WARNING: Global cricket is currently unsustainable
“The current structure of global cricket is unsustainable and countries outside of the ‘Big Three’ (India, England and Australia) will play less and less bilateral series cricket, with some in danger of disappearing altogether from the Test cricket scene,” Tony Irish, who is an independent director of cricket’s global players’ body, the World Cricketers’ Association, has warned.
The only international cricket that really makes money now is India at home and abroad, and England and Australia tours. Any other bilateral cricket loses money. Bilateral cricket is those tours between countries playing Tests, ODIs and T20 matches.
The Future Tours Program previously ensured every team would play each other twice in a four-year cycle, home and away. But Narayanaswami Srinivasan [India], Giles Clarke [England] and Wally Edwards [Australia] deregulated everything in 2016, making bilateral tours a free-for-all. There are no rules, and therefore there is no context to so much international cricket.
It has become like Liverpool playing Arsenal and Chelsea five times a year and Bournemouth just once. But the BCCI [Board of Control for Cricket in India] don’t want more regulation and a well-structured calendar. That would mean they cannot wheel-and-deal, give and take games away from countries depending on whether they vote with them or not.
They want the status quo to continue so they can maximise their own revenues. England and Australia just go along with them and no-one stands against them.
There also needs to be a more equitable distribution of ICC revenues. India take nearly 40% of the revenues and they already get huge pots of money through the IPL and bilateral cricket.
There is huge financial inequality across the game with India at the top of the pile. India has resources of approximately $1.5 billion dollars per year; the country in 13th place gets $6 million per year yet these two teams must compete against each other. How do they expect this to be a contest? There are 108 International Cricket Council (ICC) member countries and 50% of ICC revenues go to the ‘Big Three’, 87% of bilateral revenues are retained by England, Australia and India; while countries ranked 13 to 108 get 2% of total cricket revenues. ICC revenues are those generated from ICC events i.e. world cups, and is different to bilateral revenues which are the aggregate of what all of the countries generate from their series against each other.
Why must the ‘Big Three’ take such a huge slice? The system is just so inequitable and so incoherent. The whole structure, even ICC events, is set up for them and they have won 19 of the last 22 major ICC events.
While life is obviously good for Indian cricket, and they do deserve consideration for being the biggest market in the game, the second-biggest sport in the world is in danger of becoming like gridiron or baseball, which are minor sports in all but a couple of countries.
The ‘Big Three’ are just maximising revenue for themselves now, but it’s very short-sighted because in five or six years they might have no-one else to play against. People will get bored of just watching England-versus-Australia-versus-India. It’s a bad strategy and it’s one of the reasons the players are gravitating towards franchise leagues.
The ICC held their AGM in late July and set up a working group to make recommendations to the ICC board on an improved system of playing international cricket. But Irish, who is also a former chief executive of the South African Cricketers’ Association, told kenborland.com that despite this initiative and the phenomenal interest created by the magnificent five-Test series between England and India, “bilateral international cricket for other countries is highly endangered unless structural changes are recommended by this group and those structural changes are implemented”.
“The current system is broken,” said Irish, “primarily because there is no coherent playing schedule centrally controlled by the ICC, and bilateral cricket consists of a matrix of individual deals between countries, with no rules.
“This allows the ‘Big Three’ to play more and more against each other and less and less against the smaller countries. In a landscape where the global media rights revenue pie is also getting smaller, the commercial value of series between the smaller countries is dropping and these countries will soon no longer be able to afford to play bilateral series, which includes Test matches.
“This is also happening in a system where there is an inequitable sharing of revenues from ICC events. The combined effect is that in the current system the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The smaller countries will, in addition, struggle to retain their best players for bilateral cricket as these players can earn more playing in T20 leagues around the world than they can playing bilateral cricket for their countries.
“The ICC sees all these franchise T20 leagues purely as domestic cricket, but in reality they are not – they all use international players and because of that they compete with bilateral cricket for players. In an unregulated schedule they also compete for calendar space. For a number of the small countries, the leagues are winning this battle against bilateral cricket; and Test cricket being the longest format, and the most expensive to stage, will suffer the most.
“In South Africa, despite the Proteas being the world Test champions, the team is scheduled to play only four Test matches over the next 12 months and there is no home Test cricket in the coming season,” Irish pointed out.
Amidst this pessimistic outlook, however, the World Cricketers Association released its Game Structure Report (https://theworldca.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Global-Game-Structure-Report-Final-1.pdf) in March. The report is the only holistic review of the structure of cricket and is based on over 60 detailed interviews with game stakeholders (including administrators, media and commercial partners, players, team owners and broadcasters and journalists), extensive player surveys, statistical and scheduling data, and financial and economic data. Among the recommended structural solutions are:
- A centrally controlled (by ICC) global calendar which includes all bilateral cricket, ICC events (eg World Cups) and T20 leagues using international players
- Simpler and easier to follow competition structures across all formats with credible points systems to provide context
- Workable windows for core international bilateral (including Test) cricket
- A more equitable distribution of ICC event revenues
- A regulatory framework across the cricket system.
