It’s not just cricket

The self-styled Champions League T20 got under way last week in India with teams from six countries battling it out for the title of world champion.
 
However, this is a mere title rather than a true reflection of the competition with the rules standing as they do, which, in my opinion, make a mockery of the potential for this competition. It is driven by money and the political hierarchy within cricket, rather than being a global competition in the truest sense of the word.

Here’s a few reasons why:
l The competition is not governed by a world body, rather by the Indian Premier League, which in turn is reflected in disputes with the governing bodies in other countries.

Examples of this include the expulsion of all teams and players from Pakistan and a lower prioritisation of the competition from the powers that be in England.

The two qualifying teams from England, Leicester and Somerset, were therefore forced to arrive in India only a few days after the end of their own domestic campaigns, leaving them no time for preparation.

Somerset were also forced to omit five players from the team that lost to Leicester in their own T20 final. Two of these players – Kieswetter and Buttler – were both absent representing England against the West Indies. If the competition were to be officially endorsed there would be agreement between the national teams and the counties / state concerning the availability of players.

The tournament aims to generate the most income rather than to find the best team in the world. It is therefore based in India to maximise TV audiences and sponsorship revenues.

All top tournaments regularly rotate their venue, not only to generate greater awareness of the competition and make it available to all, but also to change the conditions in which the competition is played. Cricket is a game that favours the home team, particularly in the Indian subcontinent where visitors have to endure hot and humid conditions combined with wickets that are ‘low and slow’, favouring spin rather than seam. Teams from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, England and the Caribbean all favour the latter. If further evidence were required of the impact this difference has, one only has to consider the recent results of the Indian national team on their recent tour to the UK!

The format only allows for teams from three countries to be automatically selected for the main tournament. Teams from all other countries have to undergo a qualifying round, where there is yet another Indian team. This is despite Trinidad & Tobago finishing as runner-up in the opening competition and England being World T20 champions.

There is no restriction on the number of teams that players can represent, leading to some individuals having a choice of teams in the final, while others can still play in the finals for one team having lost with another team elsewhere in the competition. The best example is the T-20 phenomenon, Kieron Pollard, who could have chosen from any one of three teams!

While I appreciate that in many competitions it’s the way of the world, there is a massive disparity in the financial capacity of the Indian teams with all others competing. This results in the IPL teams fielding a number of hand-selected internationals while many of the remaining teams are fielding weaker teams than they did in the domestic competitions that got them there in the first place.

Even so, hats off to Somerset who, despite fielding a weaker team against the Kolkata Knight Riders (with Kallis and Lee), still made it comfortably home while featuring a replacement wicket-keeper from the Minor Counties!

There’s no doubting that there have been some terrific games and, despite the poor crowds and viewing figures, it’s a wonderful spectacle. However, it’s also a triumph of marketing – don’t always believe what it says on the tin!