Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 February 2007, 11:01 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

The precarious cricket economy

By Boria Majumdar

A loss can feel like a

national disaster for Indian
fans
The world of cricket reacted with a mixture of elation and
amazement when news broke that the magic figure of $1bn had
been breached by a leading sports channel to buy international
cricket telecast rights for the eight next years.

This was because until recently an odd myopia had characterised the
role of commerce with regard to cricket.

Unlike football, where telecast rights of English Premier League alone

generates $1.5bn for three years, cricket has presented a curious
picture: the transformation of the game was acceptable; its conversion
into real big money sport was not.

All that has finally changed. Cricket is now incorporated, inevitably

perhaps, within debates about business, entertainment, commerce and
big money capitalism.

However, while transformation is the way forward, like all other

examples of unabashed capitalism it has its share of difficulties.

Commenting on ESPN's acquisition of telecast rights of International

Cricket Council (ICC) events, MD Jamie Davis said, "This acquisition
affirms our commitment to the Indian sub-continent and the world and
we are absolutely delighted to bring the exciting line-up of ICC events
to millions of cricket fans globally."

Inherent in this statement is the root of the problem.

For the recovery of more than 80% of the $1.1bn spent, ESPN is
banking on the cricket craze in the Indian subcontinent.
 India or Pakistan
need to play well
consistently if the huge
amount invested is to be
Intrinsic to Mr Davis' statement is recovered
the notion that cricket continues to
be the license to print money for
broadcasters in the sub-continent.
Send your comments on
Boria Majumdar's
article

If India and Pakistan do

badly, the world's cricket
fortunes will slide
However, the reality, as Peter Hutton of rival sports channel Ten
Sports, suggests is that "the price being paid is linked to equity
valuations, mergers and acquisitions. It is a dangerous time, when
advertising income doesn't cover the rights fees being paid and there is
every danger of the cricketing bubble economy going bust."

Other implications of the sub-continental monopoly are equally

startling.

For example, it means that India or Pakistan need to play well

consistently if the huge amount invested is to be recovered.

If India or Pakistan crash out of major tournaments like the World Cup
at group stage, advertisers' interest in the tournament is certain to
nosedive.

Pressures

In fact, it can be argued that the World Cups in 1999 and 2003 were
economic success stories because Pakistan (1999) and India (2003)
made to the finals.

During the 2003 World Cup, market consultants in India had estimated
a total advertising spending over the six weeks as something like
$222m - more than the net profit that India's largest private sector
company Reliance Industries posted in the first quarter of the financial
year 2002-03.

The ICC was insistent that an initially unwilling India play the shortest
version the game - the 20-overs-a-side tournament - knowing fully
well that without India the upcoming newly introduced 20-over World
Cup would lose bulk of its shine and broadcasters would lose their
investment.

Had India stuck to the initial obstinacy about not playing the 20 overs
cricket, the value of ICC cricket tournament rights would also have
dropped by millions of dollars.

The eleven men in blue (India) and green (Pakistan) will, from now
on, carry on their shoulders the pressures of not only their fans but also
the financial backers.

In India, especially, the players are

some of the most written about and
sought after men in the country.
Every win is a national festival and
often the players are worshipped as
gods. A loss, on the other hand, is a
national disaster.

Interestingly, in a time scale less

than the length of Sachin Will the pitches around the
Tendulkar's career, the nature and
economy of world cricket has world suit sub continental
fundamentally changed. players?

In 1992, the Indian cricket board, now the richest cricket body in the
world, had a deficit of $150,000. And in 1997, the ICC, cricket's apex
body, had a little more than $25,000 in its coffers.

Once cricket administrators decided to marry cricket with television,

the scenario changed.

The cricket market became an Indian monopoly, unique to any

international sport, and within months the schedule of cricket
worldwide was driven by the needs of multiple television players each
wanting a share of the Indian pie.

As with almost every monopoly, in hindsight, it seems that this

transmutation was not necessarily for the better.

If you would like to send a comment about this story you can use the
form below this selection of views.

I agree that the nature and economy of world cricket has changed.
However, if the recent surge in the interest in cricket is to be sustained
then a professional cricket league will need to be developed. Relying
solely on national teams will tremendously increase to workload on a
limited number of players resulting in both physical and mental fatigue
as well as injury. The financial backers should follow the pattern of the
professional sports leagues in the United States (such as NFL, NBA,
NHL, etc) and Europe (FA, UEFA) and set up a professional league.
The clubs in the league can hire players from any country and play
each other for a title. This will increase the number of new players
who will get exposure, without any of the politics of selection. Players
will be paid according to their performances. In addition there will be
improvement in the infrastructure (new stadia, training facilities, etc)
and television rights will generate more money for the game.
Iqbal Siddique, Pakistan

We Indians should also show interests in other sports like hockey and
football. Cricket is not everything.
Suresh, US

For the good of cricket though I hope India don't make an early exit
from the world cup!
Nick C, England

