Tim de Lisle
Tim de Lisle Tim de LisleRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Editor of Intelligent Life magazine and a former editor of Wisden

Cricket is not a business

Why the ECB's new chairman, Giles Clarke, is wrong

Tim de Lisle

October 30, 2007

Comments: 4 | Text size: A | A

Clarke: "I was portrayed as a combination of Hitler and Attila the Hun for taking cricket off terrestrial television, but it was the right thing to do" © Getty Images

A month after being elected as the new chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, Giles Clarke has just made his first mistake. Talking to Mike Atherton in the Sunday Telegraph, Clarke said: "Cricket, ultimately, is another business."

No, it's not. The bottomline in business is profit; the bottomline in sport is a mixture of success and entertainment. Cricket lovers might argue about the balance between those two ideals, but they wouldn't devote much of the conversation to the merits of profit, which is sometimes necessary in sport, and seldom sufficient. How many India fans would swap the World Twenty20 trophy for some black ink on the BCCI's next balance sheet?

To be fair, Clarke soon showed, when Atherton protested, that he is aware that sport has another dimension, a grip on our hearts and minds that few businesses come anywhere near. He has already made quite a few noises about the responsibilities of those in the England set-up, which is encouraging. But one of his responsibilities is to see cricket as it really is.

Businessmen turned administrators like to think sport is like business, because they want to feel that their skills are going to be some use. Clarke's predecessor's predecessor was Lord MacLaurin, the then boss of Britain's dominant supermarket, Tesco. If Atherton, the then England captain, had received a pound for every time MacLaurin said "If one of my store managers said that", he wouldn't have needed one of the central contracts that MacLaurin eventually succeeded in introducing.

In business, money doesn't talk, it shouts. In business, bosses are answerable to shareholders (at least in theory) and they may take little notice of the interests of the wider public. In business, the bosses are centre-stage. In business, television and radio play little part, and the newspapers are mostly biddable. Sport is different - or it should be.

Clarke brings many things to the job, and the most important of them may not be his experience running Majestic Wine, his years building up Pet City, his time as Somerset chairman, or his role in the great British self-storage explosion of the past few years. It's just as relevant, if not more so, that he speaks some Hindi and Urdu, and that he sits on the Learning and Skills Council and the Adult Learning Committee.

Clarke's stint as chairman will be interesting to watch. The meetings he is going to chair are going to be so lively, he should think about selling the TV rights to them

Atherton paints a convincing picture of a character who is determined, dynamic and impatient for change. That could be just what the ECB needs, though how far it will allow the new broom to sweep remains to be seen. The worry is that Clarke has already shown a tendency to see what he wants to see. In cricket he is best known as the man who took Test matches off terrestrial television by selling all the British rights to Sky. When Atherton tackled him about this, he said: "Young sports fans in this day and age have access to Sky TV - that's a fact." Well, actually five out of eight homes in Britain don't have Sky. That's about 15 million households. Is Clarke seriously arguing that they don't contain any young sports fans? And then calling it "a fact"?

Another thing about businessmen is that they are not very used to having anyone argue back at them. The Sky decision provoked widespread dismay, with many fans taking the view that the extra money would not be worth the loss of two-thirds of the audience and the risk that cricket might end up in a middle-class ghetto. "I was portrayed," Clarke says, "as a combination of Hitler and Attila the Hun for taking cricket off terrestrial television, but it was the right thing to do." Hang on. Somebody accused him of resembling a genocidal dictator? I don't think so. Rule one of civilised discourse: don't bring Hitler into it. It's telling that Clarke can't refute the argument without misrepresenting it.

If business isn't an adequate parallel for sport, what is? The field sport most resembles is national heritage, especially the great museums. They, too, are owned by the nation, enjoyed by both adults and children, admired by visitors, and tied up with our sense of who we are. There's a reason why sport is lumped, in the world of British government departments, with culture and the media. And like cricket the big museums are a lot less stuffy and more engaging than they used to be, while still retaining their historic resonance.

As Atherton says, Clarke's stint as chairman will be interesting to watch. The meetings he is going to chair are going to be so lively, he should think about selling the TV rights to them.

Tim de Lisle is the author of Young Wisden: A New Fan's Guide to Cricket, reviewed here. His website is www.timdelisle.com

RSS Feeds: Tim de Lisle

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by joshilay on (October 31, 2007, 11:57 GMT)

The article above by S.A.Newton really sums up this issue and is very well rendered, the last para speaks about the essence which sport is all about. Exccerpt- "Another difference between sport and business is sport's inter-dependency. If every other supermarket chain was reduced to corner shop status, MacLaurin would have been rubbing his hands with glee. Not so with sport - who'd want to watch Australia v Namibia or Arsenal v Barnet ad nauseam? Sport needs competition, business hates it."

