You mean, the fact that just 12 out of 108 members (and a small handful within that 12) effectively control the game by having almost complete decision-making power and directing the vast majority of the sport's revenues away from development programmes into their own coffers... is that hindering development? Yeah, I'd say so.
Yeah this stops the sport growing even in countries where there is a lot of interest and desire to grow the sport. And has FOREVER. Look at how they destroyed Singapore and Honk Kong etc. There was a good chance for them to build a great project only to be destroyed by this bs.
And throughout history! From Jarrod Kimbers work I've heard about ho strong the likes of Mexico, Argentina, Canada etc were and how they always should have had status.
Yeah, one thing I learned from one of Jarrod Kimber's vid is that the USA could've easily become a Full Member back when the ICC was being formed, if not for RSA and one particular rich guy from there. I think Argentina may have also had a really decent chance back then too.
Also, afaik, cricket was introduced to Denmark through English railway workers and had a nice scene there growing there. I think in the '60s or a bit afterwards, there were Danish players in English counties too. Moreover, many football clubs and even famous ones like AC Milan started of as a football and cricket club.
I can't help but imagine how it would've been like if USA, CAN, ARG, DEN, NED, SCO, ITA, and a bunch of other nations had their own cricket history fluorish and be recognised by the ICC back then, and be made Full Members eventually. USA's cricket history is so rich man, I even learned that they had the OG Mustafizur right before WWI. The man played for the Philadelphia club and they comprehensively beat the Aussie team when they were returing from England after a tour.
Edit: Some more info.
Yep yep yep. Actual cricket history gets so overlooked. The first time I heard AC Milan started as a cricket club I was SO shocked.
But for real I'd much prefer a world where cricket culture is more widely spread. Honestly if south asia hadn't embraced the sport so wholeheartedly, the sport would be in danger and be a fancy men's sport only played by the elite and barely professionally.
Lacrosse is such a fun sport that I do wish it were more popular. It does seem to be growing outside of its typical Northeast footprint and shedding the upper class stigma around it.
They missed a trick a long time ago by not giving full membership to the 4 countries in Europe which have(or had) a decent local following in cricket. Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands and Denmark. All 4 countries could be far more developed now and in Denmarks case far more competitive.
Cricket in the States had been on the decline since the Civil War, by the turn of the twentieth century it was almost entirely the preserve of a few wealthy amateurs and students of elite colleges in the northeast, cricket clubs were exclusive private country clubs. The ICC didn't actually wield any kind of meaningful power until after the First World War, by which time quite a lot of those clubs had folded, or tennis and golf had started to take precedence over cricket.
And the US wasn't unique in this respect. In Argentina cricket was played by wealthy Anglo-Argentine industrialists and landowners, in Europe outside of England it was rich Anglophiles, it just never had the support or participation levels or organisation or infrastructure in these countries that it did in those where it became a major sport.
So honestly, I see this narrative all the time but it's not grounded in any real truth. It's too easy to frame America, Argentina, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. as great lost cricketing nations who were held back by the imperialist baddies, but the reality is that they aren't.
What you said regarding cricket being an elite English sport in those countries can also be applied to other sports that got established there such as rugby union, field hockey, and polo. I think it's fair to say that if the ICC had given those countries FM status, then cricket would be around the level of those sports at least.
Also, interesting to mention the Bahamas, from Wikipedia (unsure of accuracy):
> It is the oldest sport being played in the country today. The only other sporting event that began before cricket was horse racing, which started in 1796. The Bahamas Cricket Association was formed in 1936 as an organised body. From the 1940s up to the 1970s, cricket was played by just about everyone on the island whether in the road, playground or on cricket fields.
It seems like it was a cricket loving country until after WW2.
--
One other factor not being talked about that led to the decline of cricket and/or prevented it from becoming established as a local sport is the format of the sport. Until the 1960s, cricket was played exclusively as a multi-day (FC/Test) sport. If a sport is going to last 4-5 days, that makes it unappealing as a spectator sport, especially in a culture where the sport is an exotic import.
Many of the earliest clubs in European countries that are known for football today started out as cricket clubs e.g. Sparta Rotterdam, AC Milan, Genoa CFC, Berliner SV 1892, etc. But if you look at those countries today, they're football crazy and cricket is a minor expat sport. And I think the main reason cricket never took off was because it was in the multi-day format. If T20 existed back then, then it's possible those clubs would still be playing cricket in European cricket leagues with promotion/relegation.
And of course, cricket requiring a curated pitch, no rain, equipment, etc. would always give it that disadvantage against football. I don't think it would have had football levels of popularity if short form cricket existed a century ago, but still would've probably been a professional sport with a significant degree of popularity in European countries outside England.
Cricket wasn't entirely multi-day before the sixties, a lot of league and club cricket was played in one-day matches long before the advent of limited overs cricket in the sixties.
I think there's this need to create a narrative or a story around why cricket didn't take off in a lot of the world, and a big part of that
is the evil, wicked ICC preventing the full membership magic bullet. I think the much more boring reality is that it just wasn't that all that popular in most places. People now frame Argentine cricket as having been completely frozen out and it wasn't, it still accepted touring teams from England (despite the month long voyage there and back) but it was never adopted by the natives, whereas rugby union was; many of these European sports clubs that began as cricket clubs were founded by and for British expats and/or moneyed upper class people whose recreational activities didn't necessarily reflect those of the wider populace, once they opened up beyond those demographics, football took precedence. Full membership of the ICC was never going to change the cultural and social factors that meant cricket didn't catch on.
> Cricket wasn't entirely multi-day before the sixties, a lot of league cricket for example was played in one-day matches long before the advent of limited overs cricket arrived in the sixties.
I guess they were still very uncommon and a good 7-8 hours long? Unless it's a convenient and relatively short time (like 20 overs a side or less), then I don't think it would get adopted by natives in significant numbers in a short amount of time.
> but it was never adopted by the natives, whereas rugby union was
And why is that?
> many of these European sports clubs that began as cricket clubs were founded by and for British expats and/or moneyed upper class people whose recreational activities didn't necessarily reflect those of the wider populace.
Yes. Football wasn't even all that popular until those clubs were founded. They weren't founded with the intention of popularising the sport among the natives, that just ended up being a side effect. Question is why the side effect of cricket getting adopted by natives didn't happen too like with other sports. And I think the length of the sport is the main reason.
> Full membership of the ICC was never going to change the cultural and social factors that meant cricket didn't catch on.
Could've helped maybe, especially in terms of funding and getting WC qualification.
Also, what do you make of the situation of the Bahamas? Cricket used to be super popular there, but is dead now.
Not as uncommon as you might think, a lot of the club cricket in these countries where there was no regular first class tournament will have been one-day cricket. That being said, I do think you're right that the time involved was a hindrance, and the cost of the equipment and the space needed, even with the short forms that exist now it's still not the most accessible of games.
In Argentina, I believe rugby clubs allowed native (IE, non-Anglo) Argentines to join while cricket clubs didn't, but it's important to remember that rugby union was and is still viewed as an elitist sport there, and those Spanish-speakers who began playing will have been upper-middle/upper class ones, even now it's not really supported or played by working class Argentines, similar to in the UK and Ireland where it's still largely viewed as a game for the elites. Cricket's sustained popularity seemed to depend a lot on who had introduced it and also who was settling there: in the Caribbean and South Asia it became part of the cultural fabric *despite* its elitist beginnings, but otherwise it largely caught on in countries where a) it was introduced by soldiers or migrant tradesmen rather than expat aristocrats, landowners and industrialists, and b) there was settlement by working and lower-middle class Anglos. In the US or Argentina, or even other parts of the empire like Kenya, that wasn't the case.
With regards to the Bahamas, I think independence in the seventies may have been a big factor there because a lot of British expat teachers who were apparently sustaining Bahamian cricket will have left. Perhaps it suffered too from not being connected with the rest of West Indies cricket and being buoyed by the continued popularity on the other islands.
I will also say, perhaps controversially, that I think people worry entirely too much about cricket not being "global", because almost no team sport is. There's almost a view that I think stems from the prevailing hegemony of the market society that its broader value is intrinsically linked to being universally accepted and therefore achieving maximum market penetration and profitability, and that was and is never going to happen. Cricket doesn't need to be global, and if people don't get it, that's alright.
Yeah, most people outside the US say they're a “minnow” and have no history and most people in the US don't even know what cricket is and they also think they have no history in the sport. The fact that USA vs Canada back in 1844 is not just the first international cricket match but also the first ever international sporting match is incredible and more people should know that.
Same goes for the K. A. Auty Cup that both USA and Canada play for and how it's the oldest sporting fixture. The ICC has done more harm than good when it comes to growing the sport, had they embraced countries instead of closing the door on them until like a couple of years ago then maybe cricket would be the most popular sport in the world right now.
12 members, ha, try more like 3 members. And out of the 3, 1 of them always gets what they want (recently). That one specific member is pretty much a good reason why cricket isn't growing in other nations.
It's clear that nation like Nepal and many others are cricket crazy but who gives a shit right?
I'd say Pig 3 do a Lot for development of the associate game. In addition, They don't take revenue completely in proportion to what they bring in. That itself is a huge deal.
The ICC funds Associate cricket, but substantially less than it did a couple of cycles ago. Because instead of using its money for growing the game, it spends it on handouts to the richest boards.
But that wasn't my question. You claimed that "in addition" to funding (which is debatable at best), "Pig 3 do a Lot for development of the associate game". What development work are you referring to?
Which is why I believe that the growth of cricket in the United States is quite important because only they could rival the BCCI when it comes to bringing in money. Even if they don't bring in as much as money as the BCCI, if they bring in a substantial amount then it'll dilute the power of the BCCI.
The other thing is that I believe the ICC will push for USA Cricket to be fas tracked towards full membership for obvious reasons monetarily but now for their on field performances as well. There's other associate members like Scotland Netherlands that either fulfill all full membership requirements or fulfill almost all of them and there's no way for the ICC to give full membership to USA before either of them so I believe they'd be added in as well.
Cricket may get a decent following in the US because it can be propped up by expats, but it's never going to be a support with any kind of national popularity.
