![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mcgillianaireYears from now, heck perhaps even just months from now, the purists (because all such people are obviously cricket lovers) will look back at three unrelated events that changed the course of cricketing history for ever. First there was Subhash Chandra's Zee TV losing out the rights to broadcast half a decade's worth (or maybe more) of Indian cricket. Then came India's early exit from the World Cup last year March. And finally, India's victory at last September's inaugural World Twenty20. One day when we look back to understand just how multi-day cricketing action experienced a sudden cardiac arrest, we will hone into these three pivotal events. Let me explain why.
A few years ago, Subhash Chandra's Zee TV didn't get the rights to broadcast the 2003 World Cup. Instead, his media empire's Indian rival, Sony TV got the rights. Three years later, Zee TV didn't get the rights to broadcast the 2006 Champions Trophy. I can't remember who did get the rights, but it was obviously either Sony TV or another of Chandra's domestic competitors. The same happened with the 2007 World Cup. As a result, Chandra developed an understandable hatred towards the BCCI because he suspected there was more politics involved in the broadcasting rights than free market economics. Again, I apologize for the hazy memory but I vaguely remember Chandra sulking about the fact he offered a higher price, but still didn't win the biggest broadcasting cash cow in South Asia.
To Chandra's good fortune, though I hope patriotic disappointment, India crashed out of the World Cup in the first round and with it, the competitor that did get the rights to broadcast the decade-long spectacle (or at least it felt that way) incurred heavy losses. With no India (and to a much lesser extent, no Pakistan (and therefore no India-Pakistan blockbuster on April 15 - instead the world witnessed the sport's other major rivalry, Bangladesh v Ireland), all the major sponsors pulled the plug on their sponsorship ads and drove the broadcaster to the brink. As a nation of 1+ billion mourned the stunning turn of events, Chandra - being the astute $2.3-billion-worth entrepreneur that he is - swooped in to save the nation from self-inflicted emotional collapse. Almost overnight he threatened to impose a Kerry Packer-like Circus Part Deux on the cricketing establishment through his Indian Cricket League venture. He promised big money, ombudsman, a rapproachment with the BCCI by gaining access to the biggest stadiums etc. But the BCCI would have nothing of it. Before you could say Lalit Modi, the world's cricketing behemoth outlawed Chandra's rebels and used their financial leverage to ensure every other national cricketing board did the same in their country. Even Vanuatu were not spared. (OK, maybe I lied about that last point but ykwim).
As Chandra's self-appointed ICL supremo, Kapil Dev set about poaching the best talent that money could literally buy, Lalit Modi and his cronies worked behind the scenes to prepare a fitting riposte to this ICL nonsense. The fruits (or disaster as CMJ-like folk see it) of these actions resulted in the IPL. It had one initial goal and one long-term consequence in mind: destroy the ICL and once achieved, capitalize on the Twenty20 cash crop. And though it was rather coincidental but could not have been timed any better, a young Indian team defeated England, South Africa, Australia and Pakistan in the first World Twenty20. India's championship victory completed a 360-degree journey that began with the Indian board refusing to board the Twenty20 vessel when it was first-introduced. And until December 2006, India had not played a single international Twenty20. Only a few months earlier, India introduced a domestic Twenty20 competition. In light of everything that has since happened, it is rather ironic that India even threatened to pull-out of the inaugural World Twenty20.
