The ICC’s recognition that cricket as an international sport is in a flux and needs to be expanded beyond its traditional territories in order to be called a truly global sport, is a welcome step. However, the document prepared by ICC’s Strategic Working Group, detailing the strengths and weaknesses of cricket, may be sending out more confusing signals instead of the clarity they are seeking in overriding this crisis.
In India, as is bound to happen, any reference that may hint at their financial muscle being not good for the game, is going to be received with hostility and resistance. The ICC members, who were in India to discuss their report with the board members, were quick to allay Indian fears, that this document is just trying to find a way ahead for the good of the game and is not in any way wanting to force India to part with their earnings, to be shared for the overall development of the game. Fortunately, like in the past, there has been no flashpoint, which would lead to further straining of the Board-ICC relationship. Hopefully, the Indians will see the point that is being made here. Any sport that relies on one country for its financial well-being will, obviously, find it difficult to spread and rope in other nations to play that game with as much passion, vigour and financial security as India does.
Cricket, more than any other sport, is limited to a few nations and as the document points out, its Anglo-centric norms and “its spirit of cricket is often seen as a fundamental part of the sport’s attraction but does not always translate identically in different cricketing cultures. Furthermore the regulation of the international game is exclusively in English and decision making is undertaken in English.” All this is an obvious reference to its colonial roots and it acknowledges it as a weakness in its effort to spread the game.
The ICC, which is at the moment battling to give context and meaning to the large number of contests, especially Test matches, that take place between the national teams, seems to be in a bind when it comes to finding a way out. Is making a serious effort to include cricket in the Olympics the way out? This is one way of making it “non-Anglo-centric” and hoping that if a country like China embraces the game, its global spread is guaranteed.
Imagine, the quantum jump in revenue if China too enters the race. Fancy a cricket world, where the two financial giants — India and China — fuel the game’s revenues while competing with each other!
However, all this is in the realm of fantasy, as cricket has in many ways failed to strengthen even those who are already playing the game, barring the few who don’t need ICC assistance to survive. Its greater headache at the moment is how to balance the different formats which are eating into each other’s space and revenues. T-20 already is a major winner and now there is talk of spreading T-10 cricket.
The document is not averse to reducing overs further and further, and in fact finds these limited-over contests helpful in spreading the game to areas where the sport does not exist. It finds its length one of its weaknesses, endorsing the view of all those who believe Test cricket will get more and more marginalised with time. It does not mind even doing away with turf wickets in countries where the game has no roots.
The paper would seem to suggest that if cricket has to become a truly global sport, financially viable and strong, more and more compromises will have to be made with its traditional format. In short, much to the horror of many, is it being suggested that the DNA of the game needs to be changed for the future good of the game?