The historical significance of Zee's league is that it has goosed the BCCI into announcing the Indian Premier League, a Twenty20 competition. Like the ICL the IPL will be made up of clubs operating franchises, in this case, sold by the BCCI.

If this happens it'll be the most important re-structuring of Indian cricket since the abolition of the Pentangular (made up of teams based on religion and ethnicity) and the institution of the Ranji Trophy (which instituted the territorial principle in domestic first-class cricket). In fact this is so important that it is hard to believe that the coterie of politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen who run the BCCI have thought through the implications of their move.

If companies invest in franchises, if they pay large sums of money for the the privilege of participating, if they spend millions buying and selling players, they will want a share of the gate money and the television revenue that the league generates. The BCCI has already announced that they have foreseen this and franchises will be given their share. Which begs the crucial question: why would the franchisees in the long term leave the running of the league to a bunch of shamateur administrators voted in via shambolic elections who have no money invested in the league's success or failure? The BCCI seems to believe that it can privatize the game while keeping its honorary featherbeds intact. I don't think it can.

If the IPL works in its first two seasons, the pressure to franchise other forms of the game will be pretty much irresistible. Fifteen years ago the idea that a first-class cricket team ought to represent a franchise rather than territorial belonging would have appalled Indians. But the example of live league football beamed in from Europe has persuaded many of us that teams can generate excitement and loyalty without being tethered to the principle of territorial representation. Once a cricket competition based on franchises succeeds, I predict there will be no resistance to renaming Mumbai's Ranji trophy team, the Bombay Banshees. Maybe there'd be more than one Bombay first-class club team given the richness of its cricket culture. The Worli Whirlwinds, perhaps, or (why not) the Colaba Clubmen?

The prospect of India hosting cosmopolitan cricket leagues for Twenty20, ODI and First-Class cricket, run in a business-like way, with decent ground facilities and players from anywhere—Kenya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, the West Indies—would so tickle the fancy (and vanity) of Indian audiences that I'm certain that the system would have a sporting chance of making money. If it did, the cannier members of Indian cricket's bureaucracy would see the writing on the wall and make their peace with the club barons by inviting them into the boardroom of what once used to be the BCCI.

And Mr Subhash Chandra would not only have the opportunity to bid for television rights all over again, he would have the priceless satisfaction of knowing that he, out of his disinterested concern for Indian cricket, was responsible for the revolution. That, surely, would be its own reward.

Interesting article.
In soccer there is still some territorial
aspect to the clubs, this is especially important for the smaller clubs.
I think a bit of soccer culture would be
great for the game .But more money and corporatization will bring their own set of problems.

I have to admit to being a bit cynical here, for the reasons Kesevan mentions. It is not clear to me that BCCI are really serious about following through with the Premier League, or are simply grandly announcing this in order to pull the rug from under the ICL's feet. The ICL's future is looking increasingly shaky, and one would expect to see players who have already signed with ICL attempting to back out. However, if it turns out the ICL never gets off the ground after all or folds after one season, I would expect the BCCI to suddenly announce that after "reflection" it had decided not to go through with the Premier League after all.

The ICL exixtance will definitely prove much better as it is up in their mind to find out the best cricketers who are being sidelined by the BCCI. BCCI depend much on the Senior players and neglect the upcoming cricketers, which India has.
In order to encourage the young neglected cricketers, ICL's bold step is commendable. There is no hide and seek in their attitude. It is the not the money that matters it is the stuff that matters. Three cheers to ICL and wish them all the best.

If BCCI were really interested in the welfare of the domestic cricket players and in grooming younger players for the future why are they increasing the pay hikes and a new cricket league after the announcement of ICL. They should have done it years before. It is a shame for the BCCI that the national team doesnot have the bench strength to replace the older players. I am sure the words of "skchai" who has commented here, might come true if ICL fails to take off.

If the corporatisation (as opposed to the commercialisation) of Indian cricket does go ahead, it can only be good for cricket administration in India and across the world.

Lord MacLaurin showed the ECB how a firm business mind can bring great rewards; let's hope bringing business brains into the upper echelons of Indian cricket will do good.

Mukul, first of all congratulations on your fantastic book 'Men in White'. I finally managed to get hold of a copy from India. A fan couldn't have written a better one.

However, on this article i don't agree that Chandra would be doing good to Indian cricket inadvertently or otherwise. Not much good will come out of this war between IPL and ICL, except some more money to the players. You who have followed the ramblings of BCCI for so many years should know that. This is a battle of one-upmanship and different sets of players are pawns in this game with a few more crumbs to be collected in the way. BCCI will function in the same way as it has done in the past. For that to change the structure of BCCI itself has to change. For a couple of years they may run it well but then we will see the seriousness taper off. Look at what happened to the Challenger Trophy which was launched with such hype and hoopla and was a good concept when it was launched 10 years back.

I think the problem with comparing soccer to cricket is that soccer is rarely played at a national level- they have a World Cup every four years, plus some minor tournaments in between and some qualifiers. There's a lot more international cricket played, so having clubs drawing in players from who-knoes-where is only going to make things harder on national selectors (who need similar conditions to judge potential national representatives' form and abilities against) and younger players who might not get a look-in. Basically, If domestic cricket in a lot of the world needs a shake-up, then I don't think it should come at the expense of international cricket.

By the way, I completely agree with the need to rename Mumbai to Bombay-officially. When I think of the word Bombay, it brings up images of proud sailing ships, exotic spices, a bustling port of mystery and adventure. When I hear the word Mumbai, I think of pressed white shirts, call centres and instant coffee. It just ain't the same.

So, what happen to ICL now? What about the players that have signed up with ICL?

marcus,
i think you're dead right on the subject of how much of the sport is played at an international level. And once the players are employed by the franchises, there is bound to be conflict between club and country. We see this all the time in football, and even in the English cricket scene. The English national side is able to strongarm the counties in terms of player availability because of contracts, etc. but if the franchise league become far more lucrative and rewarding than the international game, how often will the clubs allow their players to be called away for international duty?

Very insightful - a pleasure to read.

Interesting article. Given the hectic launching of ICL and IPL both boasting of quality T20 cricket with "cream of the crop" cricketers it begs the question - how much cricket can the adoring Indian cricket fans take? No question that T20 cricket is exciting and suited to an evening out with kids for some excitement and fun. But with a crowded international schedule where will all this cricket be fit in a manner to not overwhelm an average fan and keep it interesting so the crowds are attracted to the stadia, eyeballs are drawn to the tube, and sponsors feel justified in spending marketing dollars.

Success of the young Indian team in the T20 competition proves that there is talent out there and given the opportunity the "cream" would rise to the top. But not long ago Dilip Vengsarkar was quoted "we do not have any bench strength." To make these games interesting both ICL and IPL have to find and retain talent. Are they up to the task? Franchising would definitely open doors and both organizations can palm off the responsibility to the owners but the owners still have to spend the dollars and run the organizations professionally to ensure success of the leagues. Also BCCI has to ensure that these leagues do not cannibalise international cricket.

Obviously, there are many hurdles along the way if both the leagues stay the course. I, for one, look for a day when, after a hard day at work, I can lay on a recliner with a beer and watch an exciting game to T20 with the game as exciting as some of those we recently witnessed.

i think the icl could not run bcouz it should not put his in every field icl has been established due to not getting tv rights tht all pakistan save yousuf by not playing in icl