The rest as they say is history. The BCCI were determined to pull out all the stops to organise the first IPL as early as possible. They intend to nip the ICL in the bud, even though the rebel league has already organised four events in less than a year. Now thanks to India's World success, they're equally determined to develop the brand into its chief profit accumulator. To achieve this end, they have challenged the ECB to either cutback their excessively long county season or allow contracted English players to take part in the IPL. The ECB has refused to give in on either count and the world's two richest cricketing boards are on course for a major bust-up. Though it will probably result in the untimely demise of traditional cricket as we know it, I hope the BCCI comes out trumps. It's about time the ECB realized once and for all that the centre of the cricketing establishment is now located 5.5 hours ahead of GMT (and has been for a few years now). And while many may scoff at my belief that the BCCI are not hell-bent on killing cricket in its purist form (in fact, the bigger threat is Sir Allen Stanford and his millions), I am certain there are people, even in the higher echelons, who are true fans of cricket - that is beyond hits-and-giggles. At stake however is an opportunity to topple an apple cart that has been monopolized by the land where cricket originated, was organized and been controlled in more ways than one. Australia and England lost their veto on the ICC in the early 90s and eventually the MCC gave up most of its powers to the ICC. The ICC is fragmented today because it remained a British Commonwealth sport (despite all its efforts to expand) and with it came its imperial legacies.
For a brief comparison, association football too began as a British FA dominated sport, but very early on (early-20th century) an international body - FIFA - was established and grabbed power away from the FA and with it, enabled the beautiful game to become a truly global sport. Despite the English media's continuous belief that it still owns the game in some way or another, the fact is no single country dominates over all others the way England and India do at the ICC. The recent Malcolm Speed controversy perfectly illustrates the problems at hand. Unfortunately, I cannot see a quick-fix or long-term solution to the problem; without a global split. To be continued?
(Sorry for the disjointed ending... I'm bloody tired and have to get up at 5am for work tomorrow!)
Actually, let me just state before I incur the wrath of some of my commentators while I am fast asleep: I don't think it's good for cricket if the BCCI dominates global cricketing affairs and expands its power through the IPL etc. Unfortunately, the cricketing imperial legacy extended itself way beyond after the Empire. Does this justify the BCCI's response? Yes and no. Yes because I think it's time for a different conductor to guide the global cricketing symphony. There are lot of ideals that would be the best solution but for now I'm comfortable with the BCCI improvising all the tunes and forcing the trombones and baritones to fall in line. No because it doesn't really solve the problem of undoing the imperial damage by spreading power to the voiceless/strapped cashless members. I'm sure many of you would rather jump from where we were to where we should be without the BCCI making hay inbetween, and I guess therein we shall disagree. Good night!
A few years ago, Subhash Chandra's Zee TV didn't get the rights to broadcast the 2003 World Cup. Instead, his media empire's Indian rival, Sony TV got the rights. Three years later, Zee TV didn't get the rights to broadcast the 2006 Champions Trophy. I can't remember who did get the rights, but it was obviously either Sony TV or another of Chandra's domestic competitors. The same happened with the 2007 World Cup. As a result, Chandra developed an understandable hatred towards the BCCI because he suspected there was more politics involved in the broadcasting rights than free market economics. Again, I apologize for the hazy memory but I vaguely remember Chandra sulking about the fact he offered a higher price, but still didn't win the biggest broadcasting cash cow in South Asia.
To Chandra's good fortune, though I hope patriotic disappointment, India crashed out of the World Cup in the first round and with it, the competitor that did get the rights to broadcast the decade-long spectacle (or at least it felt that way) incurred heavy losses. With no India (and to a much lesser extent, no Pakistan (and therefore no India-Pakistan blockbuster on April 15 - instead the world witnessed the sport's other major rivalry, Bangladesh v Ireland), all the major sponsors pulled the plug on their sponsorship ads and drove the broadcaster to the brink. As a nation of 1+ billion mourned the stunning turn of events, Chandra - being the astute $2.3-billion-worth entrepreneur that he is - swooped in to save the nation from self-inflicted emotional collapse. Almost overnight he threatened to impose a Kerry Packer-like Circus Part Deux on the cricketing establishment through his Indian Cricket League venture. He promised big money, ombudsman, a rapproachment with the BCCI by gaining access to the biggest stadiums etc. But the BCCI would have nothing of it. Before you could say Lalit Modi, the world's cricketing behemoth outlawed Chandra's rebels and used their financial leverage to ensure every other national cricketing board did the same in their country. Even Vanuatu were not spared. (OK, maybe I lied about that last point but ykwim).
