I have always been a supporter of taking cricket outside its traditional confines and was an interested observer when these two games in the United States were announced; though even I was a bit sceptical of the time frame.
The US has long been a target, certainly ever since cricket matches were played just across the Niagara in the late nineties. But it was clear then and reinforced in Florida, that even though you might stage matches in distant lands, the real spectators are back home.
It was a start but we are still far from the moneyed tours that European football teams undertake in the East.
And because the more valued audience is at home in India, it makes the start of the second game a very interesting debate.
Remember the game was to start at a specified time but couldn’t because there was a problem with uplinking the pictures to audiences elsewhere? Within that sentence lies the problem that commercial sport must grapple with – Who is the primary audience and who is the game being played for?
The real question in Florida – even assuming you knew when it was going to rain – was who the more valued audience was.
The commercial implication of the loss of 40 minutes, about a quarter of the game, would have been significant for the TV network even if they had tried harder to squeeze the lost advertising in later. (Before you get mad, remember it is the advertising that enables us to see the games at the price at which we do).
So, by delaying the start of the game, the message to the paying public in Florida was: Yes, we need you but we need to protect our primary market first.
The other debate is who controls the start of play in an ICC-sanctioned and recognised tournament when the conditions for play are fine?
Traditionally, once the ground staff hands over the ground to the umpires, they are the sole judges of when to start or suspend play.
Therefore, what is the gravity needed in a situation to allow them to suspend the start of play?
Like judges, I suspect the umpires have to contend with a combination of the practical and the mandatory.
And if they side with the practical, they must be aware of the extent of liberty they can allow.
What if the uplinking had needed another 20 minutes? At what point would they be mandated to start the game? I don’t think we have heard the last of this though I believe there must be rules laid down.
I don’t know the law, but can a spectator, in the land of exotic lawsuits, argue that he paid to witness a result and was denied it?
I believe that, except in unforeseen conditions, you should always start on time and the losses should be borne by whoever is responsible for the delay.
If the light towers go off and play has to be delayed by an hour, in a situation where it cannot be made up, there is a deduction in the TV rights that the staging authority gets.
There has to be an awareness that there are large amounts of money involved and one party cannot always be saddled with the bills.
Beyond control
That was the case in two Test matches recently in the West Indies and in South Africa. Where nature takes its course, and it is beyond everyone’s control, you look upon it as an unforeseen business expense and everyone budgets for it.
But when cricket should be played and isn’t because the host association isn’t responsible enough, it is unfair to expect TV networks, already strained to recover high costs of rights, to be left holding the baby.
In Port of Spain, for example, the West Indies Cricket Board accepted money from their TV partner in return for the right to monetise the coverage. If their negligence leads to loss of play, in effect, they get paid in spite of their ineptitude because the television rights holder isn’t refunded anything.
I can promise you that if cricket boards are made to pay for their negligence through lower rights revenue, they will ensure that the situation we saw last week in the West Indies doesn’t recur.
tabla@sph.com.sg
Get a copy of tabla! for more stories.
