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 ICC do have a structure in place whereby the match referee rates the pitch for all international games, but Proteas captain Dean Elgar made sure his feelings were known about the Gabba snakepit as he said after South Africa’s six-wicket defeat in the first Test against Australia in Brisbane that it was not suitable for Test cricket.

Former West Indies captain Richie Richardson, the match referee on duty for the series, can rate the Gabba pitch as being ‘poor’ or ‘unfit’, which would lead to the International Cricket Council (ICC) requesting an explanation from Cricket Australia and possibly taking further action.

The general consensus on Sunday was that the grassy Brisbane pitch was very poor, with excessive sideways movement and inconsistent bounce, much of it steep from a good length. The Test was the second shortest since the Second World War and only the second two-day Test in Australia ever.

“For me, that’s not what Test cricket should look like. I would ask ‘Was it a good advert for the format?’ To have 34 wickets in two days means it was pretty one-sided towards the bowlers,” Elgar said after Australia had struggled to 35 for four to win, having bundled the Proteas out for just 99 earlier in the day.

“I’m a purist of this format and you want to see it go four or five days. But it was not a good Test pitch, there was some seriously steep bounce even with the old ball.

“When KG Rabada got Travis Head caught down the leg-side and Anrich Nortje was sending short ones over everyone’s heads, I asked the umpire when do they consider it dangerous? I didn’t get a reply, maybe they thought I was taking the mickey.

“The divots had a big role to play in the sideways movement, the up-and-down bounce, much of it steep. It was interesting to see how quickly the wicket started divoting,” Elgar said.

While the terrible pitch has taken some of the attention away from another poor batting performance by the Proteas, that is sure to come back under the microscope as the crucial second Test starting in Melbourne on Boxing Day gets closer. As captain of the good ship Proteas, Elgar needs to be shouting “Ahoy! There are rocky times ahead!”

But he, perhaps cleverly, pointed to the pitch as being the root of their problems.

“We need to be honest and realistic about what happened, we were absolutely jaffered out and they bowled properly,” Elgar said. “We were confident coming in to the game, we had practised bloody well. “We will now have some extra days to tap into our mental spaces. The biggest danger is to withdraw and not deal with what happened.

“I don’t see how hitting more balls is going to make us become better cricketers, we all know our games pretty well. It was just one of those games where we failed.

“Personally, I’m still confident going into the next Test, and you still want to give your batsmen confidence and positivity,” Elgar said.

Veteran Proteas all-rounder Jon-Jon Smuts will give the Dolphins much experience and quality next season as they push to steer clear of relegation from Division I, but KZN Cricket Union chief executive Heinrich Strydom on Wednesday criticised the structure of domestic cricket, saying it did not give enough credit to those teams that provide several players to the national teams.

The 33-year-old Smuts, who can bat in the top-order and bowls very useful left-arm spin (especially in white-ball cricket), will be joining the Dolphins from the Eastern Province Warriors, having been based in the Eastern Cape since his first-class debut in 2007.

Smuts has played six ODIs, averaging 45 with the bat, and 13 T20 Internationals, but his last appearance for South Africa was in April 2021, so his days of Proteas call-ups would appear to be over.

Losing players to the national team – nine Dolphins featured in Proteas squads last season – is what Strydom said played a key role in their disappointing 2021/22 campaign, which left them tied in second-last position with the North-West Dragons, six points ahead of the Free State Knights, in the promotion/relegation standings. The bottom team at the end of next season automatically goes down to Division II.

“With the amount of national players we have, never mind the SA A team, we needed another senior guy because we were just left with a few 26/27-year-olds,” Strydom told The Citizen on Wednesday.

“It was a weird season for us, we were the only unbeaten side in four-day cricket but we had three away matches washed out, and the consistency was not there in limited-overs cricket.

“With the new structure, we have players all over the country now, guys like Sibonelo Makhanya and Senuran Muthusamy even captaining their new teams.

“But it doesn’t make sense for a team to be relegated when they provide so many players to South Africa. We even had our coach and strength & conditioning coach with the Proteas for a while, and providing so many people to the national squad puts you at risk.

“The Central Gauteng Lions are in the same position with as many players involved with the Proteas. Imagine not having a Division I team playing at the Wanderers or Kingsmead?” Strydom said.

There is no doubt that, at full strength, both the Lions, who were in danger of being drawn into the relegation battle before their surprising triumph in the One-Day Cup at the end of the season, and the Dolphins are top-class teams that should not be relegated, especially when the side replacing them will almost certainly be of a lesser standard.

Strydom said he is hopeful discussions with the new CSA Board will see a change of heart.

“The basic agreement is done, but will common sense prevail? It’s not an authentic system of developing talent in this country when teams are not playing their own players.

“A lot of the provinces are not a representation of their specific area, and it’s not a level playing field when teams like the Lions and Dolphins provide a much higher percentage of national players.”

Springbok legend Joel Stransky has advised the Sharks to concentrate more on their coaching structure than who they actually play at flyhalf as they head into a crucial phase of the United Rugby Championship.

The Sharks host the Scarlets at Kings Park on Friday night and are leading the South African Shield, sitting inside the playoff places in eighth spot. But the Stormers and Bulls are within striking distance and the Sharks need to get bonus point wins against both the Welshmen and then Zebre Parma the following weekend to capitalise on home games against teams in the bottom half of the log.

But to do that, the Sharks will need to score tries and they seem unsure of who to play in the pivotal flyhalf role – Curwin Bosch, Boeta Chamberlian or Tito Bonilla?

“Whenever a team does not click on attack then people blame the flyhalf, but more often than not one should look at the coaching structure,” Stransky told The Citizen.

“Is the team getting good ball, go-forward possession, quick ball? Are they creating the space to attack and what are their running lines, are there dummy runners?

“The flyhalf plays a big part in all of that because he is first-receiver more often than not. If you have a forward as first-receiver than your whole game-plan changes.

“But if your flyhalf is first receiver then he must understand space and have the ability to carry the ball into that space with speed. He needs to understand if he needs to play flat or be in the pocket,” Stransky said.

The 1995 World Cup hero was part of the Natal Sharks’ Currie Cup winning teams of the early 1990s, and while his most famous moment came with the boot, Stransky was also an authoritative figure on attack, with silky skills. The Sharks then moved on to an iron-bodied, gain-line dominating flyhalf in Henry Honiball.

None of their current trio of No.10s are in that mould, but Stransky said he would back Chamberlain as his first-choice. The 23-year-old wrought a tough 24-10 win over the Pumas last weekend in the Currie Cup, kicking eight penalties as the Sharks failed to score a try.

“It’s a tough one but I would probably go for Boeta because he brings a bit more flow and rhythm to their game,” Stransky said. “He plays a bit flatter and understands when he needs to take the ball flat.

“Curwin is a great kicker and has other attributes, but he does hang back a bit in the pocket. The Sharks have got issues scoring tries, but when Boeta played URC five or six weeks ago, he wasn’t too bad.”