Most of the IPL franchisees are likely to lose their investments ‘big time’; Ashish Ray explains why

     There are clearly mixed reactions to the impending Indian Premier League (IPL). Real international cricket is, obviously, a five-day contest, extending equal opportunity to batsmen and bowlers. One-day cricket has been and still is a tabloid translation of the game — conceived and executed out of economic necessity. 20:20 was devised as an entry-level format to fit the limited appreciation of Americans, so as to lure their big bucks.
   Now, ironically, in a country where cricket — albeit more the one-day variety — is a matter of faith, the introductory form is about to be launched with a razzmatazz the late Kerry Packer, TV tycoon and creator of the rebel World Series Cricket in Australia in 1977, might have relished.
   The shortest version of the sport was piloted in England in 2003 and proved to be an immediate success. Indeed, this impact influenced the International Cricket Council (ICC) to hold an inaugural ‘World Twenty20’ in South Africa last September, which was also a huge hit.
Interestingly, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) strenuously opposed the hosting of such an event at ICC forums; and was virtually dragged kicking and screaming to participate. In fact, the Indian side, with no experience of 20:20 and with stars like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid opting out, not to mention leader of their pace attack Zaheer Khan being rested, were nothing but an experi-mentally selected unit.
   Consequently, the exultation of the BCCI that followed was not only disingenuous, but its response com-pletely disproportionate to the achieve-ment. Winning a 20:20 tournament by no means made India world champions. Yet, India’s cricket officials reacted as if it had. Furthermore, to reward the winners with extraordinary riches, where the epic win in a test match on a fiery wicket at Perth has gone unremunerated, reflects a shocking absence of cricketing values.

  More obscene was the exploitation of the success by BCCI president Sharad Pawar’s political party, the Indian National Congress, which plastered Mumbai with posters and hijacked the cricketers’ double-decker journey from the airport to the city as well as the function that followed for the winners.
   20:20 took off phoenix-like because of the unexpected success of the Indian team in the tournament in South Africa; and because unsuspecting Indians, who constitute a majority of cricket followers in the country today, failed to detect the spurious nature of a competition, where a bowler’s primary objective is to obtain a dot ball! The TV audience for the India–Pakistan final, in fact, extracted record ratings and equally healthy advertising revenues.
   Cricket has increasingly become coveted property for Indian TV channels. Earlier this decade, Zee TV appeared to win a bid for rights to matches under the auspices of the BCCI, but was eventually denied such a licence. Relations between BCCI and Zee soured further after the latter abandoned coverage of BCCI’s offshore ODIs last year, citing discriminatory treatment.
   When Subhash Chandra-owned Essel Group, controllers of Zee, proposed a 20:20 event with the approval and cooperation of BCCI, the latter didn’t even bother to acknowledge receipt of this communication. Pawar reportedly suspected takeover of Indian cricket as being Chandra’s real agenda.
   Chandra, with Kapil Dev at the helm, however, proceeded with the staging of an inaugural Indian Cricket League (ICL) in December 2007, which, notwithstanding the odds (including non-availability of grounds under the administration of affiliated associations of BCCI), was, according to man-of-the-series Ian Harvey, a superbly organised tournament. It also attracted enthusiastic crowds at the stadium near Chandigarh where it was held, not to mention decent TV viewership.

