Cricket’s future is destined to be franchises at the moment, the only question is WHEN

With the International Cricket Council finally releasing the Future Tours Program amidst much anticipation, the debate around international cricket and its scheduling has been reignited once again. Contrary to what was reported and expected, the comprehensive plan did not contain any windows for franchise cricket tournaments like the Indian Premier League and The Hundred. In fact, the number of international matches has actually increased from the previous cycle, thus invoking great hope for international cricket’s future.

The leagues and franchises will continue to make money as they are doing now, through sponsorship and broadcasting deals. Players would be centrally contracted to franchises and play international games on a match-fee basis. There would be two windows of international cricket: the winter window around December in the middle of the season, and the summer window around July at the season’s end. Major ICC events would take place every year in the summer window, with qualification matches for the same to take place in the winter windows.

Similarly, it would be impossible to juggle three international formats in the space of just two windows across the entire year. Unlike most sports that span a few hours, Test matches take up five entire days and are extremely toiling for the players. Consequently, there would no longer be any marquee event as such for Tests, meaning the format will eventually grow irrelevant and die out. Long tours are and have always been the core of international cricket, the storylines they provide through a variety of conditions despite the competitors remaining the same is what makes cricket so unique. Every pitch, every weather condition, and every match is different, especially when it comes to the longer format of the game.

At the same time, the lower ranked nations will be starved of international cricket, effectively resigned to try and develop players for foreign leagues but without any proper mechanism to do so anymore. Even presently, the ICC revenue-sharing model works such that the richest cricketing federations are bestowed with the most money while countries which need wealth to develop their institutes are left hanging. In a model where franchises are given priority, even the bottom half of the Test-playing nations will start producing a much inferior quality of cricket.

Then there is a whole set of other issues arising out of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s firm grip on the sport on a global scale. Firstly, they have strict regulations against sending their own players to other leagues, preserving all their talent for themselves. Considering the country provides the largest pool of players, as well as an audience for the sport, the continuance of such restrictions, would make it impossible for simultaneous leagues to function across the world. Secondly, players from another hugely populated country, Pakistan, would not be allowed to compete in leagues where BCCI or their offsprings have a controlling stake. The same is already visible in leagues such as the one being propagated by Cricket South Africa, where Pakistani cricketers are struggling for admissibility. Such a mechanism would simply defeat the whole point of the so-envisioned structure.

The overarching point is that the ICC cannot continue to force international cricket when there are clear issues surfacing against the present cricketing structure. There is no point in having an increased number of international games when eventually fans start tuning out from the same, as do the players in the search of better financial opportunities with franchises. A case in point is Trent Boult, with many more bound to follow in the coming FTP cycle. 

Thus, the direction cricket seems to be heading in clearly places franchises at the top of the food chain and seems bound to sacrifice one day cricket at the very least, if not first-class cricket as well eventually. It is just a question of whether the transformation takes place organically or is induced artificially. If the ICC fails to take cognizance of this changing trend in the sport and tries to force its own way then the results could be disastrous, especially for the lower-ranked nations. The organization’s motto of making cricket more global would be reduced to no more than a gimmick and it is time the council takes coordinated steps with all the leading stakeholders in the game to lead cricket to a better place.