Posted by S.A.Newton on (October 31, 2007, 3:11 GMT)

Can't entirely agree with Mike's comment, not everything boils down to money. Sure, it can help, but administration and excitation (if you will) are not synonymous. Mike says that consistent success for English cricket will NOT come about without sufficient resources. Er, I'm glad the West Indies didn't hang their hat on that hobbled idea during the mid seventies and eighties. They were creaming the world for at least a decade at that time and they were not exactly swimming in money. What they did have, was a suite of great cricketers and ex-cricketers with passion for the game. You cannot fully generate grass-roots enthusiasm for a sport if a decent proportion of youngsters don't get to watch it on free-to-air television. Hell, you've already got to compete with football, (a less pervasive problem in Australia for example). You don't need to make it any harder than it is for kids to watch a game. This stealing from Peter to pay Paul attitude is typical of administrators.

Posted by igorolman on (October 30, 2007, 17:54 GMT)

I'd prefer the term 'non-profit organisation'. You'd be happy to make a profit, but it's not the be-all and end-all. As long as you're a going concern and are breaking even or can demonstrate that you're not going under any time soon the on-field performances are more important. Take football, for example. What business would allow a company to spend over 200% of its annual turnover on a piece of equipment with a short useable lifespan and which would directly replace another part which was equally expensive two years ago? Yet that's what transfers are. If Ronaldinho or Shearer will win you the league, you buy him. Simple as. The money doesn't come in to it. Another difference between sport and business is sport's interdependency. If every other supermarket chain was reduced to corner shop status, MacLaurin would have been rubbing his hands with glee. Not so with sport - who'd want to watch Australia v Namibia or Arsenal v Barnet ad nauseam? Sport needs competition, business hates it.

Posted by Mike_Daniels on (October 30, 2007, 14:55 GMT)

Sorry Tim, Cricket is indeed a business. You'll just have to accept the fact. As a business, it provides a livelihood for players, officials and journalists - or are you doing this on an unpaid basis?

The business of developing English and Welsh Cricket cannot be done without generating sufficient income. The ECB generates nowhere near enough yet and will need to grow its revenue streams. This is a major task for the new Chairman and I wish him well at it.

A consistently successful English Cricket Team and a thriving domestic game will not come about without sufficient resources. If you want a professional approach taken to the game you have to accept that the game is a profession, a business, and that profit makes things possible. There will, of course, be other, more romantic outputs of the game - success and entertainment among them - as there have always been.

Is Clarke the right man for the job? Have you say below
Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Tim de LisleClose
Tim de Lisle Tim de Lisle is a former editor of Wisden. He fell in love with newspapers at the age of seven and with cricket at the age of 10. He started in journalism at 16, reviewing records for the London Australian Magazine, before reading classics at Oxford and writing for Smash Hits, Harpers & Queen and the Observer. He has been a feature writer on the Daily Telegraph, arts editor of the Times and the Independent on Sunday, and editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly, where he won an Editor of the Year award. Since 1999, Tim has been the rock critic of the Mail on Sunday. He is deputy editor of Intelligent Life, the new general-interest magazine from the Economist. He writes for the Guardian and makes frequent appearances as a cricket pundit on the BBC and Sky News.
Related Links

'The man who had a winning impact'

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss VVS Laxman's match-winning skills

    'If I were a fruit, I'd be an orange'

Jonny Bairstow talks red hair, team-mates to avoid while batting, and what to see in Yorkshire

Once a rat in blue, now the Kohinoor

The Cricket Monthly: Kamran Abbasi hates to love Virat Kohli
Download the app for: iPad | for Android tablet

    A touch of Bradman

Hundred in a session? Easy peasy for Doug Walters. Ashley Mallett on his old team-mate's way with a stroke

The Lahoris in the CLT20

Hassan Cheema: They aren't as awe-inspiring as their predecessors, but they will do well if they keep the traditions of their city alive

News | Features Last 7 days

Youngest double-centurions, and the oldest living Test players

Also, the closest ODI team match-ups, most catches in a T20, and expensive Test debut five-fors

I got more than I expected - Shastri

ESPNcricinfo spoke to Ravi Shastri, India's new team director, after the conclusion of the tour of England, where MS Dhoni's team lost the Tests, won the ODIs and then lost the only Twenty20 international

From Constantine to Chanderpaul

As West Indies play their 500th Test, here's an interactive journey through their Test history

The contenders to replace Ajmal

Following the bowling ban on Saeed Ajmal, ESPNcricinfo picks five bowlers Pakistan may replace him with for the time being

Soaring in the 1980s, slumping in the 2000s

In their pomp, West Indies had a 53-13 win-loss record; in their last 99, it is 16-53. That, in a nutshell, shows how steep the decline has been

News | Features Last 7 days