Players’ report laments changing face of international cricket

A REPORT by the Federation of Cricketers’ Associations on international cricket structures reads like most of SA’s recent scorecards — not in a good way.

The International Cricket Structural Review, which emerged on Thursday, includes a quote from former Proteas captain Graeme Smith: “There is a conflict within players around the world under the current structure. The game has a great opportunity to provide clear global direction in relation to its structure, and must find a way to give meaning to each game.”

That is on the second of 42 pages of, mostly, woe.

In an overview titled: “Time for collective thinking”, federation executive chairman Tony Irish sketches a sobering scenario.

“Cricket derives the bulk of its income from international competition and therefore the 3,500-plus professional players, as well as administrators and employees in the game worldwide, rely on the economic engine room that is international cricket for their livelihoods,” Irish wrote.

“However, the international product is cluttered, lacking in context, confusing, unbalanced and frequently subject to change.”

He went on to write that Test cricket and bilateral one-day cricket were rapidly losing spectator appeal in many countries and consequently their commercial value was under “severe threat”.

“There is a growing divide in wealth and resources between the wealthy and less wealthy cricket nations that make up the main stakeholders in the international game,” Irish wrote.

“Against a backdrop of confusion and uncertainty, professional players are trying to build long and meaningful careers.

“There are multiple markets and choices open to them and their loyalty to their countries, and to the traditions of the game, is being tested like never before.”

Is Irish making things sound worse than they are? Not if the answers to a question in the document’s player survey — “Would you consider rejecting a national contract if you were paid significantly more to be a free agent (only playing Twenty20 leagues such as Indian Premier League and Big Bash)?” — are taken seriously.

Overall, 49.1% answered yes. That dropped to 39.3% for English and Australian players, but 58.6% of New Zealanders, Sri Lankans, West Indians, Bangladeshis and South Africans replied yes.

It is not difficult to understand why. If a contracted England player cracks the nod for 10 Tests, 15 ODIs and five T20s in a year, he will bank more than R12.5m. A contracted South African who plays the same slate of games will make just more than R5m.

As if that was not bleak enough, the report calls for “the volume of T20 international cricket to increase in place of some Test and ODI cricket”.

It’s cricket, Jim, but not as we knew it. At least, it won’t be.