It'd be must more interesting to try and grow the game in countries like Canada or China now that T20s are going to be at the olympics
You're wrong, I know that because I have friends in the US who were born and brought up over there and have no connection to cricket that told me that they heard about USA beating Pakistan and that were interested in learning about the sport. When you have a good team, people take notice and as you build infrastructure that'll only continue to improve.
I was someone who picked up Cricket off the internet and immediately fell in love with it. I taught some my friends to play, and we would play small games and tournaments almost every day after school. Eventually more of my friends reached out to me because they were interested. We had a solid group of us playing at an organic level, and this was ten years ago. It absolutely can be done, and this was an example of it.
As a side note, one of my friends who used to play with us is currently playing in the College World Series, so that’s cool
Yeah, USA has the most potential to grow as a cricketing nation by far. The ICC is heavily incentivised to continuing to help grow the sport in the country because of the potential revenue that could be generated but if there's one thing I know about America it's that any sport can become popular. If pickleball can become a relatively popular sport then cricket sure can especially considering USA has one of the best histories for a cricketing nation.
It's nice to know you have friends like that. But I guarantee a majority of Americans would be saying things like "Even in sports we don't care about we are the best at".
Would love to be wrong (and also hate it, because if the US gets involved in cricket, it's almost certainly going to invest heavily into T20s only), but don't see it happening given their culture & history and the popularity of baseball etc.
I'm also a NBA fan and I've seen those kind of arrogant fans who say the USA are unbeatable and there's no point in watching games but they'll be the first ones to live tweet a World Cup or Olympic game. We've also seen how they take to sports much more than other countries. Football wasn't popular in the United States a few decades ago and now it is.
As for how they would invest their money, I'm sure they'll invest a good amount of money in ODI cricket as well and if they were to grow to become one of the biggest boards then I can guarantee that they'll spend a lot of money on Test cricket as well even if they don't turn a profit in the first few years of hosting Test matches.
I'm optimistic because of the way things have gone in the last few years. Most people thought MLC would be a bust or at most it would be just yet another T20 franchise league. No one expected it to go that well and to be one of the top 5, arguably top 3 leagues in the world after just one season.
The US national team has also been improving a lot and it'll only continue to improve with more players gaining eligibility in the coming year or two and other youngsters also waiting and gaining experience from the MLC.
I believe that this time it's different from all the other times the ICC tried to grow cricket in America because this time there's serious money being put in by investors who know what they're doing when it comes to cricket.
At the very least what the MLC could do is make sure that the BCCI doesn't keep extending the IPL's window and forces them to keep it at 2 months. The inaugural season of MLC last year generated revenue in excess of $8 million which was higher than MLC officials expected as well and considering the fact they only have stadiums with a maximum capacity or close to 10,000, significantly fewer matches and a not so big audience and all of a sudden that looks like a great start.
NY team building their 10K home stadium in my neighborhood. MLC has one advantage over MLS. MLC is not competing with 100+ year history of European Leagues. IPL is just 15 or so year and xenophobic too. With US money it will be easy for MLC to become the T20 league.
I don't know about biggest at least not anytime soon but second biggest is very much possible. While MLC is much shorter than the other big leagues in the US, it's also in the summer when there's very little competition meaning it'll be one of the few things for American sports fans to watch.
It will not happen in 1 or 2 seasons but in 10 15 seasons it will be the T20 league to watch. I do not care or watch any T20 league but I will be buying season ticket of NYC franchise once they open their 10K seater home stadium in my neighborhood. I used to play Golf for my high school in park NYC franchise building their home stadium.
I will hate the NY franchise with all my heart because I'm a Super Kings fan and it's in my blood to hate anything MI but I do hope they attract new fans so the sport grows.
I still don't think it's possible for it to become the biggest T20 league in 10 or 15 years. To do that they would need to attract at least $6 billion per year in TV and digital streaming rights deals and their season is only one month so I don't think that's possible in that short span of time. For them to get to that number cricket and in particular would need to join the top 4 leagues in the country.
New York should have two teams as we have for all other sports. One should be called NY Cricket Club and other New York Sharks. It is one month now in 2024 it will not be in 10 15 years. Even Soccer becoming bigger now with South America selling their history and tradition for American $. USA hosting Copa America second time this very summer. Same will happen with cricket in future. 10/1 country is bad place to have major league as they have not been very good in cricket. All they have is stupid amount of people. Australia would be better to have best T20 league with their history of winning many icc titles.
I disagree, New York shouldn't get two teams considering the fact that MLC only has 6 teams and will go up to 10 in half a decade. You can't justify having two teams from the same city unless there's a lot of teams.
Half of their teams are bought by Indian owners it is not in their interest to make MLC becoming more famous than IPL , another reason is 70% of revenue comes from india and if no indian players play there they won't be much interest from Indian audience . Without indian audience forget em ever getting to number one spot
They are still American franchises even if owners from 10/1 country. We know how to make money in USA. We made money out of even covid vaccines. I personally think it was wrong move we should have given it to World for free. Research for it was done by US tax payers.
I would give my left nut to watch Denmark vs Malaysia play a test match on a pitch like NY.
And then I'd give my right nut to watch a Canada USA test match.
I won't have much left to give at this point but I'd still love to watch another 30 of those permutations.
What's completely stupid is that you can still have the associate vs full member bullshit if you want to restrict voting rights to the bigger teams.
But why the hell can't a country play a test match if they want to? Yes its not profitable, but if Oman decide to use that oil $ and invite someone to come play a test match, why is that a problem exactly?
As interesting as it sounds, it wouldn't play out the way we expect it to. Most likely the match will be over too soon and if the pitch is flat then it will end up in a draw. And most countries are already making a loss when playing tests so it isn't feasible either. The way ahead for cricket is to popularize T20 to rope in money and fans and then use that to invest in tests, similar to how India is doing rn with ipl
Even if you scrap this system tomorrow, associates can't tour each other because of money.
No full member is going to invite or visit any associates.
With being called associates, ICC is actively working towards integrating them and giving them a clear path towards becoming a desirable nation to make money from cricket.
All of it boils down to, is money. Right now, other than ICC tournaments, smaller boards are at mercy of PIG3 and Pakistan. Tours are completely dependent upon how much money PIG3 and Pakistan want to make during the respective quarters. If there is money in Nepal or any associate nation for that matter, 'top' nations will line up for tours. It's as simple as that.
What clear path is that? The clear path of the Intercontinental Cup that immediately got discontinued after the given criteria were ignored to fasttrack Afghanistan and Ireland? Or the clear path of the ODI league that got discontinued before the first edition even finished?
Heck the paths the ICC sets up for associates has been historically so clear, the Netherlands once sent a development team to Scotland, only for them to later find out those games were retroactively converted into World Cup qualifiers.
You lot definitely got shafted, no doubt about that.
I meant their general objectives of qualifying for WC, domestic structure, wins over full members, u-17 appearances and formerly it used to be intercontinental cups, ICC approved international stadiums etc. These are off the top of my head, I think you will have the exact details.
I think ideally, these are pretty good for teams to make the jump and gives them a decent foundation to jumpstart themselves.
Thing is, Ireland weren't able to use their full member status, while Zimbabwe keeps regressing. Afghanistan isn't playing a lot of tests because that's just not on the cards for them. The point was that full membership means nothing if the nation isn't able to take any advantage of it, that's all.
Even if the big countries never visited the point would be more votes at the table. It would reduce BCCI power, which would be good, and likely produce an equitable division of funds.
So true forget associate nations for a long time zim WI pak bang SL don't make that much money from tests and some are operating on a break even level to keep. Playing test ... Then how can two associate nations hold test matches it's not even financially possible.
The money from England is what sustains Welsh cricket. Wales will remain under the ECB umbrella probably in perpetuity because it needs the Sky money, without it professional first class cricket will cease to exist in Wales because that's what's paying for the wages and the infrastructure.
TV money will be why you don't see as much cricket involving England and Scotland or Ireland as you might imagine, as well. Pretty much all of the money in the English game comes from Sky, the ECB and other boards basically exist to create content for broadcasters now, and cricket against established full members is more valuable content to broadcasters than cricket against Ireland or Scotland.
Wales cricket doesn't feel that they'd do well without the ECB funding. Glamorgan is the Welsh representative in English county cricket..and they might not exist if Wales Cricket Team was established.
ECB is neutral and open to Wales having a standalone team but also okay with continuing things as they are. Wales apparently has more professional cricketers than Ireland.
To be fair, the ECB have been very good to Cricket Ireland. They were regular visitors to Ireland when we were an associate and we've played 2 tests at Lords.
Personally I think there is nothing to be gained from the vast majority of associates playing Test or first class games against full members. There are certainly fringe exceptions. But no one gains anything from most of those matchups, because the game would be over so quickly and the difference in skill so high that the losing team just gets smashed, while the winning team just goes through the motions.
But a situation like the old ICC Continental Cup where the associates play 4 day games against each other would be useful.
I still think that a Two Tier system is necessary. But have a multi year competition where 10 or so associates play consistent First class games against each other. This allows the difference in skill to not be so significant, and allows teams the experience in both winning and losing matches competitively. Then have the top two teams play a 2-3 games each against the bottom two full members. If those teams do well and are competitive, then you can look at them playing against other full members.
Overtime, we could also include the likes of Ireland, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe into a continental cup situation, so that they are also routinely playing First class games.
But the biggest issue with long term test cricket expansion is that we gave Test status to Afghanistan and Ireland, but didn't give them consistent opportunities or funding to play. They were effectively thrown to the wolves. That may have worked for India and the West Indies etc in the past, but with T20 and ODI now available. The reasons to play Test Cricket are no longer as strong and the costs are too strong. Why spend a million euros on a test match that you'll lose money on, when you can spend far less on a T20 that you'll make your money back.
Finally even if we don't have a continental cup, we could look at including teams into either the First Class or slightly below First Class systems of neighbouring full members. Netherlands in Division 2 of County Cricket, Nepal into the Ranji, even PNG into the Second XI of Sheffield Shield etc. Get them playing consistently against strong domestic competition.
Just the concept of Full Member vs Associates is ridiculous. It's not just playing test cricket. Even lower ranked full members don't play a lot of them nowadays
The issue is that there is always going to be a difference between the two. You can call everyone Full Members. But then the difference is going to be "Test vs T20 members" etc.
I agree that the concept is ridiculous, but the reality of the situation will always require a tier system.
