The plan of a new Grand-Social-Style Circuit of the T20 tournament, with financial support from Saudi Arabia, is based on a blueprint prepared by the player associations, which represents an adventurous effort in a campaign in cricket by forces outside the traditional cricket rule in cricket.
But for all the pulses created by the revelation of the plan, it remains to be seen how far it will go if it fails co-dis-witness, or at least interest, the organization that holds the key to the biggest market of cricket: BCCI.
It is about time, some will argue, given its impact on other major sports. It has always been a football nation – a major Asian force – but it has its force in boxing, tennis, F1, MMA and Golf, which has indicated its widespread intentions to become sports force.
At the moment, there is very little detail of these schemes. Playing seven to eight teams around the world, playing four tournaments in a year, each tournament envisaged the last 10-12 days. These are early sketches, a little detail on how such tournaments will fit that are already bursting on the seam in a calendar. To successfully include it, it will definitely need to cause collateral damage, most likely for some formats of international cricket such as reference-less bilateral ODI and T20I. Which countries will join? And which teams will they send? The national side, as a suggestion seems to be a suggestion, or already installed T20 franchise league (and therefore, is it a revival of the Champions League?), Or some other aristocratic geographical representation?
It is not insignificant. Players are at the fastest end of the impossibility of this calendar and are vocal about the need for change. Given the players involved in this, some major players in the world will be behind it. But this will not be like ATP at all, as plans also envisage stake for ICC. According to some accounts, SRJ Chief Executive Officer Danny Townsand is believed to have interacted with J Shah on the occasion of the IPL auction and briefly brought these plans. This would suggest that Saudi Arabia does not want to make a turbulent and disruptive entry in cricket that is in golf, for example, where it has fully created a parallel circuit.
The matter so far has been that the revenue from the circuit will be divided into some formulation between SRJ, player associations and ICC. ACA's statement admits that earnings will get a way for governing bodies, in the hope that Test cricket can be subsidized.
And, of course, the reality is that, for this, the circuit will need Indian players. This is the reason why Shah was sought in the IPL auction, given that he was the BCCI Secretary at that time, as well as the ICC Chair-Frag. Some things of this magnitude can be successfully in cricket without Shah – or BCCI. And why would BCCI buy in a concept, which in its full ambitions, actually rival the IPL?
The earliest noise from another major board has been of extreme doubt. ECB Chief Executive Richard Gold has reported age Unevenly “there is no scope or demand for such an idea,” step, no doubt, by injection of a half billion-pound private equity bounty in a hundred. Other member boards can be washed away by the possibility of another revenue stream, but the lines below this are, if the BCCI is not on the board with the plan, a large broadcast deal becomes much more difficult.
A final point for consideration WCA and ICC are the idea of working together. The WCA is rapid – and appropriately – the way the game is being run by the ICC and its members is disappointed with. When it started its review in the structure, Heath Mills said that he “left Asha” that the sports leaders could establish both international cricket and domestic leagues “clear and consistent structure” housing.
It is almost indispensable that Saudi Arabia's money will come in the game. This is broken in most other major sports and given that attracting Indian tourism remains an important goal, cricket is a clear. It is certainly far away from whether it is that way.
Usman Samiuddin is a senior editor of Espncricinfo
Leave a Reply