“This shouldn’t be all doom and gloom because there are solutions to this. They however require structural change to the whole system and not a tinkering with the current system. The introduction of windows for bilateral cricket is part of a workable solution to ensure bilateral cricket, including Test cricket, can co-exist with T20 leagues rather than compete with them,” Irish said.
“In the current system, no top countries play during the IPL, so that effectively has its own window. The IPL is fantastic for the game, but that window will continue to grow because of the billion-dollar investments in it and its insatiable market. It’s already gone from six weeks to nine weeks and this growth cuts into the playing calendar of other countries.”
“In addition, we’re now seeing cross-ownership of teams with the IPL franchises having sides in the SA20, The Hundred, Caribbean Premier League and Major League Cricket (USA). Eventually we’ll get to the stage where T20 franchises will offer the best players contracts to play for all of their teams across multiple leagues.
“If this happens, the national Boards will lose contractual control over their most important assets, being their players. If anything should act as a warning sign to the national Boards that the system must change, it is this.
“In a restructured system, the World Test Championship could also be improved. Currently it is confusing because the points system is contrived to fit the existing matrix of bilateral deals which has some teams playing more matches than others and some countries not playing others at all.
“Very good Test teams like the Proteas and New Zealand are playing fewer and fewer Tests, which will translate into less and less domestic four-day cricket – the breeding ground of Test cricketers. A four-day domestic first-class competition is one of the biggest cost items for every national Board, but if Test cricket loses money and less and less of it is played, then it is obvious that Boards will cut back more and more on four-day domestic competitions,” Irish said.
“We believe, said Irish, “that by making these changes it would significantly improve the global cricket product and that this would result in additional annual global revenues of approximately $250 million. The Boston Consulting Group, which has done a significant amount of work on the economics of the game, believes that the global cricket industry revenues should be about double what they currently are.
“We presented the World Cricketers Association Game Structure Report at the World Cricket Connects conference at Lords in June (just before the World Test Championship final) and it was well-received by the majority of those present at the conference.
“We know however that our proposals are being met with resistance at the ICC level. I think that most countries know that the current system is either broken or that it should be significantly improved. If the ICC group looking into the global structure don’t like our proposals, then it will be interesting to see what recommendations they make to deal with the current problems.
“I don’t believe the current system can carry on much longer without some countries being forced to abandon aspects of bilateral cricket or them losing their most important assets as the game continues in the current direction of travel,” Irish said.
If we want international cricket to be a healthy product then we can’t just go on doing the same thing. Even the richer countries will eventually fall off the edge, it’s a downward spiral. It’s all going in the wrong direction, especially if you’re a smaller country, and no-one is stopping the train.
The Global Game Structure Report calls for four 21-day protected windows reserved for bilateral cricket in which no T20 leagues can be held. It would mean every country would play at least one match per format against all other teams. Promotion and relegation between two divisions would provide greater context and jeopardy.
To save bilateral cricket, we need structural change, not a little plaster. Day/night Tests, pink balls, four-day Tests – none of it has worked to meaningfully change things.
Previously, the Woolf Report was specifically about ICC governance, but India didn’t like it and so the ICC dismissed it. It was the same three countries getting their way because India don’t want to lose their bargaining chips. Remember when Haroon Lorgat stood up to them and India cut their tour to South Africa in half and CSA lost a billion Rand?
The ICC and the ‘Big Three’ seem intent on allowing such great cricketing nations as South Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies to fade into obscurity, their heroes and entertainers seen only in dusty old archival film footage.
Excellent piece Ken. Irish is a good cricket man but I fear that his logic, which seems so obvious to us, will be lost on India who simply want to increase their global power and therefore revenue indefinitely. But, as Irish says, that may ultimately lead to the ruin of test/first class cricket as a global sport. At present, nobody can force India to change. South Africa won’t take the lead for sure, because the (Indian-financed) SA20 has bailed us out of financial ruin.
Thanks very much Patrick! Already, judging by the responses I have received, you are correct about India’s general response – shades of might is right and screw the rest. But that approach will leave them with no-one worthwhile to play against.
And you’re also right that nobody can force India to do anything: they hold all the best cards. So we have to appeal to their love of cricket and hope they do the right thing for the game as a whole and not just themselves. They need to see the bigger picture.
Of course one cannot expect cash-strapped SA cricket to bite the hand that feeds them – you are quite right about the SA20 bailing us out.
This analogy is questionable: “It has become like Liverpool playing Arsenal and Chelsea five times a year and Bournemouth just once.” Currently, we (South Africa) are Liverpool and we are playing none of Arsenal, Chelsea, etc. I didn’t mention Man U because they have become the West Indies! Seriously, though, spot on!
Ha ha thanks Michael! I knew I was taking a chance delving into UK football because it’s not really my area of expertise and I was bound to offend someone! I wanted to put Man Utd in there, but our recent form has been too abysmal to warrant mention.
You are quite right though and the decline of West Indies cricket is extremely sad. Thanks for reading!