Australian broadcasters argue for radical change

Australian cricket's major broadcasters Channel Nine and Network Ten have warned that international cricket runs the serious risk of being significantly devalued and overrun by domestic Twenty20 unless radical schedule changes provide league structures that viewers and fans can understand.

Speaking to more than 200 delegates at the Australian Cricket Conference (ACC) this week, Amanda Laing, the managing director of Nine, and David Barham, the head of Ten's Big Bash League coverage, both stressed the need for change, in a panel discussion that also featured Geoff Allardice, the ICC general manager of cricket.

The ICC's cricket and chief executives committees are presently working through the details of a plan to overhaul international cricket from top to bottom, with the introduction of leagues for all three formats, and two divisions for Test cricket. The boards of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India have expressed their opposition to change, ahead of meetings scheduled for September and October.

At the last ACC in 2010, major structural changes to Australian cricket - including fundamental reform of Cricket Australia, the governing body, and the introduction of the BBL - were expedited by a mood for change. This time around, the focus was on reforms at a more global level, though this battle must by its nature be fought at ICC committee and board levels.

James Sutherland, the CA chief executive, has been a longtime advocate of changes to the way international cricket is structured, first floating the concepts in discussion this year as far back as 2008. He said Laing and Barham had laid out quite a compelling case.

"We are conscious of some of the comments we've read in the media recently, but as far as I can see, those comments have been overmuch sharply focused on the concept of two divisions for Test cricket," Sutherland said of the opposition to change. "This issue is far broader than that single issue around two divisions. We're talking about three formats, we're talking about a structure from which our corporate partners, our fans and our media partners can all understand the three formats, when they're played and why they're played.

"There's so much more to it before you consider options or alternatives around a commercial model that might see some bundling of rights. As far as I can see, the opposition has been overmuch limited to that issue of divisions around Test cricket. That may or may not be a big issue - I certainly don't see that as being the biggest issue. We've got broad acceptance and alignment around the ICC table, certainly from the chief executives, the need for that context and structure is clearly there.

"I would add that during the conference, we had representatives of our two free-to-air media partners in a panel discussion and they certainly roundly endorsed the concept of international cricket being clearer around structure and context. They saw that as being better for their viewers, cricket fans and their business as a whole. That in itself was a pretty compelling argument, I felt, for us to continue down this path."

The proposed changes include the concept of pooling broadcast rights for bilateral cricket so that the value of the wealthier cricket nations can be combined with that of the rest for a stronger collective result. However, the financial case looks as though it may be overtaken by emotional and traditional arguments against the loss of face represented by relegation to Test cricket's second division. Sutherland said he and other advocates were conscious of addressing these concerns.

"We like to think we're very understanding of that and hearing everyone's thoughts and views on that," Sutherland said. "I understand the temptation to come back and focus on this as a single hurdle issue - there's so much more to it than that and I think it all needs to be put in much greater context. If that is an obstacle, then we need to work through that, but at the same time, those that do see it as an obstacle also need to see a bigger picture about the benefits of having some structure and looking at an alternative commercial model for bilateral rights.

"The reality is that we have three formats the game, we also have emerging T20 competitions where there is high demand for cricket product around the world, and, at times, we're selling against ourselves. At times, we're seeing a diminution in the value of rights. Part of the reason for that research tells us, this is not just us sticking our finger in the air and guessing about it, is because international cricket - Tests, One-Day cricket and T20 internationals - doesn't have the context that the fans are looking for to really understand.

"That each match has real purpose and meaning and context to some sort of league ladder, like the vast majority of sporting competitions played around the world. That's where we see the benefit and the big picture."

Other major agenda items at the conference included the need for greater focus in Australia on bringing more women to the game, renewed discussion of the links between grassroots competitions and elite cricket, and planning for the next ICC event to be hosted in Australia, the World T20 in 2020.

David Peever, the CA chairman, added that the goal of having cricket as part of the Olympics was still very much a priority, despite Indian opposition. "We see the Olympics, as do all other countries bar one, as very important to the development and growth of the game globally and bringing all countries into cricket competition," he said. "The discussions at the ICC are ongoing and we are continuing to try to work through the issues which are making it difficult for India to at this point agree.

"We'll continue to do that and work as vigorously as we can to try to bring this about. We believe in it very strongly and really want to make it happen if we can. One of the starting points is the Commonwealth Games in 2022 in Durban; there will be Women's cricket at that. That's not cricket at the Olympics, but it is a start. We'll continue to work through it at Board level and with the ICC."