As Chandra's self-appointed ICL supremo, Kapil Dev set about poaching the best talent that money could literally buy, Lalit Modi and his cronies worked behind the scenes to prepare a fitting riposte to this ICL nonsense. The fruits (or disaster as CMJ-like folk see it) of these actions resulted in the IPL. It had one initial goal and one long-term consequence in mind: destroy the ICL and once achieved, capitalize on the Twenty20 cash crop. And though it was rather coincidental but could not have been timed any better, a young Indian team defeated England, South Africa, Australia and Pakistan in the first World Twenty20. India's championship victory completed a 360-degree journey that began with the Indian board refusing to board the Twenty20 vessel when it was first-introduced. And until December 2006, India had not played a single international Twenty20. Only a few months earlier, India introduced a domestic Twenty20 competition. In light of everything that has since happened, it is rather ironic that India even threatened to pull-out of the inaugural World Twenty20.
The rest as they say is history. The BCCI were determined to pull out all the stops to organise the first IPL as early as possible. They intend to nip the ICL in the bud, even though the rebel league has already organised four events in less than a year. Now thanks to India's World success, they're equally determined to develop the brand into its chief profit accumulator. To achieve this end, they have challenged the ECB to either cutback their excessively long county season or allow contracted English players to take part in the IPL. The ECB has refused to give in on either count and the world's two richest cricketing boards are on course for a major bust-up. Though it will probably result in the untimely demise of traditional cricket as we know it, I hope the BCCI comes out trumps. It's about time the ECB realized once and for all that the centre of the cricketing establishment is now located 5.5 hours ahead of GMT (and has been for a few years now). And while many may scoff at my belief that the BCCI are not hell-bent on killing cricket in its purist form (in fact, the bigger threat is Sir Allen Stanford and his millions), I am certain there are people, even in the higher echelons, who are true fans of cricket - that is beyond hits-and-giggles. At stake however is an opportunity to topple an apple cart that has been monopolized by the land where cricket originated, was organized and been controlled in more ways than one. Australia and England lost their veto on the ICC in the early 90s and eventually the MCC gave up most of its powers to the ICC. The ICC is fragmented today because it remained a British Commonwealth sport (despite all its efforts to expand) and with it came its imperial legacies.
For a brief comparison, association football too began as a British FA dominated sport, but very early on (early-20th century) an international body - FIFA - was established and grabbed power away from the FA and with it, enabled the beautiful game to become a truly global sport. Despite the English media's continuous belief that it still owns the game in some way or another, the fact is no single country dominates over all others the way England and India do at the ICC. The recent Malcolm Speed controversy perfectly illustrates the problems at hand. Unfortunately, I cannot see a quick-fix or long-term solution to the problem; without a global split. To be continued?
(Sorry for the disjointed ending... I'm bloody tired and have to get up at 5am for work tomorrow!)
Actually, let me just state before I incur the wrath of some of my commentators while I am fast asleep: I don't think it's good for cricket if the BCCI dominates global cricketing affairs and expands its power through the IPL etc. Unfortunately, the cricketing imperial legacy extended itself way beyond after the Empire. Does this justify the BCCI's response? Yes and no. Yes because I think it's time for a different conductor to guide the global cricketing symphony. There are lot of ideals that would be the best solution but for now I'm comfortable with the BCCI improvising all the tunes and forcing the trombones and baritones to fall in line. No because it doesn't really solve the problem of undoing the imperial damage by spreading power to the voiceless/strapped cashless members. I'm sure many of you would rather jump from where we were to where we should be without the BCCI making hay inbetween, and I guess therein we shall disagree. Good night!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-29 06:21 am (UTC)I think I know what you're trying to say here, but this isn't it. Purists are certainly cricket lovers, otherwise they wouldn't be purists.