This news really makes me sad and wonder at the rate everything is
being attached to money and commercialism. There was a time when
the cricket players considered the game as their hobby and passion and
the dedication was true. Now it is hard to judge given the additional
pressure that they have to handle not only from their fans but also from
their financial benefactors. How can we even think of ensuring that
issues like match fixing, doping by players, gambling wont emerge
again in the near future? I really hope for the day when people(both
players and fans) understand the true essence of sports and
entertainment as a whole.
Jaya Dey, USA

The only danger is that Australia's complete domination of the game

could make people lose interest. Many people developed apathy
towards men's tennis due to sheer monotony of seeing Roger Fedrer
win again and again. Earlier there was a Jimmy Connors or a John
McEnroe to match Borg or a Stefan Edberg to tame Sampras but now
men's tennis has become very boring with Roger the invincible.
Australian domination of the game could do the same harm to cricket.
Sudhir Bisht, Nigeria

Cricket is the new opium of the masses. It makes the subcontinent

forget reality - starvation, poverty, health, education, corruption,
electricity, roads.
Day, Hong Kong

I am really sad to read about the money being spent on cricket while
all other sports are languishing in the country. I am also very sorry that
cricket culture has begun to pervade even villages and children are
loosing interest in native sports. There are many interesting games that
children used to play in India. But the dominance of cricket is
destroying knowledge and practice of traditional games and sports.
Vyasa, India
If cricket has to match football in terms of revenue generation
capabilities then each country has to increase the bench strength with
more capable and charismatic players. The present day requirement
cannot be undertaken by just first 11 players.
Shamim Hamdani, Saudi Arbia

Did the writer intentionally ignore Pakistan and Sri Lankan teams or is
he unaware from true cricket obsession in South Asia. The author
seems to be incapable of having full information regarding SouthAsia
and Cricket obsession.
Asma Bashir, USA

The writer is more than biased in his article. Bangladesh is mentioned

and Pakistan is omitted. Can you imagine to draw crowds larger than
those of matches between India & Pakistan? Pakistan, Sri Lanka and
India have won world cup and Pakistan and India were runner ups in
the last two editions of the CUP.
Ahsan Bilal, Pakistan

This year Bangladesh will play the final, as it is the only sub-continent
team left to play the final with Australia, in the last three cups. 1996
Srilanka vs Australia 1999 Pakistan vs Australia 2003 India vs
Australia 2007 Bangladesh vs Australia can it happen?
Ahsan Bilal, Pakistan

Why include Pakistan in this report? How much does ad revenue

comes from Pakistan? Or is the writer obsessed with hyphenating the
two countries even when it is irrelevant? Readers in India would like
to know.
baldtree, India

I am very surprised by the author article. An article on South Asian

obsession with cricket and almost no mention of Pakistan. Moreover
when he finally did manage to mention Pakistan he implied that for
Pakistani's to see their team in the cup was an occasion of its own and
just like Bangladesh they don't have much of a chance. For the author's
information Pakistan has been the highest ranking South Asian team
for the last two years and they are expected to be one of the favourites
to win the cup. I think if was more appropriate to name the article
"India's Cricket Obsession". Bangladesh is relatively new cricket
playing nation, maybe the author just names Bangladesh so he can
name the article as such. Furthermore the author maybe of the view
that Pakistan is part of the Middle East rather than South Asia as it is
held by some people.
yasir Shafi, Pakistan

India needs training and facilities at grass root levels, something that
Australia and England have because of which they are still good in
spite cricket not being their favourite sports. Australians are good at
many sports not because they are super talented or physically
superior...its simply because the facilities and training they get there.
Once India or Pakistan have that they could easily do what Australians
are doing these days ....win win win
Ravi, USA

You know what I don't understand- the crazy Indian Cricket fans. With
over 1 billion population and yet they can't find 11 good ball players to
win the title? That's pathetic! All the money that is being invested in
this game should put into something else. I think that would be more
productive than just watching 11 losers playing game and giving the
excellent fans an excuse. It's been a good 20 yrs. since India has won
the world cup. What are they doing since? The greedy ball players are
too busy not honing their skills to bring the trophy back but to get
more endorsements. They've got very the most supportive, loyal and
die-hard fans who are also more patriots than the players. The players
are just robbing the people blindly. So, my suggestion to humble
Indian Cricket fans; please ditch your players. And to all Indians, stick
with something you guys are good at- Software technology. Leave the
Cricket to someone else, because my friends your players are not
playing the game,! they are simply tricking you all.
Dhiraj, USA

If what is said in this article is true, there will be more incidents of

match fixing to come. It will be a shame for the fans and the game.
Naveed, US

Does the author not watch most talented south Asian cricket team
Pakistan. Does he not realise how much support Pakistan get when
they come to the UK? Obviously not. I would suggest to the author to
do his research properly and watch the one day series Pakistan had in
England last summer. So he can actually comprehend the amount of
support Pakistan receive in the UK. p.s. a very poorly researched
article
John, UK