Ken Borland

“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 13^th 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:

1. A centrally controlled (by ICC) global calendar which includes all bilateral cricket, ICC events (eg World Cups) and T20 leagues using international players
2. Simpler and easier to follow competition structures across all formats with credible points systems to provide context
3. Workable windows for core international bilateral (including Test) cricket
4. A more equitable distribution of ICC event revenues
5. 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.

The excellent build-up for the new SA20 tournament continued this week with the news that Sky Sports in the UK have signed a five-year deal to also show the tournament, expanding the global reach of the new T20 league and also bringing in some much-needed hard currency.

With the tournament kicking off in Cape Town next Tuesday evening in Cape Town, everything would seem to be in place for the SA20 to explode into the consciousness of cricket fans.

While co-owners SuperSport will obviously have the African broadcast rights for the league, the all-important Indian market was sown up by the 10-year deal signed with Viacom 18, the dynamic new entertainment network that is growing rapidly on the subcontinent. They are believed to be paying at least $240 000 per game, so this year’s 33 matches will bring in nearly $8 million (R135 million).

Contracts are also being finalised to ensure the tournament is broadcast in other major cricket markets like Australia/New Zealand and the Caribbean.

There is a title sponsor in BetWay, who have signed a “multi-year” deal, and CSA are intimating that the league will make a profit in its first year, having earlier predicted a five-year wait before the SA20 would be in the black.

One does still wonder, however, about a few finer details.

Is a run of five successive fixtures between February 3-7 on the Highveld – with matches at both the Wanderers and SuperSport Park on February 4 – going to enjoy good crowds? The semi-finals follow from February 8 and there is a good chance either the Joburg Super Kings or Pretoria Capitals will be involved in those too.

And is the tournament loadshedding-proof and, if so, are those emergency back-up measures not going to significantly decrease profits?

But here’s hoping for some magnificent action to take our minds off all the troubles currently surrounding South African cricket, never mind the country as a whole.

Having looked into my crystal ball, I would, if forced to, put money on a MI Cape Town versus Paarl Royals final.

MI Cape Town, in particular, have a marvellous attack – Jofra Archer, Sam Curran, Kagiso Rabada and Rashid Khan could bowl 16 of their 20 overs, which leaves opposition batsmen with plenty of thinking to do when it comes to taking them on.

The SA20 is meant to be a ray of hope for the embattled coffers of South African cricket, but it is also going to provide a global platform for local players to display their talents and hopefully further their careers.

The good news for the country’s best T20 players is that the competition for their signatures is expected to be most fierce in Monday’s auction in Cape Town, which should drive up prices. It has been noticeable how, due to the weakness of the rand, overseas players’ reserve prices are much higher, meaning in many cases, South African players represent better value.

“You play half your matches at home, so that has a big impact,” Sunrisers Eastern Cape coach Adrian Birrell said. “You need to get the right players for the right venue, and we’ll be trying the best we can to buy for St George’s Park, players who have done well there. I’m sure the Wanderers and SuperSport Park will do the same thing.

“The opportunity to go for one or two big South African players we would like to have is why we did not spend up front and have only pre-signed Aiden Markram and Ottneil Baartman.

“I think us and the Pretoria franchise [who have just pre-signed Anrich Nortje and Migael Pretorius] have the most money. You can strategise well with that extra money and we have a good chance of getting the players we want,” Birrell said.

So what good-value buys should the six franchises be targeting as they look to spend what is remaining of their R34 million budget to fill all 17 spots on their playing rosters? Ten of those places must go to South Africans.

Daryn Dupavillon

All six franchises will have their eyes on people who can bowl flat-out fast. While Nortje and Kagiso Rabada have been pre-signed, and competition will be intense for Marco Jansen, KZN Dolphins star Dupavillon represents good value. Arguably the fastest bowler in South Africa, his sheer pace will bring plenty of heat to opposition batsmen and test their ability to choose and execute the correct stroke in a split-second.

Dwaine Pretorius

The 33-year-old provides an ideal T20 package as an experienced all-rounder. As a bowler, he can bowl up front with swing, in the middle overs with cutters or at the death with his wide yorkers. And as a batsman, he is a power-hitter and can hit boundaries from ball one, which is crucial for that role.

Lungi Ngidi

Unburdened by injury, Ngidi has been in superb form for the Proteas, having the batsmen in chains in the opening overs. He will be even more dangerous in South Africa, where his steepling bounce from a good length comes into play, while his clever slower balls will still be effective.

Tabraiz Shamsi

Shamsi’s brilliance as a white-ball bowler, one of the best in the world, should be recognised and Sunrisers Eastern Cape could make a big move for him, thanks to his excellent record at St George’s Park – in 14 T20s there he has taken 19 wickets and concedes just 6.74 runs-per-over. Pretoria Capitals could get involved in a bidding war though to get him back to his current home ground.

Tristan Stubbs

This 22-year-old is so exciting, people are now going to matches just to watch him bat. Sunrisers Eastern Cape no doubt want him to play at his home ground, but every single franchise is going to be after his services. He has taken to international cricket with aplomb, showing his ability to clear the boundary and also keep his run-rate high with ones and twos.

Reeza Hendricks

In magnificent form at the moment and marvellous to watch when in full flight, Hendricks scored back-to-back centuries in the 2018 Mzansi Super League. He’s probably a better batsman now and most of the franchises will be thinking long and hard about getting him in at the top of the order.

Cricket South Africa’s announcement on Thursday of a partnership with global events company Roc Nation is indicative of a newly-prioritised effort to restore their relationship with their fans and ensure better engagement and experiences for them, while hopefully attracting new converts to the game.

Given Roc Nation’s understanding of creating great experiences for fans, and their already-in-place connection with South African sports fans (especially the crucial Black market) through their management deals with national captains Temba Bavuma and rugby star Siya Kolisi, they are the ideal consultants for CSA as they not only look to restore their public image but also ensure the game grows in the post-Covid world.

Roc Nation are the entertainment strategists for the NFL in the United States, tasked with enhancing the league’s live experience for fans, including the SuperBowl, which is second only to the Uefa Champions League final as the most-watched annual club sporting event worldwide. Roc Nation are also lead players in augmenting the social justice efforts of the NFL through the Inspire Change initiative, which will come in handy when CSA have to negotiate movements like Black Lives Matter.

CSA’s new management, both in terms of the board and the executive, have been frank about how they need to restore trust after the divisive battles of recent times.

As CEO Pholetsi Moseki said: “One of our big tasks is to rebuild confidence and the faith of the fans. It’s about how we enhance the brand and bridge the divide, the lack of trust, between us and our stakeholders, especially the fans.

“If we’re honest, we were struggling to attract fans back even before Covid. This partnership is about how we re-connect with our fans and get new ones.

“We are the custodians of the game, but we are also in the entertainment business and Roc Nation are the absolute best partner we can have for that. Fan experience is key whatever the sport.“

Given the dreadful mess they inherited, it is likely the new CSA executives will not err in thinking the sport is about them, because that drove the game on to the rockiest of reefs. Roc Nation are ideally placed to help restore the damage.