The Future of Twenty20 Leagues

[Sherlock Holmes]

County Championship overpowering the International fixtures is a good thing for football and works for them.

But personally I do not like the same idea being replicated in cricket.

I know many have expressed their disliking towards the bilateral series between two nations in cricket. But I enjoy it. I think that the WTC and One Day and T20 Championship was a good way to bring in the oomph factor in the bilateral series.

Privatising cricket leagues and having players play throughout the year via contracts while internationals just being limited to World Cup doesn't work from me.

I like the currently structure better, even if that means watching Ind vs WI. Worst time to give this opinion.

 

[CerealKiller]

Worst thing Pakistan can do is get greedy. PSL is really good and Pakistan has some of the best players in the world and they constantly find exciting young talent. Now they're back in Pakistan, with covid (being ignored/over) they can embed the sides into their cities. Big advantage Pakistan has over other countries (like England and Australia) is no other sports competing for space and a far bigger population.

Exactly, keeping in mind the country’s situation, slow and steady is the way to go for the PSL's growth. It is simply a blockbuster product for a country like ours. There’s a tricky few years coming up in terms of scheduling, need to shelter the league’s commercial value as much as possible.
However, Ramiz Raja is our chairman…

 

[ahmedleo414]

However, Ramiz Raja is our chairman…

I think you mean Rambo

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think you mean Rambo

Oh no.. oh no.. oh no no no no no..

 

[icyman]

Cricketers are becoming free agents on account of the monies put forth by these leagues. In order to avoid a situation similar to what FIFA faces, the IC alongside the Top member boards needs to do the following:

1. Contracted players can only play one T20 league (this is what the BCCI does)
2. Non-contracted players ought to be limited to 2 leagues in a calendar year

• This essentially means, a retired player comes under this scenario
• Players until the age of 40 should be managed this way to avoid them from becoming free agents
• Players wanting to play in external leagues need to pay at least 40% of their bid price to their home board

3. Retirement needs to come with 'cooling periods'. You cannot have situations like Shahid Afridi/ Younis Khan/entire WI team propping up just cause they have beef to settle with their home boards.

I know the above isn't going to go down well with a lot, however, if we are to save the game, then this may be the only way forth.

 

[Bevab]

Cricketers are becoming free agents on account of the monies put forth by these leagues. In order to avoid a situation similar to what FIFA faces, the IC alongside the Top member boards needs to do the following:

1. Contracted players can only play one T20 league (this is what the BCCI does)
2. Non-contracted players ought to be limited to 2 leagues in a calendar year

• This essentially means, a retired player comes under this scenario
• Players until the age of 40 should be managed this way to avoid them from becoming free agents
• Players wanting to play in external leagues need to pay at least 40% of their bid price to their home board

3. Retirement needs to come with 'cooling periods'. You cannot have situations like Shahid Afridi/ Younis Khan/entire WI team propping up just cause they have beef to settle with their home boards.

I know the above isn't going to go down well with a lot, however, if we are to save the game, then this may be the only way forth.

I shall answer this in two parts as there is a lot to unpack here.

I'm not sure what situation FIFA is facing that you're referring to as the culture in football is very different. Ask most fans and they would say that international breaks are the most boring parts of the calendar and would prefer lesser international games, especially meaningless ones. The fundamental issue with the rise of these T20 leagues is that most of them are artifically propped up with cash that is temporary and force interest with hype that cannot be sustained and big names that cannot be afforded beyond a point. There is no real attachment to most of these franchises as they are not clubs. Compare that with football where you have clubs formed out of the community that have existed for usually a hundred years and are still attached to their roots (for the most part). Fans have a belonging to these clubs as the support for them is passed down generation to generation and they still give back to the community (at least most of them). You have players growing up dreaming to represent said clubs as they were born in the same place, supported them throughout childhood and are given the opportunity or big breaks by them. They also play football all year so you have the constancy of games every weekend adding to said culture. It is fundamentally ingrained into their way of life so as to speak.

