Cricket and commerce

Which was better, the win at Wankhede or the quality of the game? To answer that, one must hark back to the Mohali semi-final against Pakistan. Even though it felt great to win, the poor cricket displayed there was disappointing. But on Saturday, as World Cup finals go, the cricket was by far the best in a long time. India won a tight, high scoring match with as many as six wickets to spare. Perhaps 200 million people watched the game on their television sets.

Clearly, as commercial successes go also, there are probably none to equal the cricket World Cup of 2011. True, the revenue would have been far lower if India not made it to the last four. Or, had the tournament been held elsewhere, even with India in the last four, fewer people would have watched because of time zone differences. But this gives us the two key ingredients for commercial success: play it in the sub-continent and hope that India is in the last four. Net-net, commercially, cricket belongs in the sub-continent and the ICC had better accept it by giving up the rotation rule. The West Indies botched it in 2007 and so could Australia-New Zealand in 2015, at least in terms of revenue. Even taken together, their joint population is simply nowhere near the number of television viewers in India. In England and in the West Indies, where cricket is a marginal game, it could be even less. There is no need for a DRS appeal on this. The finger must go up on non-sub-continental venues. The English might grumble and talk about Asian and non-Asian teams. But Australia and New Zealand which now officially regard themselves as Asian countries should be happy if the ICC — which is now based in Dubai and not London — recognises cricket's essential Asian quality and reviews the roster of venues. . Cricket as commerce means it must be played where the market is.

When this happens — and it probably will — India will have to take a view on the BCCI. It is a self-perpetuating, self-granted monopoly without the sort of legal legitimacy that is needed of other commercial enterprises. At some point, this monopoly will be challenged — it already has been once — and if the fight becomes too ugly, both the game and the commerce will suffer. Whether it was the East India Company's monopoly over the opium trade with China or the Kerry Packer interlude or the ATP tennis alternative, super-normal profits invite competition. To keep it all on an even keel, the market must, at the very least, be contestable. This means there must be no formal restrictions on entering the business. IPL has shown this is possible for T-20. The time has come for the same to happen in the 50-overs format.

COMMENT NOW