As the July morning served up staple English-summer fare - grey skies, damp air and wet streets - something unusual was brewing in cricket's most traditional sanctum sanctorum, the long room at Lord's.

A cosmopolitan crowd, representing varied interests of cricket from around the world, had assembled for an event titled World Cricket Connects, organised with remarkable perseverance and enterprise by Mark Nicholas, the chairman of the MCC, and longtime ESPNcricinfo columnist. Wherever you looked, you found a person of influence or renown.

There were leaders of global administration, past and present members of cricket boards, cricketers, franchise owners and executives, broadcast bosses, representatives of player associations, player agents, and even a few cricket writers. But it wasn't about who was there; the real significance was that they were in the room together.

No outcome of consequence was expected. The MCC is an organisation of profile not power. But for a sport that seems so insularly governed, to get such an influential, if motley, bunch to engage in deliberations about the state of the game felt like a beginning. At the end of a frenetic day, no tangible solutions to several of cricket's existential problems were in sight, but one would think the participants went back with a greater comprehension of the challenges before them.

The tone for the event was set by Greg Barclay, the soon-to-be former ICC chair, by the submission - startling only because he presided, if only notionally, over the game - that cricket was broken, and indeed ungovernable; sentiments he would share even more pointedly in an interview after demitting office later in the year.

It's a mess and we know it: former ICC chair Greg Barclay admitted in 2024 that cricket is ungovernable, given the way its administration is structured Kai Schwoerer / © Getty Images

The main structural flaw in cricket's governance is easy to spot but nearly impossible to remedy. The ICC is a members' club in the name of a governing body, and the self-interest of members will always trump the wider welfare of the game when the two collide. And the finances of the game are unhealthily dependent on viewership from one country, giving the BCCI enormous sway over global decision-making. From these realities there is no escape.

The game is also mired in several other conflicts, tensions and anxieties. Few off-field personnel bear the brunt of the calendar's congestion as tirelessly as ESPNcricinfo's scoring and match coverage teams. But that is our job. Spectators, on the other hand, have no obligation to watch, and surfeit-induced apathy is a real threat.

The eagerness to cram the calendar is leading to increasing conflicts between players and boards, and boards and private entrepreneurs. It's hard to invoke morality or ideals when commerce is the guiding principle. Boards are keen to protect their own calendars and leagues, players seek sovereignty over their trade, and private investors want more control over players because they are their biggest paymasters and want returns on their investment.

The pinch is already being felt by broadcasters, who have the least control over proceedings despite being the ones forking out the most cash. Because there have always been multiple suitors in a single-sport market, and cricket has traditionally been the single biggest driver for audience acquisition, broadcast-rights fees in the Indian market have surpassed viability by a wide margin. The sale of the BCCI rights registered a degree of course correction in the last cycle, the returns dipping marginally when accounting for inflation, but by all reckoning, the price for the ICC rights in the current cycle is mightily overblown.

But above all, the most fundamental battle is the fight for attention in an attention-deficit environment. By its very nature, cricket, even the shortest versions of it, requires a significant investment of time, and that pits it against the winds of the times, where entertainment is personalised, intimate, and available at the flick of a finger.

Before we explore a way ahead, let's dial back. Many of cricket's anxieties are perennial; they are merely dressed up in contemporary colours in every age. It was worry about Test cricket's length and pace that brought about the proliferation of one-day cricket; it was a conflict over control that brought about the Kerry Packer intervention, which fuelled the most radical changes in the game in the last century. Twenty20 was born out of anxiety about the duration of the 50-over game; the IPL, however audacious and visionary it may seem, was also, at least in part, a response to the Indian Cricket League, a Packer-like rebel league.

Who pays the piper? Broadcast money funds cricket, but the current costs of cricket rights do not seem to compute © Getty Images

Unlike many established sports, cricket, known for long for its attachment to tradition, has been in evolving for a significant part of the last 50 years, but most seminal changes in the game were born out of reaction to crises, both real and perceived; they were not the outcome of vision, foresight and planning. T20, without doubt, has been the game's biggest growth driver, but in the mushrooming of T20 leagues there are discernible signs of herd mentality, FOMO, opportunism, and the attendant chaos these bring. And the leagues often seem to exist in a parallel universe, outside of the ICC's purview, making up their own regulations and rules of engagement.

The ICC, which on paper has the responsibility of developing and planning for the global game, has retreated to mainly planning around the rights cycle. "Extracting the right value" for cricket seems to be its primary focus. The writ of the ICC is restricted by the will of its members, but as demonstrated by the scheduling and ticketing problems at the men's 50-over and T20 World Cups, and the prolonged uncertainty over the hosting of the Champions Trophy, it hasn't distinguished itself even as an events-management company. The bounty from the rights deal has kept many of the members quiet about the revenue distribution model, but if the broadcast-rights fee falls, as it is expected to, smaller boards are likely to get more restive.

By granting official recognition to so many new leagues, the ICC has opened the door for rampant multiplication without having the necessary regulations in place, or even providing for standard monitoring and safeguards against lurking corruptors.

Cricket is perhaps the only mainstream sport that allows players to represent multiple leagues in multiple countries. This is not by design but just by virtue of unplanned evolution. The BCCI's refusal to allow its men's players to participate in leagues outside India, while it profits from the riches of the global playing pool, is arguably monopolistic, but that has prevented Indian players from indulging in the kind of league- hopping that grows more rampant by the year.