In cricket though, why should I care for most of these franchises? It will take a generation or two for these franchises to become clubs via history and that is assuming they move towards more sustainable long-term plans and goals. Why would I care to support a franchise when they undergo mass squad overhauls every three or four seasons? The reasons to do so are only two with one of them being local proximity and the other being player representation. The first reason is seldom built upon by franchises in most leagues as

1. The nature of these leagues is temporary and most of them face a uncertain future. They do not run all year long or even for an extended period of time. Instead we are bombarded with games every day so that they get all of the eyeballs possible for a short period of time. This is inherently unsustainable beyond a point as people will lose interest eventually. It is too much crammed into too short a period of time. To have leagues run for extended periods though requires a change in the paradigm of cricket that pretty much nobody is interested in as they would rather hold onto archaic beliefs and nostalgia to return it to a place that it simply cannot go back to.
2. There is no real local connection built by most of these franchises for the most part. Multiple IPL franchises have changed their names already for one. The league has played almost an entire season overseas on multiple occasions. And a team like Punjab has also played games in other stadiums far more often than most other sides. Add Chennai to that too. Beyond that though these franchises have not really tapped into their domestic market as much as they should have. The franchise that has done this the most IMO is Chennai and even they are severely lacking compared to a lower league football club. This side has gone seasons without playing a single local player despite fans clamouring for that and having one of the strongest domestic player pools to tap into. Bangalore is another franchise that still remains wedded to Kohli as it's most iconic player despite having so many good local players result from their domestic system. When I think of a club like Real Madrid with their legends, the names of Zidane, Di Stefano and Ronaldo comes to mind but alongside these overseas players there are also local ones like Raul, Casillas and Butragueno who stand tall. Most IPL sides do not have such attachments beyond the adopted ones like Kohli, Dhoni, Bumrah and the few loyal local names like Rohit and Pant. It is also difficult to cultivate attachment when you have only ten franchises for a country with 27 states.
3. This reason may also be why the CPL has remained moderately successful despite the best efforts of their organisers. Barbados may have a CPL side but it also has a Barbados local team to piggyback off to cultivate support. I'm not sure of how much the CPL has tapped into this though. This is also why England absolutely shat the bed IMO with The Hundred. They are the only country with historic domestic sides that go back all the way with prestige to match and instead of tapping into it with a revamped and modernized T20 competition that runs for months or even a linked city based franchise T20 competition we've got a horrific, condensed, purely commercialized product in a separate format that still hasn't been figured out or understood by even the players participating with no real potential to ever get to what potentially could have been. I still think PSL can get there if they allow their league to grow organically (even if it is at the expense of short term cash and clout) as they have the fanbase and the playerbase to build upon and they haven't had the opportunity till now to cultivate local ties owing to their geopolitical concerns. The BBL seems like a lost case. Bangladesh's league can also work if their organizers stop making bombastic decisions every season. I don't ever see the CSA league getting there as it reeks of a desperate attempt to stay relevant.
   
   

 

[Bevab]

Cricketers are becoming free agents on account of the monies put forth by these leagues. In order to avoid a situation similar to what FIFA faces, the IC alongside the Top member boards needs to do the following:

1. Contracted players can only play one T20 league (this is what the BCCI does)
2. Non-contracted players ought to be limited to 2 leagues in a calendar year

• This essentially means, a retired player comes under this scenario
• Players until the age of 40 should be managed this way to avoid them from becoming free agents
• Players wanting to play in external leagues need to pay at least 40% of their bid price to their home board

3. Retirement needs to come with 'cooling periods'. You cannot have situations like Shahid Afridi/ Younis Khan/entire WI team propping up just cause they have beef to settle with their home boards.

I know the above isn't going to go down well with a lot, however, if we are to save the game, then this may be the only way forth.

Now to address the steps that you're suggesting...

