Plans for a new Grand-Slam-style circuit of T20 tournaments, with financial backing from Saudi Arabia, based on a blueprint drawn up by player associations, represents a bold attempt at an incursion into cricket by forces outside the closed shop that is traditional cricket governance.
But for the all the flutter the revelation of the plan has created, it remains to be seen how far it will go if it fails to co-opt, or at least interest, the organisation that holds the key to cricket’s biggest market: the BCCI.
Talk of a Saudi Arabian entry into cricket is not new, of course. It’s been a fixture for two years, with only the precise mode of entry a variable: a stake in an IPL franchise, an entirely new league, an unspecified but wholesale takeover of the sport, take your pick. Meanwhile, the country’s actual entry has been far more gradual. Sponsorships at the IPL, a partnership tied up with the ICC and, most recently and definitely most prominently, as host of the IPL auction.
It’s about time, some will argue, given its impact on other major sports. It’s always been a footballing nation – a major Asian force – but it is its forays into boxing, tennis, F1, MMA and golf that have signalled its wider intentions to become a sporting force.
At the moment, there is little detail to these plans. Seven to eight teams from around the world, playing four tournaments in a year, each tournament envisaged to last 10-12 days. These are early sketches with little detail on how such tournaments will fit into what is already a calendar bursting at the seams. For it to be incorporated successfully, it would almost certainly need to cause collateral damage, most likely to some formats of international cricket, such as context-less bilateral ODIs and T20Is. Which countries will be involved? And which teams will they send? National sides, as seems to be one suggestion, or those from already established T20 franchise leagues (and so, is this a revival of the Champions League?), or some other elite geographical representation?
As significant as the involvement of SRJ Sports Investments, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund’s sports arm, is that of the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA) and the World Cricketers’ Association (WCA). The idea is said to be the brainchild of Neil Maxwell, the former NSW and Victoria all-rounder and former ACA board member who is now a prominent player manager. It’s been brewing since at least last year, if not earlier. The ACA has confirmed to the Age that it was behind the idea: “The ACA’s early interest in exploring this concept is motivated by a desire to develop and normalise best-practice collective bargaining and an international gender-equity pay model for male and female cricketers. And to develop a competition creating value for distribution to cricket’s governing bodies to protect and subsidise Test cricket and the continuing growth of the women’s game for all nations.”
WCA, which has been advocating for change to the broken international calendar for a number of years, is believed to be taking the lead on plans now. It as offered no comment on the matter, but is busy at the moment with something not entirely unrelated: a comprehensive review of the game’s global structure, the results of which it is due to release imminently. Is more cricket the answer? No, but perhaps the first player-led tournaments in the cricket calendar, somewhat like tennis’ ATP, is (although the tour is currently the subject of a lawsuit by players).
This is not unimportant. Players are at the sharpest end of the impossibilities of this calendar and have been vocal about needing change. Given the player associations involved, some of the world’s leading players will be behind this. But this won’t be exactly like the ATP, because the plans also envisage a stake for the ICC. According to some accounts, Danny Townsend, the chief executive of SRJ, is believed to have interacted with Jay Shah on the sidelines of the IPL auction and brought up, albeit briefly, these plans. It would suggest that Saudi Arabia does not want to make the kind of turbulent and disruptive entry into cricket that it has in golf, for example, where it has created a parallel circuit altogether.
The talk so far has been that revenue from the circuit will be split in some formulation between SRJ, the player associations and the ICC. The ACA’s statement acknowledges that earnings will find a way back to governing bodies, in the hopes that Test cricket can be subsidised.
That revenue, of course, will be the thing because it isn’t clear how and how much of it such a league can generate. The IPL apart, how many leagues have actually brought in big broadcast money? And there are plenty of signs that cricket’s broadcast rights market may have peaked and that the ecosystem is now under stress, as the ongoing tension between the ICC and JioStar over their rights deal suggests. The Saudis can put in the kind of money to start up a league, but what are the prospects of making it – and much more – back?
And, of course, the reality is that, for that to happen, the circuit will need Indian players. That is why Shah was sought out at the IPL auction, given he was BCCI secretary at the time, as well as the ICC chair-elect. Few things of this magnitude can happen successfully in cricket without Shah – or the BCCI – buying into it. And why would the BCCI buy into a concept that, in its fullest ambitions, actually rivals the IPL?
The earliest noises from another major board have been of extreme scepticism. The ECB’s chief executive Richard Gould has told the Age unequivocally “there is no scope or demand for such an idea,” emboldened, no doubt, by the injection of a half-billion-pound private equity bounty into the Hundred. Other member boards could be swayed by the prospect of another revenue stream, but the bottom line is, if the BCCI is not on board with the plan, a big broadcast deal becomes that much more difficult.
A final point to ponder is the idea of the WCA and the ICC working together. The WCA has become increasingly – and justifiably – frustrated with the way the game is being run by the ICC and its members. When it launched its review into the structure, the chair Heath Mills said it had “given up hope” that the game’s leaders could establish a “clear and coherent structure” housing both international cricket and domestic leagues.
The relationship has, at times, been adversarial. A number of full members, including the BCCI and PCB, don’t even have player associations. Both the ICC and WCA recently sparred over the former’s use of player image rights. It led to WCA signing a long-term deal with Winners Alliance (an affiliate of the Novak-Djokovic-backed Professional Tennis Players Association, the body currently suing the ATP), which will negotiate collective commercial deals for players who are members of WCA-affiliated players’ associations. A player-led league would be a win for the WCA, but how easy is it going to be when a lot of those players remain contracted to the various member boards that constitute the ICC?
It’s almost inevitable that Saudi Arabian money will come into the game. It has broken through into most other major sports and given that attracting Indian tourism remains a key goal, cricket is an obvious in. It’s just far from certain whether this is that way in.
Osman Samiuddin is a senior editor at ESPNcricinfo