  Since it was meant to be a show to drive Zee Sports, the fact that this channel didn’t have to pay for the rights was a significant saving. But it still wasn’t clear how the venture would break even without adequate sponsors. Yet, the second edition of ICL, with more overseas players, including New Zealand’s fast bowler Shane Bond, will take place in March, ahead of the first IPL extravaganza.
   ICL, as a matter of fact, has several English cricketers in its fold, which IPL doesn’t, because its programme clashes with the county season and England’s test schedule.
   A fixation with 20:20 can have a debilitating effect on world cricket. India’s obsession with one-day cricket after winning the World Cup in 1983 certainly harmed its performance in the 1990s. Indian players have, since, creditably risen to Number Two in Test rankings; and continued success in this sphere could make them genuinely world champions.
   Meanwhile, borrowing ideas from the United States, England and Australia, the BCCI has erected IPL, franchised eight teams, who then splashed US$40 million to acquire players at a much-talked-about auction at a five-star south Mumbai hotel. If IPL has drawn inspiration from the English Premier-ship League, then it needs to be stated that no club in England would ever pay more money for a novice than the world’s highest-rated player! Such incon-sistency was an insult to some of the cricketers.
   If potential non-availability was the cause of the comparative lack of interest in the Australian superstars Ricky Ponting and Mathew Hayden, then why did Andrew Symonds fetch such a hefty sum? Did he mislead his buyers by assuring them he would play in IPL rather than tour Pakistan? It has since been pointed out to him that he would be in breach of his contract with Cricket Australia, if he did.
   The six-week schedule of the IPL clashes with international cricket in the West Indies and England, as well as English county cricket. This means, West Indians, New Zealanders, Sri Lankans and Australians will, partly if not wholly, be preoccupied during this year’s tourney. English cricketers were not listed in the auction, in any case. If Australia eventually undertake a trip to Pakistan then, depending on its dates, the Pakistanis could also be constrained to take part initially.
   In short, without an ICC-facilitated window, the IPL may find it difficult to live up to the hype that’s preceded it. And the ICC cannot justifiably set a precedent of interfering with the Future Tours Programme (which lasts till 2012) for what is a domestic event. At a meeting of member cricket boards’ chief executives in Malaysia in February, the BCCI did not raise the matter either. BCCI can, of course, provide a financial incentive to other boards to free the necessary space. Such a move would require the support of seven of the 10 full members of the ICC, a two-thirds majority, to be carried.
   ICL, while approved in principle by Pawar, is the construction of former BCCI president Inderjit Bindra and Lalit Modi, one of its vice-presidents. It has met with sharp criticism from at least three political parties. Pawar, a senior minister in the union cabinet, cannot afford to ignore such reaction. A question mark also hangs over the opinion of Shashank Manohar, who takes over as BCCI president in September. In short, Messrs Bindra and Modi cannot possibly elicit the endorsement of other boards without processing this through the BCCI; and will be forthcoming only if they enjoy the wholehearted confidence of colleagues notorious for their shifting loyalties.

  The key to IPL’s success is authentic international participation. Notwith-standing the attractions of the Indian big-hitters, it is doubtful if there will be enough public interest in matches if they do not possess sufficient international flavour. Also, while it is reasonable to expect inhabitants of a city to root for this metropolis’ team, such support cannot be taken for granted.
On the other hand, the novelty of three hours’ evening entertainment in a cricket stadium — as opposed to a cinema hall — could spur ticket sales.
   It takes decades to establish a loyal supporters’ base. Neither Manchester United nor East Bengal (India’s most popular football club) conjured this overnight. Anything short of packed houses for matches could transmit an impression of failure. Besides, lower-than-expected television audiences would restrict advertising rates.
   Ten-year TV rights have been sold to Sony Entertainment Television for US$1 billion. Having recently fallen behind rivals Star TV and Zee in terms of TRPs and profits, Sony may try to recapture lost ground by going head-to-head with blockbuster soaps, not to mention Kaun Banega Crorepati? the Indian remake of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? It is said to be devising broad spectrum evening entertainment and not just cricket.
   Will the franchisees be able to recover their significant investments? They will, of course, receive a handout from the central pool. But each may be required to earn around US$20 million from six weeks’ sponsorships and ticket sales for a handful of games under their jurisdiction and, otherwise, merchandising.
   For Reliance (Mumbai franchisee) a loss would be small change. In any case, both Reliance and United Breweries (Bangalore franchisee) can allocate such shortfalls as brand building or marketing expenditure. A respected marketing guru in Mumbai says most of the others ‘are likely to lose big time’.

Ashish Ray is author of One-Day Cricket: The Indian Challenge (more about this on www.amazon.co.uk) and commentator on live cricket on SKY SPORTS.

top