Though it will probably result in the untimely demise of traditional cricket as we know it
How will it result in the demise of traditional cricket? There seems to be huge demand for a window to be made for the IPL, especially from the players - the Australians certainly seem to have bonded with their teammates, and there's talk about how they'll all be keeping in touch with them from the West Indies.
Make that window, and you don't have the two important forms of cricket competing against each other.
James Sutherland appears to be against the IPL, to my amusement. He's said that they're struggling financially, and he's rescheduled the Pakistan tour to clash with next year's IPL.
the fact is no single country dominates over all others [in soccer] the way England and India do at the ICC
I assume you mean "England did and India do". England clearly no longer dominates the ICC.
The recent Malcolm Speed controversy perfectly illustrates the problems at hand.
I agree entirely. Let's review why he was thrown out. He wanted Zimbabwe Cricket punished because of deliberately falsified accounts. India and Ray Mali didn't - India because the Zim vote is in their pocket, Mali because he's one of those despicable South Africans who feels more loyalty to people of his skin colour than to such antiquated principles as not stealing ICC money for personal gain, not letting cricket be run down into Associate-class, and democracy.
How could cricket possibly be worse if the MCC ran the game? We'd still have administrative cock-ups, since all recent ICC administrators have been pretty awful most of the time. But there's not even a veneer of respectability about ICC politics these days, and the outcomes (ie, keeping Zimbabwe as a full member) go counter to any sane cricketing thought.
The best fix as far as I can see is for Zimbabwe to be suspended (which probably won't happen, for the reasons above, but you never know - the ICC did try to have that player-based committee thingy and they recommended banning them) and Ireland to become a Test nation. Then we'd have a 5-5 split on the ICC Board.
England's next tour of India got truncated because the ECB promises its players no non-Ashes tours over Christmas. A good board, one that I would be happy to see running world cricket, would have rescheduled the tour so that there were five ODI's and three Tests. Instead, we'll get a montrosity of seven ODI's and two Tests. A two-Test England-India series! The BCCI is not worthy of running world cricket.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-04 12:06 pm (UTC)But not all purists are cricket lovers, right?
>Make that window, and you don't have the two important forms of cricket competing against each other.
True but if the IPL turns out to be a major success and the BCCI gets ever more greedy (which is not entirely inconceivable), they might use the IPL as a stepping stone to destroy traditional cricket.
>Instead, we'll get a montrosity of seven ODI's and two Tests. A two-Test England-India series!
If that's what the TV audience wants, that's what they'll get!
>The BCCI is not worthy of running world cricket.
I don't disagree. Two things, it's inevitable that they will because of India's TV audience and the fact that cricket is not a global sport (for audiences in the US/China/EU to act as a counter-balance to all the money being pumped in India). Secondly, I'd rather India be given the opportunity to run world cricket (while making many mistakes along the way) than not have the opportunity at all. Given the inevitability of the first point, it will probably take a long time for the BCCI (if at all) to develop any sense of neutrality or fairness in running global cricket affairs. The chances of Ireland gaining Test-status is very low in the near future but that is certainly one half of the strategy that the Anglo-countries will need to pursue. The other would be to invest in non-traditional cricketing centres (ie, China, the rest of Europe and America) to bring them into the fold (eventually) to counter-balance the dominance of the BCCI.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-04 02:03 pm (UTC)I can't think of a purist who isn't a cricket lover. Having strong opinions about cricket almost necessarily pre-supposes that you love the game.
The other would be to invest in non-traditional cricketing centres (ie, China, the rest of Europe and America) to bring them into the fold (eventually) to counter-balance the dominance of the BCCI.
This one's a non-starter, at least as long as the ICC Board comprises the Test nations. I can't see any country that doesn't have some link to the old Empire gaining Test status (Ireland and Nepal aren't Commonwealth countries, but they're close to major cricket countries). And even if I'm wrong there, India's already stolen a run on the rest of the world in investing in Chinese cricket.