I honestly doubt if 'people' have ever had time to watch Test matches. It hails from the industrial era, shortly after the start of the labour movement. It was a time when there was lots of mining and factory work in the most advanced nations and these people had to work 12 hours a day. Yet cricket was thriving.
By the 1920s, cricket had mutated from one driven by aristocrats to one defined more by regional competition. In the golden era when it was only possible to follow a match in person or via newspapers. However, the average working week in many industrial countries was still 50 hours. Flex time and holiday pay were still a ways off for the workforce. How is it possible that eighty thousand people, in a town of only 1 million might turn out not once but three times for Test cricket in Melbourne in 1937?
Over time, the access of the sport has opened up manifold beyond the original definition. English captains no longer need to be Lords, the subcontinent no longer the domain of Maharajas or Nawabs. West Indian and South African teams could even be lead by coloured people.
In the 20th century, one could follow the sport remotely via radio, or even television. Air travel meant one did not have to spend months abroad to make travel worthwhile. The 1970s brought the concept of sitting on the couch all day to watch a broadcast. Soon after, came the one day game, with light towers forever expanding the available time slots for which spectators could attend.
Yet we today waffle about how nobody has time. We have more time than ever, many of us more disposable income too. We can take days off, even take a few hours off here and there. We can watch events live from the other side of the world, even pause and record them to watch at our own will. We can watch sport on the telephone!
It's strange to think how all this has somehow put more emphasis on admission. Cricket was one of the first sporting events to charge admission. The concept arose because someone realised they could make money from all the people going to see the game. Yet, when the grounds had a monopoly, tickets were cheap. Well into the 20th century it was a matter of shillings, perhaps equivalent of a fiver for modern people. The demand at Lords is such now that they're upwards of 40 quid. The price can only rise in England because the grounds are easily filled. If elsewhere attendance is suffering, then perhaps they need to consider supply and demand principles.
Thusly, cricket in Australia, after seemingly hitting rock bottom last summer, appears to be doing well. Overall attendance was second only to the 06/07 Ashes season. More than three quarters of Australians watched some cricket this summer. Participation was up 5% and the figures for junior cricket have been most impressive.
Modern economists and researchers support an ever shrinking working week to better spread wealth and tasks across the growing population. If there is really a problem with reaching spectators in this day and age, then it is a matter of reaching the audience's demands. We are not too busy.