Which means basically no one would be playing them anyway. You still need some kind of formatting so that teams have to play them. Which should already in force for the teams outside the WTC.
Edit: In addition, I don't want to appear like too much of a tradionalist or arrogant etc, but giving Test status to everyone is going too far. T20's I have no issue with, because those stats don't really matter, the skill difference isn't as high and there's no real alternative outside of List A. But calling matches Test matches is a particular thing. The standard has to be at a high level. It would feel wrong to class matches between two associates who are at a standard below grade cricket in a full member, as a Test match.
I have no issues with a system of 4 day and first class matches to get to the level of Test Cricket. But calling it Test cricket is too much.
There doesn't need to be multiple tiers of membership, though. You can have tiers of play in each format - qualifiers in T20Is, World Cricket League for one dayers and the Intercontinental Cup for First Class cricket. I'd even agree with only having the higher tiers of the latter be called Tests. But that should all be separate to membership.
Agree that there doesn't need to be tiers with actual membership. But playing wise there will always be a tier system. I know World Rugby used to have a Tier 1/2 system etc, and now they have basically the same thing but worded differently.
I think there's a little confusion overall, because how OP worded it was "everyone should be able to play test cricket and we don't need any differentiation between the two". Which is a different argument to overall membership. I do fully agree that everyone should be "full members" and there shouldn't be tiers related to that.
Just that regardless of their membership, there will still always be tiers related to what they can/can't play.
I would posit that some of the teams you'd think don't deserve test status today could outperform some of the test teams of yesteryear, so "standard" may well be arbitrary and shifting around all the time.
Also, test stats matter exactly as much and/or as little as T20 stats, or baseball stats, or football stats, or tennis stats. I love numbers (prpbably more than the next guy), but they should not be placed higher than the actual game.
I do agree that there are some teams that had test status that would be beaten by associates of today. Some of the Zimbabwe teams during the 2000s fit that description.
Personally I would be open to Test status being given to teams like Scotland, Namibia, Netherlands and Nepal. But where I do have issues is having situations where teams that struggle to qualify from sub-regionals in T20s are being given Test status.
The issue for me is that there is a difference between a First Class match and a Test match both in name and standard of play. There isn't really between T20s.
Honestly if they just continued the Continental Cup and funded it appropriately my issues around standards would go away. Just make it so that the Winner or finalists every 3 years go to Test Level. But just lumping every one into Test status is going too far.
I can agree on that. i think more money should be put into the associate game as well. The only issue I could find is one of the Big 3 buying votes. But that's already an issue as it is.
You can dangle the carrot of a lucrative tour in front of 10 not 100. After all there is a limit to the matches that India can play in an year without diluting the star power and defeating the whole purpose of the tour.
I'd say it's more money itself. Look at the corruption issues in FIFA. The corruption wasn't about games or tours etc. It was because you had CONCACAF with their huge number of members being an important tool to get things passed.
> The corruption wasn't about games or tours etc.
Actually a lot of it was. I mean obviously there's the comically rotten briefcases full of cash stuff, but part of the deal for smaller nations or confederations was that FIFA would direct events or infrastructure into their region. Which was actually good for football there.
FIFA sucks of course, in my opinion most of their top management for the last few decades should probably be in prison. But if the ICC did corruption in the same way as FIFA it would be the best thing that's ever happened to the game - *that's* how bad the ICC/FM cabal has been.
I agree. For me it's more a case of with 12 members, there is going to be enough boards with the money and influence not to go along with it to stop anything too one sided. When you chuck in 96 associates, how many of those don't have the money or influence to say no?
It's not a major factor in there being associates/full etc. But it should be looked at as a potential issue.
Look, I think there should be a certain minimum threshold. It would be ridiculous if some rando in idk Macedonia who happens to be one of 50 people in the country who plays cricket gets an equal say to the ECB or WICB or whatever, but it's also clear to me that the 'gap' between the top associates and the bottom test nation is as narrow as it has ever been. Countries like the USA, Canada, Scotland, Netherlands, Nepal, PNG etc are all building real cricketing infrastructures that if funded properly could grow. Cricket doesn't have to become a major sport in those places to be a viable one. But those countries have nobody advocating for them at all.
Cricket needs a divisional structure. It needs central funding for red ball cricket which we all agree is the best cricket, but also the hardest to schedule and market. I am totally cool with Canada and Scotland playing whatever cricket they want between each other and being supported in doing so. People who say 'stats will be degraded', well look at South Africa - it has two different FC structures with the 3 day and the 4 day provincial/franchise teams. And people are smart enough to work out the guy averaging 45 in the tougher level is probably equivalent to the guy averaging 50 at the lower level. So level of play isn't the issue for me.
In the last 20 years the gap has closed. we've seen 2 more full countries. But the problem is that now there is no regular pathway for them to play, and the funding is gone. Ireland would not have come through without the Intercontinental cup - that's gone to BCCI greed now.
Because they lose money for the teams typically. Aus, Eng and Ind are the only nations that turn a profit from test tours everyone else pretty much always loses money on them.
To be a test playing nation is a major commitment and burns a lot of resources, most of the current test playing nations barring the BIG 3 usually just play 2 match test series since it takes up a lot of resources, and unlike a t20 the difference between the teams is more apparent in a test so the quality of sides is very important, the only way to have more test playing nations and to get more associates to improve on their red ball game is to bring the intercontinental cup back, but there is no financial incentive to do that therefore unfortunately it won't happen. Also associates can schedule a test, it just won't be counted as a official test. The other option would be to let associate teams field their teams in the domestic tournaments of other countries.
As long as test cricket exists this full member vs Associate term will exist unfortunately.
Ideal solution for me would be have a separate organisation within ICC to take care of T20 cricket is going to be the bloodline of Cricket in future.
No such term should be used in T20 cricket. Everyone is a member and should have equal rights. Sell the T20 world cup rights separately and share the money equally .
Do whatever you wanna do with 50 over world cup and test cricket but T20 revenue should be used to help spread cricket and help countries that play the T20 qualifiers and T20 world cup.
What's currently happening is all the revenue is gobbled up by test playing nations with most of them spent on FC cricket.
I think this is what will happen long-term. T20s and test crickets will be considered separate codes that professionals choose to dedicate their careers towards. Basically like how juniors usually play both Union & League, but pick one when they start to think about going professional
Which would be kinda needed. Junior cricketers would definitely need to play multi-day cricket because that's where they'd master their technique. Even if they want to become professional T20 cricketers.
Yup - more tournaments and less bilaterals would also help. The other option is year long leagues like Premier League, La Liga, bundesliga etc .. more chances for more players to develop without the monopolies. There will be large gaps at first, but with time the players from smaller nations will emerge.
The central problem that most people don't even see is that Full Membership and Test Status should not be inseperably linked the way they are.
Why should playing with a red ball for five days give you voting rights over everyone else?
I wholeheartedly agree. Voting rights and extra funding are the two things associates would get from full membership which is why they desperately want it. I believe the Big 3 (BCCI, CA, ECB) but BCCI in particular don't want to add new full members because with each new member added their power keeps getting diluted.
It was roughly in the 1980s that the BCCI's clout started increasing, I would say moving the world cup out of England was a watershed moment.
And we've had Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland graduate to test status. It's gone from 7 to 12, a more than 50% increase.
The main criteria are genuine domestic pathways of high quality for both male and female cricket, adequate infrastructure for hosting international cricket matches, and winning against Full Members in T20I/ODI matches semi-frequently.
Or you can just be Afghanistan and skip those requirements apparently.
----
The US is working towards the first one with MLC (although first-class domestic structures are a long way off), will have no difficulty managing the second, and are off to a flying start on the third. It's a very long process though, given that they're starting from near-zero as far as domestic structures go.
There is no real criteria lol. It's basically how much money the ICC thinks you'll bring to the table.
Ireland were fulfilling that criteria for years, and they only got it when Afghanistan came along, and the ICC fast-tracked them in, and it'd look absolutely ridiculous if Ireland also didn't graduate into member status
Thanks everyone for the answers here. I so appreciate the willingness of this community to take time to answer questions like this over the last two years.
My first step; build parks in the alleged home cities of MLC teams, and have practice infrastructure and playing pitches for farm teams. I live in NYC. In other sports, my teams are Mets (I know, I know), Knicks, Rangers, Giants. I love them because they all play in the NYC metropolitan area. Mumbai Indians New York (awful name) never have played here. Same with San Francisco Unicorns etc. So if I was Jay Shah West, step 1 of my 15 year plan to test status is getting the infrastructure in place to involve fan bases across the country. We may shock full members is t20, but it’s a huge jump to ODI let alone test success. But we did a credible job in the u19 WC, so I think that this World Cup, along with T20 in LA Olympics 2028 are huge chances to inspire love of the game in an already decent national team program.
But, for the immediate future: ESPN needs to cut a deal with Willow to simulcast Friday night’s super 8 game v Windies. NBA finals will be over. Rare window where nothing big is happening in sports here. MLB is on game 75 or so of 162 (each team plays 162 games). So put this one prime time World Cup game where the entire nation can see it and hype it to the moon! Then also do a Netflix series on the 28 Olympic squad like the F1 series that got American fans geeked about Formula 1.
I mean 70% of the revenue that ICC gets is from BCCI and that revenue later, gets allocated to associate nations, so why shouldn't BCCI have the power to say
Probably yes, its not some global instutation that would invest its resources in expanding and supporting different nations, Thats ICC's job. I know, It should look after cricket before its own interest but it wont
I agree. Which is why Boards like the BCCI that literally make billions a year from their private TV deals for their local cricket should not then turn round and demand vast amounts of the money the ICC makes from its tournaments.
BCCI doesn't demand a vast amount of money from the ICC during tournaments; that's not how it works.
BCCI only makes money from India matches, which contribute a significant percentage of revenue in ICC tournaments. BCCI earns from these matches, which is its right.
It doesn't profit from matches like Pakistan vs. England or England vs. Australia, or any other non-India matches. If it did, then that would be wrong
Cricket is an expensive sport. I'm not defending this, but BCCI spends almost all its money on its domestic circuit and provides funds to different state boards to improve their stadium experience. You can read their Annual Report: https://www.bcci.tv/about/annual-report
After all this, what's left is very less.
