Yet while cricket was declining in the West, it was becoming a manifestation of national identity in the likes of India and Pakistan.
In keeping with many global sports, cricket’s ruling body was dominated for years by Western nations, who dictated the rules of the game and the council’s governance remit. The ICC was originally founded as the Imperial Cricket Conference in 1909 by England, Australia and South Africa.
From a modest budget of US$150,000 (£116,000) in 1991, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has a projected net surplus of US$2.5 billion in the years 2015-23.
These newer formats helped to provide a major financial boost to the game across the world, via TV rights and event sponsorship. Demand for even shorter versions of the game resulted in the introduction of T20 cricket in 2007, in which play is restricted to 20 overs per side, or about three hours compared to five day Test matches. One-day internationals were introduced in the 1970s, starting with a clash between England and Australia (the Australians won). Yet by the middle years of the 20th century, attendances were falling significantly in some countries, most notably England: the changing pace of life meant that people were less attracted to the game. The game went international when it was exported with great success to Britain’s colonies – from India to South Africa, from Australia to latter-day Zimbabwe. Traditionally, the actual outcome tended to be of lesser interest for the spectators and the players than the overall experience: you could be involved in a day’s play and not know the result until the match was completed several days later – and even then, it was often a draw. The current BCCI secretary, who is connected to the old regime, has launched an attack on the committee of administrators, accusing them of failing to carry out the reforms.Ĭricket was once the archetypal English “ gentlemen’s game”. Thakur and his former secretary are fighting through the courts to be reinstated. It installed a committee of administrators to oversee the appointment of a new board.
Last January the supreme court duly ousted the president, Anurag Thakur, and the rest of the board. The BCCI was lukewarm about the supreme court’s recommendations, baulking at some moves designed to clean up the board itself – such as preventing politicians from being board members and forcing officials to retire at 70. The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI), which oversees the game, stood accused of using its massive wealth to distribute favours to state-level member associations in exchange for their support.
The judges were intervening on the back of a series of ugly revelations about corruption in the sport, including match fixing and bid rigging for franchise auctions in the Indian Premier League. The turbulence dates back to when the country’s supreme court issued a set of recommendations several years ago, designed to reform Indian cricket from top to bottom. India, which dominates world cricket, is embroiled in a bitter battle over how it runs its domestic sport.