Cricket and Commercialism

Introduction

I love cricket probably too much. I used to play it back when I was in school and love to follow it. However money masters all things and the inevitable tide of commercialism is roaring over cricket. It is far from unique in that regard but is a microcosm of other trends and so I will ponder, consider and lament.

Rules

I used to have a lengthy section trying to explain the rules of cricket here but it grew to an uncomfortable length, was pretty dull to read and fairly inscrutable if you weren't familiar to some degree. Therefore I've decided to excise it and will just say that cricket is a bat and ball sport where a batter is trying to stop a ball from hitting a set of sticks and to hit the ball to score points (called runs). ^[0] I tried looking for a useful page online explaining cricket if you're curious; I did find this page which seems decent apart from the rather dubious assertion at the start. There is this page from Al Jazeera which seems decent but appears primarily aimed at new viewers. This one from the BBC also seems reasonable even if it is a bit technical and detailed in my opinion.

History

Bat and ball sports have existed in many different places and times but the modern sport originates from England and was spread by the British Empire across the world; today it's mostly played in England/Wales, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh and the West Indies (collection of countries around the Caribbean) although it has spread to an assortment of various other nations.

Its nature as originating from England does lend itself to some anachronistic practices. It's played by the historic counties of England which have funny names like 'Nottinghamshire', 'Gloucestershire' and 'Worcestershire'.^[1] Over their history the primary form of cricket they've played, called First Class cricket is played over multiple days which meant that the only people who were able to play were professionals who could muster a small wage from their playing or amateurs who were more wealthy. This resulted in a strange tradition where a match was held for professionals against amateurs although in typical fashion it was named 'Gentlemen v Players'. Like many traditions this one also fell by the wayside, the concept of amateur players as formalised was abolished and so was the match in 1963. No tradition is forever.

The history of cricket intersecting with colonialism is also an important story^[2] and many a deal has been made of the colonisers being beaten at their own game. One of my favourite books ever is "Beyond a Boundary" by C.L.R James; it's wonderfully written and tells the fascinating tale of cricket and his life in the West Indies and England.

Fast cricket

Cricket over multiple days is fantastic since like all entertainment it's about telling stories. The longer the game the more grand the story is, the more it can ebb and flow. However it is a long time to get someone to invest to watch a game so there were experiments with designing a shorter form of the sport. In the 1970s a format called One Day International cricket started to be played which meant a game could be held over a single day over around 8 hours. It also meant that it could be played at night which is a better time commercially since people could watch it after work. There could be other developments focused on these kinds of flashy things such as teams wearing coloured clothing instead of the traditional white.

However even this was too long for most people. Football matches are 90 minutes on the field plus a bit for breaks/added time. Rugby is 80 minutes. Basketball is around 40-48 minutes. Note that all these sports take a bit longer than these times because of breaks but nothing close to the whole day affair of a one day match. Thus an even shorter version of the game was developed and trialled in England in the early 2000s called Twenty20 or T20 for short. This lasted only 3-4 hours and was a breakneck pace compared to the other formats.

This new format was exactly what was needed for it to explode in popularity, especially in the Indian sub-continent. The IPL or Indian Premier League has a staggeringly high amount of money running through it. Other T20 leagues are also the dominant form of cricket in the cricket playing nations and the format essentially keeps the finances alive for the cricket administrations. The top players can get millions of dollars for just a few months of playing. The days of having amateurs playing against professionals were now just a distant memory of a bygone era.

There's also a concern about the other formats of cricket being subsumed by the shortest format. There are so many leagues that are turning the game away from the traditional locale based sport towards a profit based sport. The old hierarchy is you would play for your town/city, then your district/county then your country as a clear progression chain towards the top level and you would feel a sense of loyalty to each stage. The modern cut-throat leagues mean that players go to wherever there is the most money on offer. I don't begrudge them that, there's no doubt that players can earn much more than they ever could dream of previously which benefits them on a personal level. It does tend to make the money very top heavy though as the money chases the top players and the rest can get scraps. The leagues being around the world and in different times also has implications around players not really getting time off and there being a neverending dose of mediocre cricket being played, including in odd places such as the UAE, the USA and Canada where Cricket is mostly sustained from the immigrant populations, especially from South Asia. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does have some odd dynamics with how they're viewed and funded and how it grows the sport locally in those places.