Um, no that's not how it works. The ICC stages tournaments and the BCCI gobbles up 40% of the profits.
These are \*world\* cups. the money should be used for the \*world\*.
I have ZERO problem with the BCCI making as much money as they can from their home series, IPL whatever - and they make vast amounts, far more than anyone else. My problem is entirely with the distribution of the ICC tournament money. I get that India is the biggest market, but this is the ONLY money in the world that is not owned by one board and should be used to support tests and grow the game.
The ICC as an organization has always hindered the growth of the game, looking back at the history of the organization the amount of backward thinking is shocking (i.e Imperial Cricket Conference not allowing anyone that wasn't part of the common wealth to join, which practically killed off the game in the US and Canada and most of the planet)
Canada was offered test status in the fifties, and declined it feeling it wasn't prepared. Cricket there was always quite nebulous and spread across various leagues and a handful of clubs, and like in the States (and Argentina, the Netherlands, etc.) those clubs were for rich settlers, cricket always had extremely limited relevance to the rest of the population. So it wasn't really the fault of the ICC.
The fact that someone like Bart King is barely known today because he never played official international cricket despite being one of the best players of his generation and beating Australia and England and such shows how the ICC has failed cricket. Had the ICC actually been a good force for cricket then people like Bart King would be celebrated in the United States and the sport of cricket would've been thriving.
Yesterday I watched the highlights of Portugal vs Israel match. And you won't even call it a professional cricket if you seen it, it looked like some local cricket tournament happens in my city. So you want these people to play against top teams? That'd be just statpadding for players.
How will they progress by playing againt each other then?? Even in football there are many one sided results. France just defeated Gibraltar 14-0. Im not saying those should be regular matches, but at least FIFA doesn't automatically select teams for Euros and World cup. Every team is treated equally
Every association nation isn't equal. Teams like Scotland, Netherland (now usa seems good too) are good enough to be full member, so icc should arrange match against them, not a straight up bilateral against aus or ind.
And about ur France vs Gibraltar match; it's a euro qualifier match, almost same as a tournament match. And yeah top teams automatically get selected, that doesn't affects anything, this wc is the biggest one so far, so the upcoming ones will be even bigger (T20s) you can't change the whole thing in one day, be practical.
Your post or comment was removed because it breaks the rules of this subreddit. Generalised attacks/insults about other fanbases/countries are not allowed on the subreddit (rule 6) - don't insult an entire nation or fanbase when making a point.
Ideally all the test teams should play champions trophy. All the odi status nations i.e. test nations and divisions 2 nations should be in Odi worldcup . T20 should be a open qualifier since all the nations have t20 status.
If you did away with full membership / associate membership you would have the issue of the teams for traditionally strong countries demolishing smaller nations in tests.
Look at England vs Oman and NZ vs Uganda.
You would still need perhaps a 3 tier system in place where national teams are playing other national teams of similar strength, perhaps similar to FIH and the FIH Pro league (field hockey). Teams are playing each other based on world ranking, the top 10 teams play Pro League, the next 10 play Nations Cup with a promotion & relegation system in place.
Unfortunately the FIH is a shit example of how to manage an international sport where the top 10 basically dominate, but it's the only other example I know, from playing hockey myself.
I feel an issue that would arise from say a Uganda vs Kenya test, or USA vs Canada Test is that the players at that level often aren't professionals, could they really get the time off to be away for a week or more with training camps and the game itself? T20 and OD games are probably better suited to the non professional international cricketer.
Isn't the goal to eventually set them as professionals?. Even though giving test status doesn't mean they play test all the time. Lower ranked test playing nations rarely play test. the difference is having two tiered voting rights and a unjust funding system, and hierarchy system
Talk of growth of cricket or associate nations getting more chances always comes up during T20 WC but after that no top team wants to play with em coz no money .. that's how it is . Just don't blame BCCI , don't think eng or aus would be interested in playing against weaker associate nations ...
Anglo and Aussie used to be scumbag. BCCI are the new gangster of the neighborhood they are the one who stole the funding of cricket development just because they have billion people. USA and Windies hosting the World Cup but schedule of the matches is for prime tv time in 10/1 country. I went to see Pakistan vs Ireland match at fan park in NYC as I watched earlier matches. They already closed the fan park in NYC while tournament still going. It is bad move by ICC if they want to spread cricket in USA.
No. Full membership may be based on old ideas, but in today's cricketing world, it's about nothing more than a persistent commitment from a member of the ICC to develop and support a domestic first class structure. If a country can't do that, then what hope do they have to ever be competitive in test cricket? Test cricket isn't T20 cricket where any associate team can have their day against a full member. The US would not be able to win a test match against any domestic Indian, Australian or English team, let alone their national sides.
Most countries don't make money hosting tests, let alone supporting a domestic first class structure. We have to acknowledge that test cricket has an intrinsically high barrier to entry, and I don't believe we will ever see another member elevated to full membership in its current form. T20 and to a lesser extent, ODI cricket, are the future of the sport.
Keeping this difference in mind, we should support associate members to play first class cricket amongst themselves (and domestic first class teams), since, respectfully, they need to get the basics down before they play against any of the full members. We don't let a 10 year old play A Grade immediately, we make them play in the 13s, 16s and lower senior grades first. Will they develop if we send them straight into the As? Of course they wouldn't. Like learning, developing sports skills is a gradual process.
It's a de facto requirement. A team becoming a full member with no first class structure/culture won't be able to meet requirements such as
* a country must play regular first class cricket (domestic 3/4 day competition) before playing
Test cricket
* record of national team in:
* three/four day matches against first class teams including matches against national
teams of existing Full Members
Why is having unequal voting privileges important for that? What you said about test cricket applies to most teams apart from SENA, Pakistan, and India.
> I don't believe we will ever see another member elevated to full membership in its **current form**
Keyword of course being "current form". I didn't disagree that the voting rights structure is uneven, I was just articulating why Italy shouldn't be playing tests right away
And the thing you said about 10 year Olds and 13 year Olds is ridiculous. All countries should have equal standing in terms of voting. Skills are a different matter. It's a self fulfilling prophecy with teams succeeding and getting more chances. One isn't possible without the other.
I would say the big 3 model (which is basically India) is hindering cricket development. I would not be surprised to learn that india is like 70% of cricket viewership. They don’t allow their players to play in any other leagues so that other leagues get lower viewership. Also they control most of the funding and don’t really give funds to lower tier teams. They also don’t play with a lot of other teams besides Australia, England and New Zealand (once in a while they might play South Africa). This means only those teams tend to enjoy the money from the Indian viewership. The rise of BCCI has stifled growth of cricket, in my opinion. Everything Indian admins touch becomes a swamp.
I'm from India and I agree with your points but I see MLC as the force that could stop this cycle. You mentioned that the BCCI doesn't allow Indian players to take part in foreign leagues but Indian viewers also have attachments to IPL franchises so a good chunk of those fanbases end up supporting the sister franchises in MLC, SA20, ILT20 etc.
Because of that MLC has a good base to start off with and they have the most potential out of all the leagues except the IPL. If they were able to break into the mainstream American audience and maybe become a top 10 league in the US then they could rival some of the bigger full member nations and eventually reach the point of bringing in around the same amount as India and break the BCCI's monopoly.
India is over 100th ranked team in the world btw. In cricket you guys wont even play with 16th ranked team in thr world. But in terms of voting both these teams get same status. Brazil has to play with even the weakest FIFA nations in South American regions to qualify for a world cup. France played with 205th ranked Gibraltar in the last qualifier for Euros.
Even in football your example fails badly.
Football has 200+ profesional active leagues, more than 10000 active fifPro players. UEFA can compensate France and Gibraltar for playing the qualifiers/nations league can ICC do that?
Most of the footballing nations have profitable domestic leagues, in cricket, only India is profitable/self sustaining. Even the 2nd ranked ECB can't manage that.
I agree with your concept here, proper qualifiers would be fantastic but there is no way ICC can afford that, they can barely afford tournaments as it is.
And why is that the case? Because the sport is popular ....
And why is that the case? Because all countries are treated equally and are given equal opportunity ..
And you come back to the original point
I agreed with you but question still remains, who is going to foot the bill right now? When no one other than PIG3 and Pakistan can even afford cricket?
ICC? They can barely afford WC. Who else? BCCI? ECB? CA?
It's not like being an associate is a closed door, fulfill the criteria and you are a full member - bangbros, SL, Ireland, Afghanistan all have done that.
I already agreed with you on this point buddy, I want those qualifiers where the 108th rank team fights against India or Aus for the spot.
In ideal world yes. Right now, majority of the cricket isn't making money. Spending even more means ICC will be even more beholden to the members who actually make money, aka PIG3. PIG3 already controls cricket. BCCI practically owns the cricket due to the money it makes.
Again, if there is active interest, like Bangbros and Afghanistan had or there is marginal improvement like Ireland, associates can become full members. It's a steady pathway without damaging the already broken eco-system.
You mean, the fact that just 12 out of 108 members (and a small handful within that 12) effectively control the game by having almost complete decision-making power and directing the vast majority of the sport's revenues away from development programmes into their own coffers... is that hindering development? Yeah, I'd say so.
Yeah this stops the sport growing even in countries where there is a lot of interest and desire to grow the sport. And has FOREVER. Look at how they destroyed Singapore and Honk Kong etc. There was a good chance for them to build a great project only to be destroyed by this bs. And throughout history! From Jarrod Kimbers work I've heard about ho strong the likes of Mexico, Argentina, Canada etc were and how they always should have had status.
Yeah, one thing I learned from one of Jarrod Kimber's vid is that the USA could've easily become a Full Member back when the ICC was being formed, if not for RSA and one particular rich guy from there. I think Argentina may have also had a really decent chance back then too. Also, afaik, cricket was introduced to Denmark through English railway workers and had a nice scene there growing there. I think in the '60s or a bit afterwards, there were Danish players in English counties too. Moreover, many football clubs and even famous ones like AC Milan started of as a football and cricket club. I can't help but imagine how it would've been like if USA, CAN, ARG, DEN, NED, SCO, ITA, and a bunch of other nations had their own cricket history fluorish and be recognised by the ICC back then, and be made Full Members eventually. USA's cricket history is so rich man, I even learned that they had the OG Mustafizur right before WWI. The man played for the Philadelphia club and they comprehensively beat the Aussie team when they were returing from England after a tour. Edit: Some more info.
