Franchise cricket’s growing prominence was a hotly debated matter on the sidelines of the World Test Championship final at the Oval last week. Two key proposals, limiting to four the number of overseas players allowed in the eleven in franchise leagues (like IPL) and teams having to pay a release fee of 10% to the player’s member board (IPL franchises pay this amount), were discussed by the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) working group.
While the issue will be taken up at the ICC chief executives committee meeting in South Africa next month, more than one influential member of the panel ‘ruled out any drastic change to the current order’ soon.
Such a move would affect the International League T20, played in the UAE, the most. It allows nine overseas players in the playing eleven, is the best paymaster after IPL (highest priced player gets $450,000 per season) and claims it attracts the highest viewership after IPL. Major League Cricket, starting in the US on July 13, allows a maximum of six overseas players. The Caribbean Premier League, running since 2013, allows teams to field five overseas players.
The basic reason why the ICC working group discussed the proposals was to limit the migration of top players from international to franchise cricket. Trent Boult and Jason Roy refusing national contracts and Quinton de Kock’s early Test retirement – the three will feature in MLC — have raised a red flag. Cricket West Indies has seen an exodus of top T20 players to franchise leagues.
The leagues are not happy with such plans. “It’s nothing but interference in the independent working of a league. Such a proposal has been shot down in the past,” said one league executive, who did not wish to be named. “It is not difficult to identify vested interests. No one’s here to protect Test cricket as it is being projected.”
League officials argue that ILT20 and MLC take cricketers from Associate nations mainstream, while IPL can only occasionally provide a launchpad for someone like Joshua Little, the 23-year-old Ireland left-arm pacer who plays for Gujarat Titans.
With three competing leagues – ILT20, SA20 and BBL crammed in the January-February window, there are allegations and counter-allegations. One senior executive from a league that enjoys a robust domestic talent base called the T20 competitions in the UAE and US ‘a weak attempt to run a parallel world event’.
BIG BROTHER WATCHING
Though not directly affected, BCCI – Indian cricketers can’t play in non-IPL leagues and there are no plans to increase overseas players in IPL – is watching with interest. That’s because the new T20 leagues have drawn the interest of IPL franchises. Mumbai Indians, Chennai Super Kings, Kolkata Knight Riders, Delhi Capitals, Rajasthan Royals, Punjab Kings and Sunrisers Hyderabad all own teams in leagues other than IPL.
Those owning multiple teams are known to have sent feelers to overseas players to sign year-long contracts. There are also murmurs of a Saudi entry by starting a new league.
It’s expected that there will be a lot of resistance to restrictions at the ICC CEC meet, like in the working group. Mubashir Usmani, general secretary of the Emirates Cricket Board – it sanctions ILT20 – is an Associate representative on the ICC committee. KKR, MI and DC have teams in ILT20 and MLC as well. “At the most, there could be a move to regulate future T20 leagues, more stringently,” said the CEO of one board.
The possibility of the 10% player release fee being introduced is also seen as ‘bleak’ because the franchises of member boards run leagues themselves would resist. Many of the leagues are at a nascent stage and don’t make profits like IPL.
[ad_2]