1. The first step is possible. This is what the PCB is trying to do by restricting player movement to the UAE league and potentially the CSA league and BBL too. A central contract from the Big 3 and even NZ board (despite Boult's pull-out) and PCB is lucrative and offers security in a currently volatile cricket market. However just how long do you expect the current volatility to persist? Most leagues may go bust but some will remain and stand the test of time and get extended periods of gametime. They will also offer more secure, long-term contracts with more money compared to the current scenario. There will also be less of the nefarious elements once boards come in and either root out the corruption and fixing elements or legalize it to bring it under their control. This will result in more safe markets. I would argue that the way these IPL owners are extending their grubby arms into other country leagues feels like a step towards that. At that point most of the boards may not be able to lock their players into central contracts that are restrictive. Players would simply refuse said contracts and go rogue. At that point sure you can not call them up but you would be depriving your side of the biggest names and talents which will further hurt your side's money generation in terms of sponsorship. You would have to bow down to these players picking and choosing their matches as they wish at this point. This is arguably already happening in terms of the infamous 'rest' but you will have more scenarios like AbD pulling out of games and tours unless he feels they are a challenge, a Shakib pulling out of tough tours to preserve their records or a Boult pulling out of tours that are going to be hard on him and instead sticking with safer, more lucrative and easier on the body games. There is also the potential for a lot of lawsuits and legal messes in just how restrictive said central contracts can be in the first place....
2. ....now imagine the same extended to someone who isn't on a central contract. Or even a state contract. I'm talking about players like Chris Lynn who is currently being denied a NOC for the UAE league. Lynn rightfully feels this is unfair as he will earn a lot more in lesser time spent in the UAE league. He will inevitably sue and win the forthcoming case as CA have no contract of any sort as security for him. They owe him nothing and worker rights will ensure that Lynn will get his way all day long. This will also be the case in countries like NZ, England and South Africa. While the legal area in Asian countries a lot more trickier there is no doubt that you will eventually have a group of players form to challenge such rules here too with the backing of a wealthy benefactor who wants said names in multiple leagues. You simply cannot form any restrictions here long-term.
3. Again how do you go about enforcing this rule legally? 40% of their bid price sounds ridiculous in theory already. Imagine someone paying 40% of their salary just as 'mercy' for a bunch of administrators to give you their blessings to play in an overseas tournament. This is on top of them paying taxes and whatnot. This will be laughed out of any serious court and rightfully so.
4. The retirement thing seems so... unnecessary? Players will simply not retire and refuse call-ups instead. There will be unspoken agreements between boards like CWI and their players to circumvent this. Again this is technically possible under current rules to implement but I don't see it standing up in a court of law. I don't even see many boards agreeing to this. If you as ECB had the opportunity to get Ben Stokes back just in time for the ODI WC with your team lacking a quality all-rounder you would select him 9 out of 10 times. Heck if you get an injury prone player who retired prematurely to manage his fitness coming back with an important tournament or series up because he has managed to get his injuries under some form of control you would pick him.

In conclusion a lot of these rules seem arbitrary and easily challenged legally. I doubt you would even want some of these laws applied in your workplace for one. Why should cricketers be subjected to these then?

 

[icyman]

Compare that with football where you have clubs formed out of the community that have existed for usually a hundred years and are still attached to their roots (for the most part). Fans have a belonging to these clubs as the support for them is passed down generation to generation and they still give back to the community (at least most of them). You have players growing up dreaming to represent said clubs as they were born in the same place, supported them throughout childhood and are given the opportunity or big breaks by them. They also play football all year so you have the constancy of games every weekend adding to said culture. It is fundamentally ingrained into their way of life so as to speak.

In cricket though, why should I care for most of these franchises? It will take a generation or two for these franchises to become clubs via history and that is assuming they move towards more sustainable long-term plans and goals. Why would I care to support a franchise when they undergo mass squad overhauls every three or four seasons? The reasons to do so are only two with one of them being local proximity and the other being player representation

It would happen eventually. You do have a situation festering where a franchisee owner from India has stake in the IPL, South African league, ILT20 and the WI league. It is a matter of time before they start sizing up and offering truckloads to players to come and play. I foresee a situation (if unaddressed) where MI players would freely be able to represent their owner's other teams in SA, WI ,UAE and become a part of that league.

