The business of cricket could kill cricket

An affable cricket pundit has put forward the argument that every game needs a business model to sustain itself, and Indian Premier League (IPL), despite its flaws which need to be corrected, provides that.

There was also the implied caveat that Twenty20 is the best form of cricket that provides the perfect match for IPL.

He has also argued rather persuasively that the Twenty20 format is refining and defining the game in its own unpredictable and brilliant ways.

Another sports-lover has argued that every game evolves according to the needs of the times, and it is rather silly of cricket-lovers to talk in nostalgic terms of the five-day Test cricket format for which there are no takers these days.

The two arguments seem quite formidable and it would seem quite impossible to counter them.

We have to question the assumption that games need a business model in order to survive in the present times. This goes against the very concept of a game. It is not essentially a business venture though it can be turned into one. There is a need to guard against the danger that the game like the proverbial goose that lay the golden eggs is killed off in the process.

The way IPL is going, it looks like that it could kill the game itself and not because there is too much money, too much glamour and quite a lot of corruption.

IPL could kill cricket in its attempts to make it more amenable to advertisements, telecasts, team ownership and team management. The game could change and disappear without anyone noticing it.

Twenty20 is not really cricket and it is not because it offends the aesthetic sensibilities of some people caught in a time warp.

Cricket is not tennis or football or even baseball. It is one game that allows in its Test format the possibility of a draw, rather a unique feature. It is this aspect of the game that irritates many people, including many of cricket’s friends. What is a game if there is no winner and no loser?

Both the 50-over one-day game and the Twenty20 format have made it a winning game. So, if you are not much of a cricket-lover, you can still make out which of the two teams won. This has indeed greatly increased the numbers of cricket-watchers, and that made it an attractive business proposition. But there will be demands to make it shorter and quicker than even the 50- and 20-over formats to make it a better fit for the business model.

The changes can be rationalised as the inexorable logic of evolution. But evolution enthusiasts overlook the fact that in the natural world evolution produces monsters at the extreme ends of size and functionality. Twenty20 is at the tipping point where cricket is becoming a caricature of itself, a veritable monster. It is turning ugly because it is moving away from the inherent logic of the game which is one of grace and intelligence, where winning is not the only thing. It is good to let it remain that way.

So those who blithely and bravely move with the times and flow with the tide should look at the rapids ahead. They should not delude themselves that they are going into an adventurous future when all that they may be doing is going down, dangerously, ignorantly and sometimes in ignominy.

Those who are hell-bent on making cricket a business and a lucrative one at that will have no hesitation in killing the game and when it does not any more generate profits they will abandon it without any compunction.

So, the arguments that games need a business model to survive and that games evolve inexorably are not as hip or as flawless as they sound in the first place. It may be foolish to resist the tide of change but it is not foolish to condemn change for the worse.

Cricket cannot return to its bucolic beginnings but at least we should record the loss of innocence and the signs of its decline.