HYDERABAD: As far as Test cricket is concerned, groundhog day is here. Again. It's when administrators, past and present, and players, past and present, get on to various podcasts and press conferences to say that the longest format of the game is about to die. This time, however, all of them could have a point about the health of the five-day game.
Sure, at some level, it's never been better. In the next 40 months or so, Australia, India and England will face each other in a series of five-match Test series. Including the five Test series against England beginning with the first in the city on Thursday, India are, according to the Future Tours Programme (FTP), set for 20 Tests against the so-called other members of the Big Three. They are slated to play only 14 Tests against the other full-members put together in this period.
England, who play a lot of red-ball cricket compared to the other teams, have 15 games against either India or Australia. They have 22 against the other full members in total. Australia have two full blocks of five Tests against India apart from a home Ashes against England.
Against the other full members, they only have 16 remaining, including one against the West Indies beginning in a few days' time. Tests can be profitable but only when the Big Three face each other. For the other sides? Not so much. But this isn't even about money.
The threat of the franchise-based T20 leagues means boards are no longer able to field first-choice XIs. A few weeks ago, South Africa named a third-choice squad for their upcoming assignment against New Zealand as they prioritised the domestic SA20. That led to former Australian captain, Steve Waugh, questioning the health of the format. "Is this," he posted on Instagram, "a defining moment in the death of Test cricket?"
Around the same time, Usman Khawaja, a Test specialist, said he sympathised with the players who opted to play T20 leagues. "If I was a player from another nation and getting paid ok to play international cricket (and if) I'm getting paid a truckload more to play T20 cricket, I'm sorry but I'm going to be playing T20 cricket," the opener had told Fox Cricket. "... it's also a case of looking after your family, doing things right."
Take the case of Jason Holder. The West Indian all-rounder didn't travel with the Test team Down Under. Instead, he turned up for Dubai Capitals in the ILT20 (the recently retired from Tests, David Warner, is the captain). Another player in the same boat is Kyle Mayers. He's playing for Durban's Super Giants in the SA20.
The one to ensure Test cricket's primacy at the top of the cricketing food chain is to schedule it when there are no leagues. The other, simpler way to see that the best players don't turn their back is to pay top dollar to play the longest format. Easier said than done. Not all boards are rich. One way to make this happen is for the International Cricket Council (ICC) to redistribute the revenue in a more equitable manner.
At present, it's anything but fair. For example, India (38.5%), Australia (6.2%) and England (almost 7%) divvy up more than 50% of the revenue ICC generates. They are already the wealthiest boards and they make the most money anyway. Cricket Australia, ECB or the BCCI can afford to pay their players the big bucks because they make a truckload more than, say, New Zealand or South Africa.
One way to rebalance the finances is for the global stakeholders to come together and disband the unwritten oligopoly that has existed since the Big Three came together a decade or so ago. Is there an appetite for CA, BCCI and the ECB to give up some of the money in the next rights cycle between 2027 and 2031?
If CA chair, Mike Baird, is to be believed, they may do just that. "... might mean costs and consequences for the leading countries," he had told the Sydney Morning Herald when discussing the topic. "There's undoubtedly an economic element. But there's also a commonsense element in terms of the way we schedule and the way we collectively as members prioritise. So there is strong resolve, but we need to move at a much quicker pace.
“We need to support, retain and grow Test cricket, and we’re going to have to think through our priorities and part of that is how we distribute funding. I don’t think we can wait, so we have to look at how that funding is allocated, is it going to the right things..." he added. Baird is also a member of the ICC's Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee (headed by Jay Shah).
In rudimentary terms, India could be doing a lot more. At the basic level, out of a dollar ICC makes, BCCI gets to take home nearly 40 cents. Considering they are the financial centre for the world game, one can understand why they take home the lion's share. But why such a large skew?
That's the view of Sumod Damodar, a member of the ICC's Chief Executives Committee, till last year. "I don't think anybody has a problem with India taking home the biggest pie," he told this daily. "It's understandable, basic economics. But how do we decide how much is fair?"
When the next rights cycle is up for allotment among full and associate members, this question will once do the rounds. If Baird and his counterparts at the BCCI and the ECB are serious about redressing the imbalance, they will act on it.