I agree the culture in football is different. However, if the last 10 years of unchecked growth are anything to go by, the day isnt far where you would see the ICC run a CLub World Cup and that may draw a lot more attention.

I do get some of your points and they do pose a valid argument. Only time will tell...

40% of their bid price sounds ridiculous in theory already. Imagine someone paying 40% of their salary just as 'mercy' for a bunch of administrators to give you their blessings to play in an overseas tournament

Players do pay 20% of their fee to their respective boards for being a part of the IPL. This is definitely true for the ECB affiliated players. Increasing this amount might make them reconsider their approach/ limit participation.

 

[Bevab]

It would happen eventually. You do have a situation festering where a franchisee owner from India has stake in the IPL, South African league, ILT20 and the WI league. It is a matter of time before they start sizing up and offering truckloads to players to come and play. I foresee a situation (if unaddressed) where MI players would freely be able to represent their owner's other teams in SA, WI ,UAE and become a part of that league.

I agree the culture in football is different. However, if the last 10 years of unchecked growth are anything to go by, the day isnt far where you would see the ICC run a CLub World Cup and that may draw a lot more attention.

I do get some of your points and they do pose a valid argument. Only time will tell...



Players do pay 20% of their fee to their respective boards for being a part of the IPL. This is definitely true for the ECB affiliated players. Increasing this amount might make them reconsider their approach/ limit participation.

The last point that you allude to is the BCCI paying the respective boards for their players participating in the IPL. This again will be heavily challenged once you start increasing said fee.

Your suggestions are all exactly what I believe these boards will attempt to in the near future once we have more associate T20 leagues like UAE and the USA attempting to lure big names. However I don't see it working once these boards start feasting on each other once they realise that the biggest threats to their own leagues are the leagues of their fellow boards. At that point you'll have multiple legal battles like Lynn's with multiple interest groups all vying for a piece of the pie and trying their best to come out on top. You'll even have these rich owners trying to muddy the waters too. Players will voluntarily pull out of international tours and contracts if it means they'll get free access to these leagues, boards will try to strongarm young prospects in their countries with long-term contracts that explicitly state that they must not get into said leagues and you'll have these leagues themselves entice the hottest prospects around the globe with lucrative compensatory fees and salaries alongside this being the start of U21 and U19 leagues. I have no idea of what scenario will result out of this bloodbath.

Personally I feel like the best bet for everyone would be to get ahead of all of this mess, the ICC to sit down with every board and try to work out a solution that benefits everyone. Have the most prominent players, coaches and get those grubby owners in for said discussions too to get their views. I would suggest for there being 3-4 main T20 leagues that will not clash with each other for the most part and run for 3 months initially. Try to have your matches in them spaced out so as to not burn out players, organisers, staff and viewers. Have an exclusive international window outside of these leagues that is pretty much uninterrupted by any form of T20 leagues whatsoever. Have your World Cups, important series' (like the Ashes) in this window. This window's duration lasts for a minimum of 2 months and acts as the break period for most cricketers. Let the other T20 leagues run besides the main T20 leagues. BPL might lose their best players to the main leagues but they will still have plenty of their own domestic players and several players from other countries who are free agents. Some degree of overlap between the main leagues would also be fine as you wouldn't have too many players from your league tied up in the other league's knockout stages whilst your season is beginning.

You could easily expand this to having first-class matches in the week whenever possible whilst freeing up weekends for your T20s. You could even have T20s mid-week while first-class games occur concurrently given how many T20 specialists there are these days. This will also ensure more teams with more players and more opportunities for all. Even if it isn't possible to have a concurrent first-class setup going on (for instance unless the IPL shifts it's window it is impossible to play FC games in the sweltering Summer heat of India) you could have them at your traditional times with players who wish to play in them playing and others resting/participating in other leagues. You could also have international games and tours while these leagues are happening too once the teams in these leagues have large enough squads to accomodate for a few players missing out. If not, you could have unspoken agreements (or even spoken) wherein a country like say England agrees to play two international tours in the middle of the IPL's window against some other international side but promises to allow their players to participate in the knockout stages whilst being fine with India playing two international tours in their own window. The flexibility that my proposition offers is ginormous and you can tweak it as you want. You could even apply the 'a player must participate in only two leagues other than their home league' rule here without too much fuss I presume. This also allows players to skip out entirely on a window's league and opt to spend that time home instead. This will go a long way towards solving burnout for players as cricket is currently one of the harshest sports for how frequently you are on the road travelling playing multiple games spending time away from your family (compare that to football where a player will pretty much be home everyday after training on most days).