There have been some experiments with trying to trying to make the games even shorter to make them more appealing for TV audiences. It almost feels like it should be 3 different games; one for each format as the skills and tactics for each one diverge significantly and more players choose to specialise rather than try to play all of them. This situation where the T20 cricket essentially subsidises the longer formats doesn't feel sustainable in the long term but there's certainly enough purists out there ^[3] to keep the status quo in place for now.

Spirit of Cricket

Sportsmanship is sometimes a nebulous topic, people may not always agree on what is and isn't good sportsmanship. They tend to be things that can't be easily described or written down and objectively ruled on. It's more a case of 'I know it when I see it'.^[4] In the preamble to the Laws of Cricket, before any laws are stated is the Spirit of Cricket, about respect and making the game a more cordial and enjoyable atmosphere for all. In the English language, "it's just not cricket" is a common phrase indicating something that's unfair or dishonest, indicating how much cricket is associated with this spirit of gentlemanly conduct.

Of course there are hypocrises to this. Whether it's Bodyline, Sandpapergate, Underarm, sledging or various smaller events there have always been instances of players disrespecting what is considered the 'right' thing to do. However I still believe it's a useful fiction to maintain in that if people believe it's right then in general it leads to better conduct through social pressure. With the rise of enormous amounts of money in the game it makes it all the more tempting to stretch the rules to their absolute limit; to employ deception and conniving that makes the game more hostile and worse for everyone.

NZ20 and the future

In recent news as of 2026-03-24, New Zealand Cricket (NZC) have decided to advance a league provisionally known as NZ20. How it differs from the current T20 league is that the teams will be sold off to foreign investors with lots of money and it will essentially be controlled by those investors. England have followed a similar model in moving the teams away from the historic counties and forming their own league and recently selling off the teams. This does provide a massive one off cash injection into the game and counties which can be used to invest into the grassroots of the game and be beneficial in that way. However once it's spent there's no getting it back and you're locked in to running these events at the whims of the investors. I also struggle to see how this can be profitable. The current NZ T20 competition, called the Super Smash, is run on a pretty cheap budget but is still a fun and enjoyable experience. The NZ timezone isn't great for any significant TV market outside of NZ and cricket probably doesn't have enough interest within to be able to draw large crowds to the matches. Of couse that is malleable to some extent but it's going to be difficult to make the finances of this add up.

Unfortunately I don't think there was a 'good' choice to make, all the decisions come with their own risks and trade-offs. One option would be to continue as is, which would result in the top NZ T20 players rarely playing for NZ in the summer since they can make much more playing overseas in Australia or South Africa. That would be hugely dissatisfying to the local audience and may result in dwindling interest among fans except for a few. Another alternative option would be to try to merge with Australia and form a combined league, which is similar to how it works in Rugby League, Football or Basketball where NZ has a team or two in the Australian leagues. The difference there is that Australia has a much larger interest in those sports so it's nice to have one NZ team in their competition but in Cricket's case it would mean giving up significant control to Cricket Australia and having to manage scheduling around their events as well as NZ's.

Ultimately this is simply the natural progression of sports with how our economy works. The premier league in England was started in 1992, breaking away from the older leagues to bring more money into the game. USA sports have always been a gaudy overproduced mess, whether it's the Super Bowl or the NBA. I don't really have a solution to this; perhaps it's to take pleasure in the small things. However in many ways these offer a fundamentally different experience from following top levels of sports so aren't really a substitute. I don't have a larger point to make, this is mostly just a rant and a way to get out the words I've been feeling about this in general. This could be many, many times longer but I'm trying to keep it reasonably succinct and condensed to a few points.

Finally I will say that cricket is a strange game for stranger people and it would be disappointing for that to be lost.

Footnotes