Big bucks at play

It’s a game that will run on money, high stakes, star players and glamour. The BCCI-backed Indian Premier League is all set to roll out high-powered cricket that could possibly change the nature of the game. But will spectators pay for this form of cricket, asks Abhijit Chatterjee

From left: Business tycoon Vijay Mallya, IPL official Lalit Modi and Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan at the recent IPL auction in Mumbai. — Photos by Reuters/ PTI

It is something akin to the mahurat of a Bollywood film. The stage has been set. The team owners are ready, the superstars are in place (with their pockets overflowing even though the shooting is yet to start), and the infrastructure is perfect. The Indian Premier League (IPL), a heady mix of glitz, glamour with some Twenty20 cricket thrown in, is all ready to take off in April with the eyes of the whole cricketing world on it.

The only thing missing in the scheme of things of the organisers are the spectators. But, according to the pundits in the BCCI who have drawn up the format of the IPL, spectators should be coming in droves when the tournament gets underway on April 18 at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore. But how realistic is this project of the BCCI which may rewrite all the rules of the game is a question nobody is willing to answer.

The huge money paid by the franchise holders as also the million of dollars paid by the various teams for the players is something unheard of in cricket. The prize money for winning the tournament is more than what has been picked up by the winners of the World Cups or the inaugural Twenty20 World Championship, all put together. One reason why the BCCI has embarked on the project was India’s win in the tournament in South Africa. A young squad with no big names led by a brand new captain captivated the hearts of millions of fans in the country like never before. It was this win which sowed the seeds of the IPL.

One more reason why the project was taken up by the BCCI was the launch of the Indian Cricket League (ICL) with 1983 World Cup winning captain Kapil Dev as its driving force. The success of this so-called rebel league must have spurred the BCCI to act fast because it was in this format that many could see the future of cricket.

The IPL could well usher in a revolution in a game which has changed a lot over the years. The first changes in cricket, a sport in which the five-day format is still said to be the best test to examine the skill and temperament of a player, came in England after World War II. The difference between "gentlemen" and "players" started blurring there, with the two segments willing to sink their different status and get along with the game. Then came the World Cup in 1975 with the teams slugging it out in a slam-bang affair where the traditional way of playing was given the go-by.

But what changed one-day cricket upside down was a man who answered to the name of Kerry Packer. In 1977, miffed by the refusal of Cricket Australia to grant television rights to his Channel Nine, he roped in players from across the world (barring India where greats like Sunil Gavaskar refused to take his monetary bait) to form a rebel league. It was this league which introduced night cricket, coloured clothing and white balls, as also innovative way to televise the game, all of which we take for granted in contemporary one-day cricket.

This rebel league did not last long but what was introduced by him was adopted by the establishment and improved for making the game more spectator-friendly. And the Twenty20 format only helped to make the game quick and furious. This in the long run made cricket more professional and the players were not inhibited about bargaining for more money, a thing they would not have dared to do in the "gentlemen’s" era. And, that Channel Nine could regain the TV rights of cricket in Australia only goes to show that the bottomline is money.

The money which the board has earned by auctioning of the eight teams in the fray has been mind-boggling. In 2006, the combined income of the 18 English counties was `A378 million, barely exceeding the `A356 million that Reliance paid for the rights of the Mumbai team. True, the money will be paid over 10 years but then the IPL season is only of 44 three-hour days, while each county team plays cricket for six months on an average. Talking still further of money, the BCCI will be getting more than $1 billion from Sony television and the Singapore-based World Sports group for 10 years of television rights. Compared to this, the International Cricket Council (ICC) earned just half the amount for the telecast rights of the ICC World Cup and the Champions Trophy for seven years. But this is only the beginning. The current list of players has nobody from England as the English domestic season clashes with the IPL season. But for how long can the England Cricket Board keep their players away from the big bucks? The day is probably not far when players like Monty Panesar or Andrew Flintoff, who have a decent fan following in India, would be drawn by the big money. They might pull out of domestic matches to rake in the moolah in India.

When the BCCI worked out the format of the league, it told the ICC that the tournament would not interfere with Future Tour Programmes, which govern the tours undertaken by teams to various countries. But things seem to be different now. Seeing the popular appeal of the tournament (even if the first delivery is to be sent down), there are reports that the BCCI wants the tournament to be included in the Future Tour Programmes so that all the players the BCCI wants are free to play in India. The ICC is wary of doing so since they know the financial clout of the Indian board could well steamroll over the international body as it nearly did in the "monkeygate" issue.