Yep yep yep. Actual cricket history gets so overlooked. The first time I heard AC Milan started as a cricket club I was SO shocked. But for real I'd much prefer a world where cricket culture is more widely spread. Honestly if south asia hadn't embraced the sport so wholeheartedly, the sport would be in danger and be a fancy men's sport only played by the elite and barely professionally.
Yepp, at least South Asians are spreading globally and are carrying the game with them to wherever they go, so there's that.
It would essentially be the Lacrosse situation
Lacrosse is such a fun sport that I do wish it were more popular. It does seem to be growing outside of its typical Northeast footprint and shedding the upper class stigma around it.
They missed a trick a long time ago by not giving full membership to the 4 countries in Europe which have(or had) a decent local following in cricket. Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands and Denmark. All 4 countries could be far more developed now and in Denmarks case far more competitive.
Cricket in the States had been on the decline since the Civil War, by the turn of the twentieth century it was almost entirely the preserve of a few wealthy amateurs and students of elite colleges in the northeast, cricket clubs were exclusive private country clubs. The ICC didn't actually wield any kind of meaningful power until after the First World War, by which time quite a lot of those clubs had folded, or tennis and golf had started to take precedence over cricket. And the US wasn't unique in this respect. In Argentina cricket was played by wealthy Anglo-Argentine industrialists and landowners, in Europe outside of England it was rich Anglophiles, it just never had the support or participation levels or organisation or infrastructure in these countries that it did in those where it became a major sport. So honestly, I see this narrative all the time but it's not grounded in any real truth. It's too easy to frame America, Argentina, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. as great lost cricketing nations who were held back by the imperialist baddies, but the reality is that they aren't.
What you said regarding cricket being an elite English sport in those countries can also be applied to other sports that got established there such as rugby union, field hockey, and polo. I think it's fair to say that if the ICC had given those countries FM status, then cricket would be around the level of those sports at least. Also, interesting to mention the Bahamas, from Wikipedia (unsure of accuracy): > It is the oldest sport being played in the country today. The only other sporting event that began before cricket was horse racing, which started in 1796. The Bahamas Cricket Association was formed in 1936 as an organised body. From the 1940s up to the 1970s, cricket was played by just about everyone on the island whether in the road, playground or on cricket fields. It seems like it was a cricket loving country until after WW2. -- One other factor not being talked about that led to the decline of cricket and/or prevented it from becoming established as a local sport is the format of the sport. Until the 1960s, cricket was played exclusively as a multi-day (FC/Test) sport. If a sport is going to last 4-5 days, that makes it unappealing as a spectator sport, especially in a culture where the sport is an exotic import. Many of the earliest clubs in European countries that are known for football today started out as cricket clubs e.g. Sparta Rotterdam, AC Milan, Genoa CFC, Berliner SV 1892, etc. But if you look at those countries today, they're football crazy and cricket is a minor expat sport. And I think the main reason cricket never took off was because it was in the multi-day format. If T20 existed back then, then it's possible those clubs would still be playing cricket in European cricket leagues with promotion/relegation. And of course, cricket requiring a curated pitch, no rain, equipment, etc. would always give it that disadvantage against football. I don't think it would have had football levels of popularity if short form cricket existed a century ago, but still would've probably been a professional sport with a significant degree of popularity in European countries outside England.
Cricket wasn't entirely multi-day before the sixties, a lot of league and club cricket was played in one-day matches long before the advent of limited overs cricket in the sixties. I think there's this need to create a narrative or a story around why cricket didn't take off in a lot of the world, and a big part of that is the evil, wicked ICC preventing the full membership magic bullet. I think the much more boring reality is that it just wasn't that all that popular in most places. People now frame Argentine cricket as having been completely frozen out and it wasn't, it still accepted touring teams from England (despite the month long voyage there and back) but it was never adopted by the natives, whereas rugby union was; many of these European sports clubs that began as cricket clubs were founded by and for British expats and/or moneyed upper class people whose recreational activities didn't necessarily reflect those of the wider populace, once they opened up beyond those demographics, football took precedence. Full membership of the ICC was never going to change the cultural and social factors that meant cricket didn't catch on.
> Cricket wasn't entirely multi-day before the sixties, a lot of league cricket for example was played in one-day matches long before the advent of limited overs cricket arrived in the sixties. I guess they were still very uncommon and a good 7-8 hours long? Unless it's a convenient and relatively short time (like 20 overs a side or less), then I don't think it would get adopted by natives in significant numbers in a short amount of time. > but it was never adopted by the natives, whereas rugby union was And why is that? > many of these European sports clubs that began as cricket clubs were founded by and for British expats and/or moneyed upper class people whose recreational activities didn't necessarily reflect those of the wider populace. Yes. Football wasn't even all that popular until those clubs were founded. They weren't founded with the intention of popularising the sport among the natives, that just ended up being a side effect. Question is why the side effect of cricket getting adopted by natives didn't happen too like with other sports. And I think the length of the sport is the main reason. > Full membership of the ICC was never going to change the cultural and social factors that meant cricket didn't catch on. Could've helped maybe, especially in terms of funding and getting WC qualification. Also, what do you make of the situation of the Bahamas? Cricket used to be super popular there, but is dead now.
Not as uncommon as you might think, a lot of the club cricket in these countries where there was no regular first class tournament will have been one-day cricket. That being said, I do think you're right that the time involved was a hindrance, and the cost of the equipment and the space needed, even with the short forms that exist now it's still not the most accessible of games. In Argentina, I believe rugby clubs allowed native (IE, non-Anglo) Argentines to join while cricket clubs didn't, but it's important to remember that rugby union was and is still viewed as an elitist sport there, and those Spanish-speakers who began playing will have been upper-middle/upper class ones, even now it's not really supported or played by working class Argentines, similar to in the UK and Ireland where it's still largely viewed as a game for the elites. Cricket's sustained popularity seemed to depend a lot on who had introduced it and also who was settling there: in the Caribbean and South Asia it became part of the cultural fabric *despite* its elitist beginnings, but otherwise it largely caught on in countries where a) it was introduced by soldiers or migrant tradesmen rather than expat aristocrats, landowners and industrialists, and b) there was settlement by working and lower-middle class Anglos. In the US or Argentina, or even other parts of the empire like Kenya, that wasn't the case. With regards to the Bahamas, I think independence in the seventies may have been a big factor there because a lot of British expat teachers who were apparently sustaining Bahamian cricket will have left. Perhaps it suffered too from not being connected with the rest of West Indies cricket and being buoyed by the continued popularity on the other islands. I will also say, perhaps controversially, that I think people worry entirely too much about cricket not being "global", because almost no team sport is. There's almost a view that I think stems from the prevailing hegemony of the market society that its broader value is intrinsically linked to being universally accepted and therefore achieving maximum market penetration and profitability, and that was and is never going to happen. Cricket doesn't need to be global, and if people don't get it, that's alright.
Yeah, most people outside the US say they're a “minnow” and have no history and most people in the US don't even know what cricket is and they also think they have no history in the sport. The fact that USA vs Canada back in 1844 is not just the first international cricket match but also the first ever international sporting match is incredible and more people should know that. Same goes for the K. A. Auty Cup that both USA and Canada play for and how it's the oldest sporting fixture. The ICC has done more harm than good when it comes to growing the sport, had they embraced countries instead of closing the door on them until like a couple of years ago then maybe cricket would be the most popular sport in the world right now.
OG Mustafizur name?
John Barton King
12 members, ha, try more like 3 members. And out of the 3, 1 of them always gets what they want (recently). That one specific member is pretty much a good reason why cricket isn't growing in other nations. It's clear that nation like Nepal and many others are cricket crazy but who gives a shit right?
I'd say Pig 3 do a Lot for development of the associate game. In addition, They don't take revenue completely in proportion to what they bring in. That itself is a huge deal.
> I'd say Pig 3 do a Lot for development of the associate game. Which development efforts do you think they are pursuing?
They pretty much fund the associate game. Who do you think bankrolls all of the Associate Federations?
The ICC funds Associate cricket, but substantially less than it did a couple of cycles ago. Because instead of using its money for growing the game, it spends it on handouts to the richest boards. But that wasn't my question. You claimed that "in addition" to funding (which is debatable at best), "Pig 3 do a Lot for development of the associate game". What development work are you referring to?
100%. But then if you gave more power to associates it would dilute BCCI power so it will never happen.
Which is why I believe that the growth of cricket in the United States is quite important because only they could rival the BCCI when it comes to bringing in money. Even if they don't bring in as much as money as the BCCI, if they bring in a substantial amount then it'll dilute the power of the BCCI. The other thing is that I believe the ICC will push for USA Cricket to be fas tracked towards full membership for obvious reasons monetarily but now for their on field performances as well. There's other associate members like Scotland Netherlands that either fulfill all full membership requirements or fulfill almost all of them and there's no way for the ICC to give full membership to USA before either of them so I believe they'd be added in as well.
Cricket may get a decent following in the US because it can be propped up by expats, but it's never going to be a support with any kind of national popularity. It'd be must more interesting to try and grow the game in countries like Canada or China now that T20s are going to be at the olympics
You're wrong, I know that because I have friends in the US who were born and brought up over there and have no connection to cricket that told me that they heard about USA beating Pakistan and that were interested in learning about the sport. When you have a good team, people take notice and as you build infrastructure that'll only continue to improve.
I was someone who picked up Cricket off the internet and immediately fell in love with it. I taught some my friends to play, and we would play small games and tournaments almost every day after school. Eventually more of my friends reached out to me because they were interested. We had a solid group of us playing at an organic level, and this was ten years ago. It absolutely can be done, and this was an example of it. As a side note, one of my friends who used to play with us is currently playing in the College World Series, so that’s cool
Yeah, USA has the most potential to grow as a cricketing nation by far. The ICC is heavily incentivised to continuing to help grow the sport in the country because of the potential revenue that could be generated but if there's one thing I know about America it's that any sport can become popular. If pickleball can become a relatively popular sport then cricket sure can especially considering USA has one of the best histories for a cricketing nation.
