Club or country? Money or national pride? These are the questions that arose in the last month of the recently concluded Indian Premier League (IPL). It all started when Chris Gayle and Lasith Malinga decided to play for a “foreign” club when their nations were fielding national teams against other countries. One had a disagreement with his country’s cricket board; the other “conveniently” declared that he wasn’t fit enough to play the longer form of the game. And the debate gained momentum as the IPL concluded and the Indian team for the West Indies was announced — star Indian players cited fatigue, injury and family as reasons to stay out of a “country” series. Gautam Gambhir was even willing to give up captaincy of the national team to fulfil his commitment to the club. Interestingly, the Indian players were playing in a tournament blessed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India — a board that had collected pots of money from franchisees and got franchisees to pay pots of money to the players. So, the players were committed to delivering their promise at the start of the IPL season, whatever be the repercussions for national duty.
Cricket has come a long way since the mid-20th century. In the 1950s, cricket used to be a five-day, two-inning affair played among nations. Domestic cricket – club-level or state-level – was only a feeder for the national level. Even though cricket was played by eight countries, it was defined by the Ashes and cricket aficionados followed the battles between England and Australia irrespective of their nationalities. There was some level of nationalism and patriotism when your country played but often the results were forgone conclusions. A non-England or non-Australia win was something to be celebrated because of its rarity rather than the belief that another cricketing nation had arrived. Things changed in the 1970s with the arrival of the West Indies and the advent of one-day international cricket. Winning got democratised — India won for the first time in England in 1971 and the West Indies became an unbeatable team. Thus, cricket began to move out of the Ashes nations. And one-day cricket created the first open world championship in which a winner could be declared openly. India won in 1983, Pakistan in 1992 and Sri Lanka in 1996, announcing the arrival of other potential winners. Suddenly, nationalism and pride ignited since countries other than the traditional Ashes rivals now stood an equal chance of winning. Come the new millennium, T20 cricket arrived, first as an inter-country championship in 2007 and then at club level with IPL in India (a significant shift in the centre of innovation — Packer and Australia introduced the big change in one-day cricket in 1977). With Sri Lanka and Australia announcing their own local T20 club tournaments, the growth of this “sub-brand” of cricket cannot be wished away. One interesting thing that IPL – and club cricket – is bringing in is “mixed teams” — a natural fallout of the flattening of the world and mixing of races. It could, however, result in a weakening of the nationalistic ties that propelled much of one-day cricket through the eighties and nineties.
So, Brand Cricket (it has become one from an age when only the Ashes was a brand) has evolved from a one- product offering (Test cricket among nations) to a three sub-brand portfolio with multiple variants catering to national pride and local entertainment needs. Test cricket remains the game of connoisseurs — largely for players for whom the game is as much about temperament and technique as it is about talent. It’s much like classical music which continues to be the benchmark of quality for musicians but has little appeal for mass listeners. One-day cricket and T20 are viewer-oriented forms. One-day cricket still rides largely in the area of inter-nation competition while T20 is currently an entertainment format geared towards clubs where local pride is not so much important. These are the “popular” music formats of cricket — made for the masses.
What shape will the portfolio of Brand Cricket take in the years to come? One way is to let the markets decide. Clearly, the current market dynamics reveal the death of Test cricket, a decline of one-day and a clear move towards club cricket. This is dangerous because for a sport to remain exciting, players’ interests are of great importance. They actually unveil the quality of stories being unfolded to viewers and ensure that the existence of “star” players is as important as the format. If IPL operated with “unknown” national and international stars, the audience pull would have been much less. And the role of national pride – a reason why cricket has grown in South Asia – cannot be ignored. It is the pillar on which cricket’s emotional connect has been built. So, ignoring player power and national pride could end in the brand milking from the equity of the past and drying it up in the years to come. Therefore, though a number of product markets have evolved based on market forces – beer has moved from light to strong in the past two decades and the interior paints market has moved from distempers to emulsions – leaving Brand Cricket in the hands of market forces could sound the death knell for the sport!
The owners – the International Cricket Council and BCCI – and their equivalents need to come forward with a plan. This should involve making choices by clearly recognising the role of each format and sub-brand and playing the optimal balancing act. Advertisers and franchisees will go where the money is, and often where the short-term viewership is. Viewers will enjoy the shorter formats because they are the easiest to consume and such forms will, therefore, have the largest following. However, we need to remember that it’s the players who make the game, and their stardom – and hence pull – comes from performance and national representation. The two formats must co-exist and it’s wrong to put the onus on the players. The responsibility lies squarely with the owners. As wise businesspersons and sagacious marketers, they must rework schedules that work in the best long-term interests of the game.
Views expressed are personal
madhukar.sabnavis@ogilvy.com
