February 13, 2010 : Given the number of personal mentions in Mike Atherton’s piece on Thursday 11th Feb, I thought it worthy of a response on behalf of the Rajasthan Royals. Notwithstanding, the journalistic shots at my personal attire , the article raises some important questions.

The thrust of Atherton’s article is around the dangers of the ‘money men in cricket’. Personally, I make no apologies for having a financial motivation in the way that we have built, and continue to run, the Rajasthan Royals. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the financial focus has helped our decision-making, and ensured that as much as possible, our decisions have optimised around ‘what cricket fans want’ – which we believe is, and should be, the only true arbiter of what is good for the game. Today’s cricket fans ideally want high quality cricket, their team to win and for those in stadium to be entertained when the cricket is not on.

• We are accused of being disingenuous about being the ‘world’s first global sports franchise’, and trying to run the game ‘along the football model’. The football business model is a flawed one for anyone with any commercial motivation. I have always said that one of the greatest aspects of the IPL is the presence of salary caps, a powerful governing council, and a single uniform player drafting system. Doesn’t sound too much like a football model?
• The article criticises county chief executives for engaging with India. Indeed, it could be argued that it has been the inability and slowness of English cricket to engage with India that has cost cricket in England dear. Were sporting critics in England as vocal about Porto’s link up with Manchester United, which has been a financial salvation for a club in a financially weaker market (which is where England are now in the modern cricket world)? Is participation in pre-season tournaments, or the sourcing of talent for an infinitely more lucrative league, or the sharing of kit and sponsorship deals such a bad thing for clubs that are largely insolvent , save for subsidies from the governing body?
• The observation that boards must remain in control of tournaments and fixture schedules is one that I agree with in principle. However, the blanket ‘sanctioning of any cricket to be played in England’ might appear somewhat draconian. The author may well remember the struggle that we had together, to play a charity match in 2007. Indeed, English cricket has found itself restrained from expanding its trade on several occasions due to the all encompassing nature of its television contract with one of the world’s finest examples of a business monopoly.
• The ECB are urged ‘to look sharp’ – and positioned as the protectors of the invading ‘money men’. These were the same regulators that indeed ‘looked sharp’, when their response to the IPL was an attempted new tournament in the Middle East, and a partnership with Allen Stanford. Would engagement with India have been a better strategy?
• The suggestion that there is some coordinated ‘movement aimed at the wholesale reorganisation of cricket along football lines’ is flattering, grand and great journalism. However, I must explode the myth, and admit that what lies behind our announcement is purely an attempt to create a compelling and viable financial model for a young, fast growth business that apparently (according to the 22,000 fans that turned up at Lords in July) seems to have international appeal. Is that so wrong?
• The IPL is then criticised for a tie up with YouTube – a deal which makes the tournament more accessible than any other cricket tournament in the world – how is that bad for the development of the game, and the attraction of new fans? Some might even argue that a tie up with a satellite monopoly, simply because they paid more, is a more detrimental thing ?
• Hampshire are then criticised for giving up tradition, and adding Royals to the name – a brand that is only three years old. The name it replaces is not Hampshire but Hawks, and that is a full six years old. Is it so bad that a county earns income for a property that previously provided zero income to the club?
• The last criticism is that we deny being in it to change the face of the game. The writer is well aware that I have been a long term investor and constant advocate of commercially developing the game of cricket; resulting in personal monetary losses, and gains, along the way. As in most industries, a natural by product of any business that provides superior returns tends to be some form of innovation, and I do think we are changing the face of the game, but as a by product of commercial innovation. I cannot be guilty of two primary motivations?

Personally, I still prefer the lure of test cricket to the shorter form of the game, However, I make no assumption that I, or indeed any single person, can or should try to be the arbiter of ‘what is good for the game’. Perhaps, naively, I think that is the right of the consumer? For the game to prosper in England, or indeed any other country, it needs private investors along , with strong regulators (as the financial sector has learnt). However, there is sadness about constantly looking back at tradition as a reason not to change, and labelling commercial motivation, or attempts at sporting innovation, as bad.

The IPL has had many positive a massive impacts on the game, but it is young, fast growth and still has much to develop. It has succeeded largely because it has been designed around its target consumer – recognising the mix that appeals to Indian cricket fans; creating a TV product for the increasingly valuable Indian eyeballs; satiating people’s desire for ‘more in less time’, and responding to the fact that the internet is an increasingly pervasive medium. The commercial motivation that has underpinned its creation seems to have worked with many fans (over 130 million each year to be precise); it has generated $200m of new revenue for cricket boards around the world; added $70m per annum to the pay packets of cricketers; and given an opportunity to more under 22 year olds than in any domestic cricket league in the world. It is also true that investors who have collectively committed close to $650m as risk capital on the basis of a prospectus and a business plan have made and seek to make, a return.

Commercial motivation in itself is not a bad thing, but I agree that in sport it needs to be regulated. Without commercial motivation we might all end up writing cricket articles for free – which I presume must be the case with the author, given his distaste for making money out of cricket?

Back