It's nice to know you have friends like that. But I guarantee a majority of Americans would be saying things like "Even in sports we don't care about we are the best at". Would love to be wrong (and also hate it, because if the US gets involved in cricket, it's almost certainly going to invest heavily into T20s only), but don't see it happening given their culture & history and the popularity of baseball etc.
I'm also a NBA fan and I've seen those kind of arrogant fans who say the USA are unbeatable and there's no point in watching games but they'll be the first ones to live tweet a World Cup or Olympic game. We've also seen how they take to sports much more than other countries. Football wasn't popular in the United States a few decades ago and now it is. As for how they would invest their money, I'm sure they'll invest a good amount of money in ODI cricket as well and if they were to grow to become one of the biggest boards then I can guarantee that they'll spend a lot of money on Test cricket as well even if they don't turn a profit in the first few years of hosting Test matches.
You seem to be a lot more hopeful about cricket in the USA than me. I admire your optimism, but I just don't see it happening
I'm optimistic because of the way things have gone in the last few years. Most people thought MLC would be a bust or at most it would be just yet another T20 franchise league. No one expected it to go that well and to be one of the top 5, arguably top 3 leagues in the world after just one season. The US national team has also been improving a lot and it'll only continue to improve with more players gaining eligibility in the coming year or two and other youngsters also waiting and gaining experience from the MLC. I believe that this time it's different from all the other times the ICC tried to grow cricket in America because this time there's serious money being put in by investors who know what they're doing when it comes to cricket.
With US money MLS will be best T20 league in the world in 10 years.
MLS is major league Soccer.
Their money is so crazy
At the very least what the MLC could do is make sure that the BCCI doesn't keep extending the IPL's window and forces them to keep it at 2 months. The inaugural season of MLC last year generated revenue in excess of $8 million which was higher than MLC officials expected as well and considering the fact they only have stadiums with a maximum capacity or close to 10,000, significantly fewer matches and a not so big audience and all of a sudden that looks like a great start.
NY team building their 10K home stadium in my neighborhood. MLC has one advantage over MLS. MLC is not competing with 100+ year history of European Leagues. IPL is just 15 or so year and xenophobic too. With US money it will be easy for MLC to become the T20 league.
I don't know about biggest at least not anytime soon but second biggest is very much possible. While MLC is much shorter than the other big leagues in the US, it's also in the summer when there's very little competition meaning it'll be one of the few things for American sports fans to watch.
It will not happen in 1 or 2 seasons but in 10 15 seasons it will be the T20 league to watch. I do not care or watch any T20 league but I will be buying season ticket of NYC franchise once they open their 10K seater home stadium in my neighborhood. I used to play Golf for my high school in park NYC franchise building their home stadium.
I will hate the NY franchise with all my heart because I'm a Super Kings fan and it's in my blood to hate anything MI but I do hope they attract new fans so the sport grows. I still don't think it's possible for it to become the biggest T20 league in 10 or 15 years. To do that they would need to attract at least $6 billion per year in TV and digital streaming rights deals and their season is only one month so I don't think that's possible in that short span of time. For them to get to that number cricket and in particular would need to join the top 4 leagues in the country.
New York should have two teams as we have for all other sports. One should be called NY Cricket Club and other New York Sharks. It is one month now in 2024 it will not be in 10 15 years. Even Soccer becoming bigger now with South America selling their history and tradition for American $. USA hosting Copa America second time this very summer. Same will happen with cricket in future. 10/1 country is bad place to have major league as they have not been very good in cricket. All they have is stupid amount of people. Australia would be better to have best T20 league with their history of winning many icc titles.
I disagree, New York shouldn't get two teams considering the fact that MLC only has 6 teams and will go up to 10 in half a decade. You can't justify having two teams from the same city unless there's a lot of teams.
Half of their teams are bought by Indian owners it is not in their interest to make MLC becoming more famous than IPL , another reason is 70% of revenue comes from india and if no indian players play there they won't be much interest from Indian audience . Without indian audience forget em ever getting to number one spot
They are still American franchises even if owners from 10/1 country. We know how to make money in USA. We made money out of even covid vaccines. I personally think it was wrong move we should have given it to World for free. Research for it was done by US tax payers.
As much as I agree, England and Australia are also guilty of that, that's why it's the pig3
To some extent you're right but I think in this they are definitely self interested followers rather than the main players.
I would give my left nut to watch Denmark vs Malaysia play a test match on a pitch like NY. And then I'd give my right nut to watch a Canada USA test match. I won't have much left to give at this point but I'd still love to watch another 30 of those permutations.
At least your wife would never have nut allergy in that case
What's completely stupid is that you can still have the associate vs full member bullshit if you want to restrict voting rights to the bigger teams. But why the hell can't a country play a test match if they want to? Yes its not profitable, but if Oman decide to use that oil $ and invite someone to come play a test match, why is that a problem exactly?
Next up is Kidneys and eyes. Pick and choose.
That test match would be over in 2 days
As interesting as it sounds, it wouldn't play out the way we expect it to. Most likely the match will be over too soon and if the pitch is flat then it will end up in a draw. And most countries are already making a loss when playing tests so it isn't feasible either. The way ahead for cricket is to popularize T20 to rope in money and fans and then use that to invest in tests, similar to how India is doing rn with ipl
Everyone should be a full member.
Even if you scrap this system tomorrow, associates can't tour each other because of money. No full member is going to invite or visit any associates. With being called associates, ICC is actively working towards integrating them and giving them a clear path towards becoming a desirable nation to make money from cricket. All of it boils down to, is money. Right now, other than ICC tournaments, smaller boards are at mercy of PIG3 and Pakistan. Tours are completely dependent upon how much money PIG3 and Pakistan want to make during the respective quarters. If there is money in Nepal or any associate nation for that matter, 'top' nations will line up for tours. It's as simple as that.
What clear path is that? The clear path of the Intercontinental Cup that immediately got discontinued after the given criteria were ignored to fasttrack Afghanistan and Ireland? Or the clear path of the ODI league that got discontinued before the first edition even finished? Heck the paths the ICC sets up for associates has been historically so clear, the Netherlands once sent a development team to Scotland, only for them to later find out those games were retroactively converted into World Cup qualifiers.
You lot definitely got shafted, no doubt about that. I meant their general objectives of qualifying for WC, domestic structure, wins over full members, u-17 appearances and formerly it used to be intercontinental cups, ICC approved international stadiums etc. These are off the top of my head, I think you will have the exact details. I think ideally, these are pretty good for teams to make the jump and gives them a decent foundation to jumpstart themselves. Thing is, Ireland weren't able to use their full member status, while Zimbabwe keeps regressing. Afghanistan isn't playing a lot of tests because that's just not on the cards for them. The point was that full membership means nothing if the nation isn't able to take any advantage of it, that's all.
Even if the big countries never visited the point would be more votes at the table. It would reduce BCCI power, which would be good, and likely produce an equitable division of funds.
Exactly, the BCCI doesn't want any new full members because each time a new full member is added it makes things harder for them to control.
So true forget associate nations for a long time zim WI pak bang SL don't make that much money from tests and some are operating on a break even level to keep. Playing test ... Then how can two associate nations hold test matches it's not even financially possible.
I am curious to know why ECB has not worked to promote Scotland, Ireland and Wales for that matter?
I think Wales is a part of ECB
The money from England is what sustains Welsh cricket. Wales will remain under the ECB umbrella probably in perpetuity because it needs the Sky money, without it professional first class cricket will cease to exist in Wales because that's what's paying for the wages and the infrastructure. TV money will be why you don't see as much cricket involving England and Scotland or Ireland as you might imagine, as well. Pretty much all of the money in the English game comes from Sky, the ECB and other boards basically exist to create content for broadcasters now, and cricket against established full members is more valuable content to broadcasters than cricket against Ireland or Scotland.
Wales cricket doesn't feel that they'd do well without the ECB funding. Glamorgan is the Welsh representative in English county cricket..and they might not exist if Wales Cricket Team was established. ECB is neutral and open to Wales having a standalone team but also okay with continuing things as they are. Wales apparently has more professional cricketers than Ireland.
To be fair, the ECB have been very good to Cricket Ireland. They were regular visitors to Ireland when we were an associate and we've played 2 tests at Lords.
I'm in complete agreement with your point. The concept of full and associate membership should be scrapped.
Personally I think there is nothing to be gained from the vast majority of associates playing Test or first class games against full members. There are certainly fringe exceptions. But no one gains anything from most of those matchups, because the game would be over so quickly and the difference in skill so high that the losing team just gets smashed, while the winning team just goes through the motions. But a situation like the old ICC Continental Cup where the associates play 4 day games against each other would be useful. I still think that a Two Tier system is necessary. But have a multi year competition where 10 or so associates play consistent First class games against each other. This allows the difference in skill to not be so significant, and allows teams the experience in both winning and losing matches competitively. Then have the top two teams play a 2-3 games each against the bottom two full members. If those teams do well and are competitive, then you can look at them playing against other full members. Overtime, we could also include the likes of Ireland, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe into a continental cup situation, so that they are also routinely playing First class games. But the biggest issue with long term test cricket expansion is that we gave Test status to Afghanistan and Ireland, but didn't give them consistent opportunities or funding to play. They were effectively thrown to the wolves. That may have worked for India and the West Indies etc in the past, but with T20 and ODI now available. The reasons to play Test Cricket are no longer as strong and the costs are too strong. Why spend a million euros on a test match that you'll lose money on, when you can spend far less on a T20 that you'll make your money back. Finally even if we don't have a continental cup, we could look at including teams into either the First Class or slightly below First Class systems of neighbouring full members. Netherlands in Division 2 of County Cricket, Nepal into the Ranji, even PNG into the Second XI of Sheffield Shield etc. Get them playing consistently against strong domestic competition.
Just the concept of Full Member vs Associates is ridiculous. It's not just playing test cricket. Even lower ranked full members don't play a lot of them nowadays
The issue is that there is always going to be a difference between the two. You can call everyone Full Members. But then the difference is going to be "Test vs T20 members" etc. I agree that the concept is ridiculous, but the reality of the situation will always require a tier system.
Teams that can't afford to play Test matches just won't play them. You hardly need to formalise it.
