority sport, particularly for women.
In none of these places do people play games. They can choose to participate or not. Cricket has remained an expensive game for people with limited means to play. Equipment and club membership are expensive, playing and practicing take time. Anyone who loves sport should welcome its expansion in different formats, in different countries and in different parts of society. It is a stretch to suggest that this is a democratic process demanded by the people and conducted through representative, elected bodies.
The epitome of the new world of cricket is rampant in the UAE. Six wealthy franchises, five of them Indian corporates, fund a tournament, attract international players and provide opportunities to local talent, but matches are played in front of small crowds. The games are showcased globally, backed by an impressive publicity machine. However, there are no current Indian or Pakistani players. BCCI doesn’t allow the former, the latter are politically bound.
If and when such approval is granted, the tournament and others like it will become much more attractive to people from the Indian subcontinent and their diaspora in the Gulf. However, there are some hurdles to overcome. There are indications that the Pakistan Cricket Board is considering allowing its players to participate in the 2024 ILT20. Five teams are Indian-owned and it is not clear whether it would be appropriate for them to field Pakistani players. It can be assumed that the American-owned team has no such restrictions but would like to maintain balance in its squad. There is no Pakistani playing in SA20, in which all six franchises are Indian.
The current impasse over the 2023 Asia Cricket Cup venue and participation needs to be resolved. Being in Pakistan, the BCCI has said that its team will not travel. In a tit for tat, the PCB threatened not to play in the 2023 ICC World Cup in India. The future composition of DP World ILT20 squads is subject to the most recent spate of geopolitics in the Indian subcontinent in cricket. They are owned by Indian corporates in South Africa’s SA20. The concept of T20 franchises as a catalyst for the democratization of cricket rings a hollow ring when spoken within the confines of Lord’s. More relevantly, franchisees are spreading control, the game after money.