Another day, another league: Afghanistan's top players are among the vanguard of cricket's globetrotting T20 guns for hire © AFP/Getty Images

There is no immediate remedy available: league cricket is still nascent, many leagues last only about a month each, and only so many players can be part of international cricket. But while the current status quo suits most leagues (which get access to a wide international pool of players), and the bulk of the players (who have multiple earning opportunities), in the long run it is identity-diffusing. As the format matures, some kind of regulation will become necessary. The PCB has an informal cap of two leagues per player outside of the PSL.

But it's not all gloom and doom. Which other sport can boast of two, let alone three, viable formats? It's a tribute to cricket's intrinsic scale that it can be played over five days or over three hours, to suit different inclinations and moods. Despite the apparent conflicts and contradictions between them, the formats are also mutually enriching. They have democratised the game for both players and fans by expanding their options.

For all its structural flaws, the game is still growing. The leagues have expanded the player pool. Private investment is allowing boards to stabilise their finances, and there is more money available to develop women's cricket, where the room for growth is immense.

Despite all the worries about its future, Test cricket has had an extraordinary year. It's one thing to have quantity - 2024 featured 53 Tests, the joint second-most this century - but Tests last year did not lack in quality and narrative. It has been the most result-friendly year in Test cricket history, with only three draws, two of them caused by inclement weather. The scoring rate, 3.65, was the fastest of all time, but the bowlers were hardly out of the game, recording a collective strike rate of 48.6, also the deadliest in history. Consequently Tests were also shorter, with 20 of them ending in under 250 overs, which was, you guessed it, the most in history.

But we aren't done yet. The year gone by was, by all reckoning, among the most competitive in Test history. By pulling off the greatest upset of the century in their 3-0 defeat of India, New Zealand provided the biggest headline, but Bangladesh beat Pakistan away and won a Test in the West Indies, West Indies themselves pulled off a heist at the Gabba, and Sri Lanka won a Test in England. Overall, teams recorded 21 overseas wins, also the most - it's getting ridiculous now - in history.

Going into the last week of the year, three teams were in the running to make the World Test Championship final. South Africa, who more or less forfeited a series to New Zealand at the start of the year, to prioritise SA20, their newly minted T20 league, were astoundingly the first to seal their spot.

Cricket doesn't necessarily need this kind of quantity, and the numbers of Tests played will, as they should, decline in World Cup years. But as the year wound up to the sights and sounds of Test cricket, it felt like a semblance of order and harmony had returned. The first half of the year had been T20 season, with the T20 World Cup following the IPL. The baton will now be handed over to leagues in Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh and the UAE, and then it will be time for the Champions Trophy. A format-wise separation of the seasons will not always be as seamless, but 2024 provided the idea for a template.

What cricket, and sport, has over all other forms of entertainment is its emotional core. It engages us in the most primal way and leaves memories. It unites us, and sometimes it divides us. The custodians of the game must never lose sight of the fact that the most intrinsic appeal of sport will be lost if it is reduced to mere entertainment.

Occasionally it will attract attention for pure drama, and connoisseurs will be drawn to the display of skills, but for fans at large, connection matters the most. Spectacle counts for a lot, but meaning, context and narrative are everything. Big tech can provide instant gratification with content, but it can't match the ability of sport to arouse tribal instincts. Sporting performance can't be faked, and sporting drama can't be scripted. Instead of focusing on what cricket can do to make fans spend more, as was suggested at World Cricket Connects, administrators must obsess over doing everything they can to get fans more invested in the game.

Fans will fill the stadiums, but only if the games have context and significance © Cricket Australia via Getty Images

Which means designing a schedule that's aimed not at squeezing out maximum value but at creating events that fans will care about. That is, it can't be emphasised enough, the single biggest make-or-break challenge before cricket. If such a schedule means fewer matches - bilateral ODIs and T20s being played only leading up to major tournaments, and a reduction in the number of Test matches played in limited-overs-tournament years - and less television revenue from bilateral rights, the boards must brace for it. If glut breeds apathy, absence of significance multiplies it.

The leagues, particularly the newer ones, must match their ambitions to the size of their local audience. Projecting attractive viewership numbers from India might make a business plan look attractive, but that balloon has already been pricked by reality.

Test cricket mustn't exist because it is steeped in tradition, imbued in romance, and because those who grew up on it find it the finest exploration of character within an athletic pursuit. It must survive only if it is also seen as foundational in creating more well-rounded cricketers, and if the impact and memories it creates are considered to be profound.

Navigating the way ahead will need vision, pragmatism, concessions, and a spirit of generosity from the powerful; a sense of realism from the smaller boards; and a broader acceptance that the volume of cricket, and the revenues it produces, have to shrink first before they can grow in a sustainable way. To achieve this, cricket will need statesmanship and leadership. It cannot happen without the ICC carrying the torch.

A lot has been said, and whispered, about Jay Shah's ascent to the top chair at the ICC. It's all moot now. What he brings to the table is ambition and the support of the most powerful cricket organisation in the world. When he finishes, he will be judged not by how he got the job but by how he left the game.

More in our look back at 2024

Sambit Bal is editor-in-chief of ESPNcricinfo @sambitbal

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

 

RELATED ARTICLES