By Liam McCullagh ACS Journalism Scholar (mentored by The Footy Almanac‘s John Harms).
One month since the West Indies and United States hosted the ICC T20 World Cup, and cricket’s future is as murky as ever. One thing is clear though, T20 cricket is imperative to growing the game in associate nations (such as the USA, Namibia, and Canada, etc.). While traditionalists and cricket purists may argue that Test cricket is still the pinnacle of the game, there is an unpredictability in T20 cricket which causes upsets (such as USA beating Pakistan) that cricket fans love. It gives the less renowned cricket nations which have a smaller funding pool the opportunity to increase exposure and perform against the world’s best. The question, however, is: can the two formats successfully coexist and reap the benefit from each other’s gain?
When T20 cricket was introduced to the English summer in 2003, its sole purpose was to attract young families to the game. It would have been impossible to foresee the success the format would have. It has made the game global – nearly every country with an international license has a franchise T20 (or in some cases T10) league where star cricketers travel to play. Some may argue that if not for T20 cricket, and the success of the largest franchise league in the IPL (which began in 2008), that nations like Namibia, Oman or Uganda would never have played in an ICC event. The rise of T20 could be attributed to money. More money equals more advertising (which satisfies sponsors), and salary (which satisfies players). It’s a win-win. The 2023-27 IPL rights alone sold for more than $9 billion dollars. For context, the rights to Indian games across 2024-27 sold for $4.5 billion.
Since the introduction of T20 cricket, the strength of some test playing nations has been significantly weakened. Most notable is the West Indies who have failed to produce Test match teams to the same quality as they did pre T20 cricket. The West Indies demise in red ball cricket, however, saw early success in T20 tournaments, and currently sit at the top of World Cup wins (2, tied with India and England) winning in 2012, and 2016. It is easy to see why West Indian T20 superstars like Chris Gayle, Kieron Pollard and Dwayne Bravo chased the coin in this format. Where the average Australian cricketer earns on average $951,000 a year (according to Sporting News, 2023), the average wage for West Indian national cricketer is $300,000. According to First Post (2023), the IPL pays the average Caribbean cricketer 4-8 times what the West Indies offers them for their services and the IPL only lasts approximately seven weeks. You would be crazy not to chase the money if that was the case.
Lots will be made of whether this year’s T20 World Cup tournament was a success. It depends how you measure it. It showed a clear growing market for cricket in the US, but for now, there are still doubts over whether traditional fans have committed to following the format. It feels like we heard nothing about it from the Australian public. There wasn’t outrage when Australia lost to Afghanistan, or a huge congratulations to India who won the tournament. Another issue may lie with the television rights to the tournament. Not many older cricket fans (particularly Australian’s) tuned into the 2024 T20 World Cup. I barely watched the matches but kept up with highlights on social media. Without social media posts I doubt I would have even seen a ball bowled in this tournament. It was on Amazon Prime, an app I had but still didn’t choose to watch the cricket on. But would I have watched it if it was on free-to-air? Would you have? It could be said that this years’ T20 World Cup speaks to the Australian cricket public’s ethos towards T20 cricket in general. We care about cricket when it is in close proximately or played in a style we identify with.
The ICC’s answer to the undeniable success of the 50-over and T20 World Cup’s is the World Test Championship, but the jury is still out on whether it works. While it ensures every test match matters as it’s played for points, the two-year-long tournament depends on who you play, when you play them and where you play them. It lacks the punchiness and fleeting turnaround the shorter formats have. And due to the difference in wages at the top level for Test cricket it feels like the same five teams are competing every time in the World Test Championship: Australia, India, England, New Zealand and Pakistan. All are pretty much unbeatable at home. It doesn’t have the unpredictable nature of T20 cricket. All you have to do is look at South Africa. Ten years ago, their Test team was phenomenal: Dale Steyn, AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla, Philander, Morkel, the list goes on. A stark comparison to last year when South Africa lost a Test match by 281 to New Zealand and fielded seven uncapped players due to the domestic South African T20 commitments.
T20 cricket has its pros and cons. In theory, quality among smaller associate nations will improve, but over the 20 years since its introduction, the quality of Test playing nations with smaller amounts money have dwindled. T20’s introduction has aided Test cricket in the introduction of the World Test Championship, but it may also be contributing to its downfall.
Can the two formats successfully coexist and reap the benefit from each other’s gain?
I don’t know. Maybe. Does anyone know? I don’t think the players, pundits or spectators know. One thing about cricket’s future is guaranteed. In the next decade there will be more cricket played than ever before, and that’s a good thing.
Australian Cricket Society’s literary scholar Liam McCullagh is mentored by writer John Harms. His pieces are also published at www.footyalmanac.com.au .