 

[Slowcoach]

The T20 bubble will burst and fans will leave for other sports, the Big Bash is an example of too many leagues and not enough talent to go round.
It's just the same crap overseas players in every league, why watch any of it, the only thing that varies is the race of the 2nd rate players making up the numbers.
Crowds flocked to County Cricket in the 1970s due to 40 over cricket on Sundays, then they found something else to do, T20 franchise leagues will be the same.
India has a billion fans so the IPL is a success, no other nation has a billion fans.

 

[icyman]

The T20 bubble will burst and fans will leave for other sports, the Big Bash is an example of too many leagues and not enough talent to go round.

T20 will eventually make way for T10. The appetite of the public just isn't there to last that long. We are also looking at an era where cricket is competing with other sports in order to be included in the Olympics, Commonwealth and the likes.

T20 games are deemed to long for these Games. As such I feel the ICC might make a few changes in the playing conditions of the game

10 over games
8 a side

Matches will get over within 2 hours max.

The way the IPL is expanding, pretty sure the BCCI would sell a few more properties in the coming years. This will also come at the cost of making the league a tad boring. If it expands to 16 teams, I certainly wouldn't be keen on watching an entire league. Slam bang, fast action cricket will evolve out of this mess. Tests will die, ODIs will remain the ICC's creme de la creme

 

[wasteyouryouth]

The T20 bubble will burst and fans will leave for other sports, the Big Bash is an example of too many leagues and not enough talent to go round.
It's just the same crap overseas players in every league, why watch any of it, the only thing that varies is the race of the 2nd rate players making up the numbers.
Crowds flocked to County Cricket in the 1970s due to 40 over cricket on Sundays, then they found something else to do, T20 franchise leagues will be the same.
India has a billion fans so the IPL is a success, no other nation has a billion fans.

I do wonder if it'd be better for the OD Cup to be reorganised as a Sunday League like it once was or at least with two divisions. It could culminate in a final between the top two sides. Four home matches, four away, they could split into into 'blocks'; before The Blast, in this break between the Blast and The Hundred and after The Hundred. They could at least maintain some sense of it mattering by having first team players and possibly international players involved.

I still find it extraordinary that we won a World Cup and decided the format was no longer worth maintaining domestically.

As to what you said in the other thread about an international T20 league, I think that could've been very successful, but at a time when it could have been constituted the person running the ICC was also an owner of an IPL team, so he was hardly going to back something that might take money out of his pocket. I'd also imagine no one at the ICC would have had the foresight to see that far ahead that something like that could/should have been implemented.

Still, can't help but hypothesise about what it could look like...

A divisional structure could work in my opinion.

10 team leagues, promotion and relegation. If everyone played each other twice that'd be 18 matches.

This could be played in three or four mini-tournaments where teams would play in different parts of the world. You could have an Australia leg, an English leg and then an Indian leg.

The promotion and relegation structure exists already but only for associates. The full members aren't exposed to it and I'd highly doubt any would willingly agree to something that could see them lose the standing that being a full member confers upon them even if it only meant playing a 'season' in a lower division.

 

[Slowcoach]

Tests will exist while the players still want to play that form, but there will be no one watching.

 

[Slowcoach]

A 16 team International Super League featuring all the Test teams and a few others would generate more money for each individual nation than their own Franchise league and the money could then flow into other forms.

 

[Slowcoach]

The ICC would never allow it because it would dilute interest away from the IPL and the ICC is the IPL.