Economics of Cricket

If India is considered as the big beast of cricket, then the ICC should be considered as the poorest organizations in world sport organizations. For Atherton to say “acting as superpowers” could be potentially true. But to which perspective are you going to look at this morally or economically?

Over the years we have the seen the new emergence of cricket where a young talent appears and takes over the media and the news. Gone are the days of the so called “Gentleman days” and now replaced with the “Sahara”, “Reebok”, “Gray Nichols”. We see more cricketers taking spotlight in advertisements than making any runs on the cricket field. Media and advertising has become the integral part of selling games. In one of the games I saw an ad after every over and that is in average about over 100 ads over a period of a game. Is this a bad thing? Not really but just a transition of business tactics. We see other organizations such as FIBA and American sport organizations such as MLB, NBA and so forth have become conglomerate tycoons in this. They have progressed to become rich organizations and ICC looks like a spec of hair compared to these organizations.

Gone are the Victorian days of the cricket and descended into the Sheik’s pet project land. ICC decision to move from the Mecca of cricket to a place where they play in the kinder garden league of the ICC might become the pinnacle of perhaps the organization’s downfall. This is where the moral issue comes in. In every sport there is a dominant presence in specific areas that attracts the rest of the world. For instance, football=Europe, baseball=Americas. This was how it placed out due to the fact that sport was bona fide in those areas. Even though globalization is taking effect these areas are still the dominant places to play for a professional and for the viewers to watch the sport. Would you rather watch the MLS or the English premiere? But over the years we have seen the ups and downs of English cricket.

It has transitioned from the crown of the jewel to its prince and princess. The sub continent and beyond have taken over the entire market. There are more viewers of cricket around the world than in the Mecca of cricket. But it is not only England. USA lost its hands to get into the market of cricket after they were banned. ICC decision for that is a good one because if you see the West Indies they are in the turmoil and they are limping on a stick to survive. Africa’s political problems allow itself to be very fragile whether progress could occur. What is the best bet for the media and cricket to move on to: Sub Continent and beyond to Australia and NZ.

The sub-continent is starting to flourish as the next economic hub. Ind-Aus rivalry brought more fans than the blunder of the ICC’s Aus-ROW. Therefore if you see from these countries point of view establishing a new league makes a perfect economic portfolio. India and Australia would not only establish more cricket, but also will build other economic transitions. This will include media, trade and more economic integration. Let’s put this into a theoretical experiment.

The combination of Australia and India could bring a lot of prospective for ventures from both sides. In cricket perspective, the Ranji and the Pura could combine and the pay out could be huge. We already have seen players such as Bret Lee who flourished from the MRF academy, imagine on a large scale. This will encourage overseas education. Mostly the fact that the younger population is getting involved in this sport education will be a key form of growth of the person. IT will prosper more and trade could be better. It will be all a spider web of ideas that could work for both countries. This would also enable other countries to join the league. Pakistan and Sri Lanka will also thrive from this where they leagues could flourish as well. Countries such as USA will be keen to enter the market if it involves a larger scale of revenue. Look at football how it has become a growing sport in America. This could also help the growing countries such as Bangladesh and Africa because it could become unified integral cricket dominance where profits would rise. This could as bring the reemergence of countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong back into the cricket world.

Atherton should have not expressed ICC as the UN but rather the League of Nations. We cannot look at this as a moral issue of a cat and mouse deal. It is pure economics. If ICC decided to move from England to Dubai due the tax relief and economic progress, then it should accept this idea and try it. Otherwise I feel ICC will decline and a new organization will be born. We have seen this in smaller effects such as in the American leagues like the NBA. The old ABA and CBA combined to become the NBA but CBA was the dominant before ABA came into the picture. Then CBA went on the downfall.

Cricket will be always cricket. There will be the next Tendulkar, Botham, Richards, Bradman. But the economics of cricket will transition and question will remain whether ICC will be able to integrate itself or dissolve?