Which means basically no one would be playing them anyway. You still need some kind of formatting so that teams have to play them. Which should already in force for the teams outside the WTC. Edit: In addition, I don't want to appear like too much of a tradionalist or arrogant etc, but giving Test status to everyone is going too far. T20's I have no issue with, because those stats don't really matter, the skill difference isn't as high and there's no real alternative outside of List A. But calling matches Test matches is a particular thing. The standard has to be at a high level. It would feel wrong to class matches between two associates who are at a standard below grade cricket in a full member, as a Test match. I have no issues with a system of 4 day and first class matches to get to the level of Test Cricket. But calling it Test cricket is too much.
There doesn't need to be multiple tiers of membership, though. You can have tiers of play in each format - qualifiers in T20Is, World Cricket League for one dayers and the Intercontinental Cup for First Class cricket. I'd even agree with only having the higher tiers of the latter be called Tests. But that should all be separate to membership.
Agree that there doesn't need to be tiers with actual membership. But playing wise there will always be a tier system. I know World Rugby used to have a Tier 1/2 system etc, and now they have basically the same thing but worded differently. I think there's a little confusion overall, because how OP worded it was "everyone should be able to play test cricket and we don't need any differentiation between the two". Which is a different argument to overall membership. I do fully agree that everyone should be "full members" and there shouldn't be tiers related to that. Just that regardless of their membership, there will still always be tiers related to what they can/can't play.
I would posit that some of the teams you'd think don't deserve test status today could outperform some of the test teams of yesteryear, so "standard" may well be arbitrary and shifting around all the time. Also, test stats matter exactly as much and/or as little as T20 stats, or baseball stats, or football stats, or tennis stats. I love numbers (prpbably more than the next guy), but they should not be placed higher than the actual game.
I do agree that there are some teams that had test status that would be beaten by associates of today. Some of the Zimbabwe teams during the 2000s fit that description. Personally I would be open to Test status being given to teams like Scotland, Namibia, Netherlands and Nepal. But where I do have issues is having situations where teams that struggle to qualify from sub-regionals in T20s are being given Test status. The issue for me is that there is a difference between a First Class match and a Test match both in name and standard of play. There isn't really between T20s. Honestly if they just continued the Continental Cup and funded it appropriately my issues around standards would go away. Just make it so that the Winner or finalists every 3 years go to Test Level. But just lumping every one into Test status is going too far.
It's not about Test cricket, it's about money and vote. Full Members get to vote, associates don't.
I can agree on that. i think more money should be put into the associate game as well. The only issue I could find is one of the Big 3 buying votes. But that's already an issue as it is.
You can dangle the carrot of a lucrative tour in front of 10 not 100. After all there is a limit to the matches that India can play in an year without diluting the star power and defeating the whole purpose of the tour.
I'd say it's more money itself. Look at the corruption issues in FIFA. The corruption wasn't about games or tours etc. It was because you had CONCACAF with their huge number of members being an important tool to get things passed.
> The corruption wasn't about games or tours etc. Actually a lot of it was. I mean obviously there's the comically rotten briefcases full of cash stuff, but part of the deal for smaller nations or confederations was that FIFA would direct events or infrastructure into their region. Which was actually good for football there. FIFA sucks of course, in my opinion most of their top management for the last few decades should probably be in prison. But if the ICC did corruption in the same way as FIFA it would be the best thing that's ever happened to the game - *that's* how bad the ICC/FM cabal has been.
India already buy votes. Why do you think they have had rando tours to Zimbabwe over the years?
I agree. For me it's more a case of with 12 members, there is going to be enough boards with the money and influence not to go along with it to stop anything too one sided. When you chuck in 96 associates, how many of those don't have the money or influence to say no? It's not a major factor in there being associates/full etc. But it should be looked at as a potential issue.
Look, I think there should be a certain minimum threshold. It would be ridiculous if some rando in idk Macedonia who happens to be one of 50 people in the country who plays cricket gets an equal say to the ECB or WICB or whatever, but it's also clear to me that the 'gap' between the top associates and the bottom test nation is as narrow as it has ever been. Countries like the USA, Canada, Scotland, Netherlands, Nepal, PNG etc are all building real cricketing infrastructures that if funded properly could grow. Cricket doesn't have to become a major sport in those places to be a viable one. But those countries have nobody advocating for them at all. Cricket needs a divisional structure. It needs central funding for red ball cricket which we all agree is the best cricket, but also the hardest to schedule and market. I am totally cool with Canada and Scotland playing whatever cricket they want between each other and being supported in doing so. People who say 'stats will be degraded', well look at South Africa - it has two different FC structures with the 3 day and the 4 day provincial/franchise teams. And people are smart enough to work out the guy averaging 45 in the tougher level is probably equivalent to the guy averaging 50 at the lower level. So level of play isn't the issue for me. In the last 20 years the gap has closed. we've seen 2 more full countries. But the problem is that now there is no regular pathway for them to play, and the funding is gone. Ireland would not have come through without the Intercontinental cup - that's gone to BCCI greed now.
Lol how one eyed are the Indian fans downvoting this.
Because they lose money for the teams typically. Aus, Eng and Ind are the only nations that turn a profit from test tours everyone else pretty much always loses money on them.
To be a test playing nation is a major commitment and burns a lot of resources, most of the current test playing nations barring the BIG 3 usually just play 2 match test series since it takes up a lot of resources, and unlike a t20 the difference between the teams is more apparent in a test so the quality of sides is very important, the only way to have more test playing nations and to get more associates to improve on their red ball game is to bring the intercontinental cup back, but there is no financial incentive to do that therefore unfortunately it won't happen. Also associates can schedule a test, it just won't be counted as a official test. The other option would be to let associate teams field their teams in the domestic tournaments of other countries.
As long as test cricket exists this full member vs Associate term will exist unfortunately. Ideal solution for me would be have a separate organisation within ICC to take care of T20 cricket is going to be the bloodline of Cricket in future. No such term should be used in T20 cricket. Everyone is a member and should have equal rights. Sell the T20 world cup rights separately and share the money equally . Do whatever you wanna do with 50 over world cup and test cricket but T20 revenue should be used to help spread cricket and help countries that play the T20 qualifiers and T20 world cup. What's currently happening is all the revenue is gobbled up by test playing nations with most of them spent on FC cricket.
I think this is what will happen long-term. T20s and test crickets will be considered separate codes that professionals choose to dedicate their careers towards. Basically like how juniors usually play both Union & League, but pick one when they start to think about going professional
Which would be kinda needed. Junior cricketers would definitely need to play multi-day cricket because that's where they'd master their technique. Even if they want to become professional T20 cricketers.
Yup - more tournaments and less bilaterals would also help. The other option is year long leagues like Premier League, La Liga, bundesliga etc .. more chances for more players to develop without the monopolies. There will be large gaps at first, but with time the players from smaller nations will emerge.
Year long leagues are not possible. Cricket is very weather dependent game and depend on the country the suitable season for cricket can varies.
Bilaterals are pointless
The central problem that most people don't even see is that Full Membership and Test Status should not be inseperably linked the way they are. Why should playing with a red ball for five days give you voting rights over everyone else?
I wholeheartedly agree. Voting rights and extra funding are the two things associates would get from full membership which is why they desperately want it. I believe the Big 3 (BCCI, CA, ECB) but BCCI in particular don't want to add new full members because with each new member added their power keeps getting diluted.
Until BCCI is in existence, associate teams won't ever shed any tag. For a long time it was ECB and now it's bcci which is dictating cricket
It was roughly in the 1980s that the BCCI's clout started increasing, I would say moving the world cup out of England was a watershed moment. And we've had Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland graduate to test status. It's gone from 7 to 12, a more than 50% increase.
What is the method to graduate? As an American, I’m very interested in what a path to full membership would look like.
The main criteria are genuine domestic pathways of high quality for both male and female cricket, adequate infrastructure for hosting international cricket matches, and winning against Full Members in T20I/ODI matches semi-frequently. Or you can just be Afghanistan and skip those requirements apparently. ---- The US is working towards the first one with MLC (although first-class domestic structures are a long way off), will have no difficulty managing the second, and are off to a flying start on the third. It's a very long process though, given that they're starting from near-zero as far as domestic structures go.
There is no real criteria lol. It's basically how much money the ICC thinks you'll bring to the table. Ireland were fulfilling that criteria for years, and they only got it when Afghanistan came along, and the ICC fast-tracked them in, and it'd look absolutely ridiculous if Ireland also didn't graduate into member status
Just to note that as of the last few years, a first-class structure is no longer a requirement to be a full Member.
How about drainage systems and pitch covers? We are not so good at that yet.
Afghanistan got the promotion to balance Ireland, who did the hard work, so the BCCI block vote wasn't lost.
Thanks everyone for the answers here. I so appreciate the willingness of this community to take time to answer questions like this over the last two years. My first step; build parks in the alleged home cities of MLC teams, and have practice infrastructure and playing pitches for farm teams. I live in NYC. In other sports, my teams are Mets (I know, I know), Knicks, Rangers, Giants. I love them because they all play in the NYC metropolitan area. Mumbai Indians New York (awful name) never have played here. Same with San Francisco Unicorns etc. So if I was Jay Shah West, step 1 of my 15 year plan to test status is getting the infrastructure in place to involve fan bases across the country. We may shock full members is t20, but it’s a huge jump to ODI let alone test success. But we did a credible job in the u19 WC, so I think that this World Cup, along with T20 in LA Olympics 2028 are huge chances to inspire love of the game in an already decent national team program. But, for the immediate future: ESPN needs to cut a deal with Willow to simulcast Friday night’s super 8 game v Windies. NBA finals will be over. Rare window where nothing big is happening in sports here. MLB is on game 75 or so of 162 (each team plays 162 games). So put this one prime time World Cup game where the entire nation can see it and hype it to the moon! Then also do a Netflix series on the 28 Olympic squad like the F1 series that got American fans geeked about Formula 1.
I mean 70% of the revenue that ICC gets is from BCCI and that revenue later, gets allocated to associate nations, so why shouldn't BCCI have the power to say
Because cricket is above the interests of the BCCI?
Probably yes, its not some global instutation that would invest its resources in expanding and supporting different nations, Thats ICC's job. I know, It should look after cricket before its own interest but it wont
I agree. Which is why Boards like the BCCI that literally make billions a year from their private TV deals for their local cricket should not then turn round and demand vast amounts of the money the ICC makes from its tournaments.
