Is cricket’s scheduling problem beyond redemption?

It is no secret that the professional cricket calendar is crammed to overflowing. It is also no secret that the situation is getting worse, yet no one is doing anything to rectify it. Only this week a new T10 tournament — Max60 — started in the Cayman Islands and plans were unveiled to launch a T20 franchise in Nepal in December.

It was timely, therefore, that players body the World Cricketers’ Association announced this week that it had initiated a comprehensive review of the game’s global structure. Its chair said it had “given up hope” that the game’s leaders could establish a “clear and coherent structure” in which international cricket and domestic leagues could coexist. A six-person panel has been established to produce recommendations to the WCA board after talking with players, administrators, team owners and broadcasters.

The panel is led by former Australian Cricketers’ Association chief Paul Marsh. He is joined by independent WCA board member Tony Irish, former Pakistan women’s captain Sana Mir, head of sports at Disney Star Sanjog Gupta and former FIFA executive James Kitching. The sixth member may raise a few eyebrows: Six Nations Rugby CEO Tom Harrison, a former CEO of the England and Wales Cricket Board. During that tenure, he was partly responsible for introducing The Hundred, which added a fourth format to an already crowded schedule in the two countries.

The panel’s report should make for interesting reading and may provide a useful yardstick by which to assess the true nature of cricket’s disjointed and crowded calendar. Whether any one in power will act on the WCA’s recommendations is uncertain. This is the sort of review that the International Cricket Council, as the sport’s governing body, should undertake. Instead, it has continued to sanction T20 franchise leagues alongside full bilateral programs.

In this unregulated marketplace, the players are free to choose one franchise over another and a franchise over representing their country. This has been most apparent among West Indian players. Suggestions to limit the number of franchises a player can join in a year to free more players to represent their countries are unlikely to be popular. Effectively, it would mean players receiving less money. However, the WCA said that 84 percent of the players it had spoken to were in favor of ring-fenced windows to ensure international cricket and domestic T20 leagues could co-exist.

One factor which reduces the WCA’s effectiveness is that although it represents players from 16 countries it does not cover India or Pakistan, which do not have player associations.

Although there is no mention of women in the WCA announcement, it must be assumed that the review will include both the women’s and men’s games. This is especially important given the recent increase in women’s franchise leagues. As reported in a previous column, England captain Heather Knight has expressed a view that the women’s game needs reassessing so that it does make the same mistakes as the men’s.

This view does not seem to be shared by former Indian fast bowler Jhulan Goswami, bowling coach and mentor with Mumbai Indians in the Women’s Premier League for the past two years. She believes that franchise cricket is the future of the women’s game and that T20 leagues should be prioritized over bilateral series. Her argument is that T20 cricket is the way to grow the game. This might have seemed unlikely a few years ago but the club versus country debate in women’s cricket is live.

Top women players face clashes for their time and have to make decisions about what balance of formats is best for managing their workloads and their loyalties. Goswami’s view is that when bilateral series and franchise leagues clash, quality players are lost to franchise tournaments, which depend on them for their success. Presumably, she means from both a playing and financial perspective. Her solution seems to favor the allocation of windows for franchise leagues as a priority with bilateral cricket fitted around them.

There are other complicating issues in play. One involves associate ICC members who have expressed a desire to become full members. A good example is Scotland. In the 2024 T20 World Cup the men’s team finished on equal points with England in its group but did not progress because of an inferior net run rate. The women’s team has qualified for the 2024 T20 World Cup ahead of full members Ireland, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe.

In June, Mark Watt, a member of the men’s team, expressed the view that Scotland was ticking all the boxes required by the ICC for full membership. He hopes it will be achieved in his playing career. If so, Scotland will have to play test cricket, a format which appears to be in decline. It may well explain why the ICC seems to be dragging its feet about granting new full member status. This would mean new bilateral matches, further clogging the system with matches that generate little revenue and occupy space which could host more profitable short-format cricket.

The reality of this is embodied in Cricket Scotland’s strategic plan for 2024-28. Beset by accusations of racism and misogyny a new model has emerged. This focuses on inspiring women and girls to play cricket, a culture of equality and establishing Cricket Scotland as a trusted and effective governing body. The quest for ICC full membership is ongoing but not the priority. Its financial benefits are accompanied by significant costs and responsibilities, as Ireland has discovered.

Neither country appears to be in a position to boost its finances by having a T20 franchise league, unlike the Cayman Islands. This is an anomalous situation, bordering on ridiculous. The WCA is right to raise issues affecting the game globally. It said the scheduling model was “broken and unsustainable.” It highlights the growing economic disparity between members and the inability of the game to regulate itself. If only those in power could comprehend something other than money.