All said and done, the only thing over which the BCCI has still no control is the spectator response to the tournament. For a country high on nationalistic fervour with flag-waving crowds at every international fixture, will the ordinary cricket follower be willing to back city-based squads is a question difficult to answer. However, spectators are expected to root for players who belong to their cities.

One would be tempted to say "yes" since the tournament would be packaged and sold in Bollywood style just as the rebel series did in its inaugural edition in Panchkula. But, there is a small difference. The rebel league was played at a venue where the capacity of the stands was limited and therefore easy to fill. In contrast, the IPL matches will be played in much larger stadiums and the ticket price, if high, could keep the spectator away, especially in the later matches. The BCCI will have to work hard to get the paying public to the grounds, and that too right through the tournament since the concept of city-specific competition will have to be marketed, and marketed well, to make it a success.

Talking of city-specific fans, the argument given is that English football squads have a lot of fans who follow the team across Europe to back their squads. But it must be remembered that this fan culture has grown over decades and has not happened overnight. And it must be remembered that in the case of football, clubs came first and then the country as the soccer World Cup was introduced decades after the club tournaments were started. In the case of the IPL, the World Cup is ingrained in the minds of the followers who will have to retune themselves to support their city teams if the tournament is to draw spectators.

But for all this the bottomline is simple: money talks and it speaks a language which both players and administrators understand. The IPL has proved even before a single ball has been bowled that money is one thing which can overcome tiredness, burnout or overexposure in the game. And now one waits for the spectators to respond.

Billion-dollar baby

The IPL made easy for the layman

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) launched the Indian Premier League (IPL) on September 14, 2007. Based on the lines of the English Premier League (EPL) and the American National Basketball League (NBA), the IPL is said to be the brainchild of BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi. The idea was first floated in 1996 but was shot down as the board felt it would go against the zonal system of domestic cricket. The project moved into top gear when the Zee group launched the Indian Cricket League on similar lines in April 2007.

The franchisees will own the eight teams in the fray. They can run them in their own styles, bring their own sponsors and even name the team according to their choice. They will even be free to list their teams on the stock exchange.

Under lights, on a home-and-away basis, in the cities that have formed the teams. The league opens on April 18 and will see 59 matches spread over 44 days

The overall prize money will be $5 million, with the winners taking home $2 million. The remaining will be up for grabs in different forms, like Man-of-the-Match awards and cash prizes. By contrast, the winners of the 2007 World Cup in the Caribbean took home $1 million; the Indian team that won the Twenty20 World Cup got half of that. TV rights have already gone for over $1 billion to Sony Entertainment and World Sports Group. Franchisees have committed close to $723 million. Top players are expected to earn minimum Rs 1-2 crore per season.

With the league scheduled for April this year, the IPL has sold the eight teams to corporate houses and signed leading players. Indian stars like Sachin Tendulkar (Mumbai) and Sourav Ganguly (Kolkata) are the "icon players" who can play only for their respective cities. They were not part of the recent auction, where 77 players were bought by various franchisees.

Quote shoot

I have been critical in the past of BCCI’s failure to exploit the commercial power of India’s remarkable passion for the game. Time will tell whether the IPL has a positive or negative effect on the game.

The IPL is going to be quite exciting and in the first year there will be a lot of interest. After that, it is really going to depend on how it picks up. I think the quality of cricket is important.

Twenty20 has been big at the domestic level for most of this decade in England, South Africa and Australia. If the ICC had developed Twenty20 to its potential instead of trying to keep a lid on it, there might not have been any need for an IPL to counter the ICL.

It’s OK to play in the IPL but the satisfaction and pride that you get by playing for India is unbeatable. You just cannot compare it with playing for your national team.

It’s a total commercial venture and it won’t be of any good to Indian cricket. If somebody says they are doing it for the development of cricket, he is wrong.

So long as Indians are going to be on board with the mass audience and power they have in world cricket, it is a great endorsement for the Twenty20 format to go further.

Both leagues (ICL and IPL) have basically been launched for the same purpose — to make money. Why are players signing up for the ICL being ostracised, while those who would play for the IPL enjoy the best of both worlds?