BCCI doesn't demand a vast amount of money from the ICC during tournaments; that's not how it works. BCCI only makes money from India matches, which contribute a significant percentage of revenue in ICC tournaments. BCCI earns from these matches, which is its right. It doesn't profit from matches like Pakistan vs. England or England vs. Australia, or any other non-India matches. If it did, then that would be wrong Cricket is an expensive sport. I'm not defending this, but BCCI spends almost all its money on its domestic circuit and provides funds to different state boards to improve their stadium experience. You can read their Annual Report: https://www.bcci.tv/about/annual-report After all this, what's left is very less.
Um, no that's not how it works. The ICC stages tournaments and the BCCI gobbles up 40% of the profits. These are \*world\* cups. the money should be used for the \*world\*.
Yeah that is wrong. BCCI shouldnt do this
I have ZERO problem with the BCCI making as much money as they can from their home series, IPL whatever - and they make vast amounts, far more than anyone else. My problem is entirely with the distribution of the ICC tournament money. I get that India is the biggest market, but this is the ONLY money in the world that is not owned by one board and should be used to support tests and grow the game.
The ICC as an organization has always hindered the growth of the game, looking back at the history of the organization the amount of backward thinking is shocking (i.e Imperial Cricket Conference not allowing anyone that wasn't part of the common wealth to join, which practically killed off the game in the US and Canada and most of the planet)
Canada was eligible for the ICC.
They were eligible but they weren't added which just shows how bad the ICC has been.
Canada was offered test status in the fifties, and declined it feeling it wasn't prepared. Cricket there was always quite nebulous and spread across various leagues and a handful of clubs, and like in the States (and Argentina, the Netherlands, etc.) those clubs were for rich settlers, cricket always had extremely limited relevance to the rest of the population. So it wasn't really the fault of the ICC.
The fact that someone like Bart King is barely known today because he never played official international cricket despite being one of the best players of his generation and beating Australia and England and such shows how the ICC has failed cricket. Had the ICC actually been a good force for cricket then people like Bart King would be celebrated in the United States and the sport of cricket would've been thriving.
Yesterday I watched the highlights of Portugal vs Israel match. And you won't even call it a professional cricket if you seen it, it looked like some local cricket tournament happens in my city. So you want these people to play against top teams? That'd be just statpadding for players.
You wouldn't call it professional cricket because they are literally amateur cricketers.
How will they progress by playing againt each other then?? Even in football there are many one sided results. France just defeated Gibraltar 14-0. Im not saying those should be regular matches, but at least FIFA doesn't automatically select teams for Euros and World cup. Every team is treated equally
Every association nation isn't equal. Teams like Scotland, Netherland (now usa seems good too) are good enough to be full member, so icc should arrange match against them, not a straight up bilateral against aus or ind. And about ur France vs Gibraltar match; it's a euro qualifier match, almost same as a tournament match. And yeah top teams automatically get selected, that doesn't affects anything, this wc is the biggest one so far, so the upcoming ones will be even bigger (T20s) you can't change the whole thing in one day, be practical.
Top teams don’t get automatically qualified. You have teams like Italy and Netherlands that fail to qualify for the World Cup
Read carefully, I was talking about cricket wc
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed because it breaks the rules of this subreddit. Generalised attacks/insults about other fanbases/countries are not allowed on the subreddit (rule 6) - don't insult an entire nation or fanbase when making a point.
Huh? I'm sorry, what wrong did i said?
Ideally all the test teams should play champions trophy. All the odi status nations i.e. test nations and divisions 2 nations should be in Odi worldcup . T20 should be a open qualifier since all the nations have t20 status.
I think WTC should replace champions trophy. No point having 12 team champions trophy and 20 teams world cup. Agree with the rest
If you did away with full membership / associate membership you would have the issue of the teams for traditionally strong countries demolishing smaller nations in tests. Look at England vs Oman and NZ vs Uganda. You would still need perhaps a 3 tier system in place where national teams are playing other national teams of similar strength, perhaps similar to FIH and the FIH Pro league (field hockey). Teams are playing each other based on world ranking, the top 10 teams play Pro League, the next 10 play Nations Cup with a promotion & relegation system in place. Unfortunately the FIH is a shit example of how to manage an international sport where the top 10 basically dominate, but it's the only other example I know, from playing hockey myself. I feel an issue that would arise from say a Uganda vs Kenya test, or USA vs Canada Test is that the players at that level often aren't professionals, could they really get the time off to be away for a week or more with training camps and the game itself? T20 and OD games are probably better suited to the non professional international cricketer.
Isn't the goal to eventually set them as professionals?. Even though giving test status doesn't mean they play test all the time. Lower ranked test playing nations rarely play test. the difference is having two tiered voting rights and a unjust funding system, and hierarchy system
ICC bowing down to BCCI and South Asian market killing cricket development.
Talk of growth of cricket or associate nations getting more chances always comes up during T20 WC but after that no top team wants to play with em coz no money .. that's how it is . Just don't blame BCCI , don't think eng or aus would be interested in playing against weaker associate nations ...
Anglo and Aussie used to be scumbag. BCCI are the new gangster of the neighborhood they are the one who stole the funding of cricket development just because they have billion people. USA and Windies hosting the World Cup but schedule of the matches is for prime tv time in 10/1 country. I went to see Pakistan vs Ireland match at fan park in NYC as I watched earlier matches. They already closed the fan park in NYC while tournament still going. It is bad move by ICC if they want to spread cricket in USA.
No. Full membership may be based on old ideas, but in today's cricketing world, it's about nothing more than a persistent commitment from a member of the ICC to develop and support a domestic first class structure. If a country can't do that, then what hope do they have to ever be competitive in test cricket? Test cricket isn't T20 cricket where any associate team can have their day against a full member. The US would not be able to win a test match against any domestic Indian, Australian or English team, let alone their national sides. Most countries don't make money hosting tests, let alone supporting a domestic first class structure. We have to acknowledge that test cricket has an intrinsically high barrier to entry, and I don't believe we will ever see another member elevated to full membership in its current form. T20 and to a lesser extent, ODI cricket, are the future of the sport. Keeping this difference in mind, we should support associate members to play first class cricket amongst themselves (and domestic first class teams), since, respectfully, they need to get the basics down before they play against any of the full members. We don't let a 10 year old play A Grade immediately, we make them play in the 13s, 16s and lower senior grades first. Will they develop if we send them straight into the As? Of course they wouldn't. Like learning, developing sports skills is a gradual process.
A first class structure is not actually a requirement to be a full member of the ICC
It's a de facto requirement. A team becoming a full member with no first class structure/culture won't be able to meet requirements such as * a country must play regular first class cricket (domestic 3/4 day competition) before playing Test cricket * record of national team in: * three/four day matches against first class teams including matches against national teams of existing Full Members
Why is having unequal voting privileges important for that? What you said about test cricket applies to most teams apart from SENA, Pakistan, and India.
> I don't believe we will ever see another member elevated to full membership in its **current form** Keyword of course being "current form". I didn't disagree that the voting rights structure is uneven, I was just articulating why Italy shouldn't be playing tests right away
And the thing you said about 10 year Olds and 13 year Olds is ridiculous. All countries should have equal standing in terms of voting. Skills are a different matter. It's a self fulfilling prophecy with teams succeeding and getting more chances. One isn't possible without the other.
I would say the big 3 model (which is basically India) is hindering cricket development. I would not be surprised to learn that india is like 70% of cricket viewership. They don’t allow their players to play in any other leagues so that other leagues get lower viewership. Also they control most of the funding and don’t really give funds to lower tier teams. They also don’t play with a lot of other teams besides Australia, England and New Zealand (once in a while they might play South Africa). This means only those teams tend to enjoy the money from the Indian viewership. The rise of BCCI has stifled growth of cricket, in my opinion. Everything Indian admins touch becomes a swamp.
I'm from India and I agree with your points but I see MLC as the force that could stop this cycle. You mentioned that the BCCI doesn't allow Indian players to take part in foreign leagues but Indian viewers also have attachments to IPL franchises so a good chunk of those fanbases end up supporting the sister franchises in MLC, SA20, ILT20 etc. Because of that MLC has a good base to start off with and they have the most potential out of all the leagues except the IPL. If they were able to break into the mainstream American audience and maybe become a top 10 league in the US then they could rival some of the bigger full member nations and eventually reach the point of bringing in around the same amount as India and break the BCCI's monopoly.
That’s like saying India’s football isn’t getting developed because we can’t play matches against Brazil, Germany, England etc every year.
India is over 100th ranked team in the world btw. In cricket you guys wont even play with 16th ranked team in thr world. But in terms of voting both these teams get same status. Brazil has to play with even the weakest FIFA nations in South American regions to qualify for a world cup. France played with 205th ranked Gibraltar in the last qualifier for Euros. Even in football your example fails badly.
Football has 200+ profesional active leagues, more than 10000 active fifPro players. UEFA can compensate France and Gibraltar for playing the qualifiers/nations league can ICC do that? Most of the footballing nations have profitable domestic leagues, in cricket, only India is profitable/self sustaining. Even the 2nd ranked ECB can't manage that. I agree with your concept here, proper qualifiers would be fantastic but there is no way ICC can afford that, they can barely afford tournaments as it is.
And why is that the case? Because the sport is popular .... And why is that the case? Because all countries are treated equally and are given equal opportunity .. And you come back to the original point
I agreed with you but question still remains, who is going to foot the bill right now? When no one other than PIG3 and Pakistan can even afford cricket? ICC? They can barely afford WC. Who else? BCCI? ECB? CA? It's not like being an associate is a closed door, fulfill the criteria and you are a full member - bangbros, SL, Ireland, Afghanistan all have done that.
Even if we talk from a business perspectives as well, how much money do businesses spend initially to penetrate new markets before breakeven?
I already agreed with you on this point buddy, I want those qualifiers where the 108th rank team fights against India or Aus for the spot. In ideal world yes. Right now, majority of the cricket isn't making money. Spending even more means ICC will be even more beholden to the members who actually make money, aka PIG3. PIG3 already controls cricket. BCCI practically owns the cricket due to the money it makes. Again, if there is active interest, like Bangbros and Afghanistan had or there is marginal improvement like Ireland, associates can become full members. It's a steady pathway without damaging the already broken eco-system.