India rule the cricketing world, but is their dominance good for the sport?

New York Times

5 hours ago

They are cricket's global superpower both on and, particularly, off the field and begin their marquee Test series against England this week in absolute control of the world game.
But India take to the pitch at Headingley on Friday for the first of five Test matches between the old and new masters of cricket with questions being asked like never before over their suitability as guardians of the second biggest sport in the world. Put simply, do India act in the best interests of cricket, or do they abuse the power that comes with their vast wealth?
Advertisement
Indian cricket has grown as quickly as the economy of the most populous country in the world — they are a nation of 1.4 billion people — with their best players earning huge sums and attracting just as much fanatical attention as even the biggest superstars of world football and the NFL. Virat Kohli, who remains India's biggest star despite retiring from Test cricket ahead of this series, has 274 million followers on Instagram alone.
His social media reach was cited as a key factor in cricket being included in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Broadcasting rights for the latest four-year cycle of global events were sold by the sport's governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC), last year to Disney Star (now Jio Star) to show in India for more than $3bn (£2.2bn).
Even that figure is dwarfed by the income raised by the Indian Premier League (IPL), the franchise competition for short-form Twenty20 cricket that has become one of the biggest and glitziest events in any sport in the world, which saw streaming and TV rights for five years from 2023 attract $6.2bn. To offer some context, there are 74 games in an IPL season.
It is wealth that sees India generate an estimated 80 per cent of the game's global revenue and leaves every other cricketing nation — other than the big two of England and Australia — almost totally reliant on the money they receive both from broadcasting deals when hosting India and in their ICC hand-outs.
According to the most recently available financials of cricket's national governing bodies, the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) $1.2billion in revenues in 2023-24 were $769m greater, or nearly triple, that of the next highest-earning board, England's ECB.
The true revenue gulf is even higher. The BCCI revenues only include the surplus earned by the board from the IPL, after the competition's various costs have been deducted. Including IPL revenues on a gross basis would push the BCCI's annual turnover beyond $1.9bn.
Advertisement
The biggest question mark, though, over cricket's future comes with the growing belief that India, who receive almost 40 per cent of all profits generated by the ICC, are increasingly putting their own interests ahead of that wider responsibility for the game's health.
Those concerns came to a head in March when India's refusal to play any of their matches in a Champions Trophy 50-over world tournament, staged on the home soil of political rivals Pakistan, led to them being allowed to hold all their games in Dubai.
That, in turn, created the ludicrous situation where all four semi-finalists found themselves in the United Arab Emirates — India and New Zealand playing their final group game having qualified for the last four, while South Africa and Australia were waiting to see who would stay in Dubai.
South Africa, having beaten England in Karachi on the Saturday, flew to Dubai on Sunday, but then returned to Pakistan on Monday for their semi-final against New Zealand two days later. Quite apart from the effects on cricket's carbon footprint, the farce did nothing for their preparations. India, the only team to remain in one venue throughout the tournament, ended up winning the final comfortably.
Yet woe betide any of the sport's experts who dare to suggest the dice may be even slightly loaded in India's favour.
Former England captains Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton remain two of the best and most balanced pundits in the game, but they attracted the ire of their fellow commentator and Indian great Sunil Gavaskar for suggesting India had been handed an advantage by playing all their trophy games in one, neutral venue.
'They are always moaning,' Gavaskar, who is never shy in putting India's case for them, said in his column in Indian media outlet Sportstar. 'They just cannot seem to understand where India stand in international cricket in terms of quality, income, talent and, more importantly, in generating revenue.
'India's contribution to global cricket through TV rights and media revenue plays a massive role. They need to understand that their salaries also come from what India brings to the world of cricket.'
The Wisden Cricketers Almanack remains the traditional voice of the game in a modern world of social media and soundbites, the views of the editor of a 1,600-page heavyweight book with its trademark yellow cover still holding sway.
So it was significant that long-serving Wisden editor Lawrence Booth this year chose to highlight the appointment of BCCI honorary secretary Jay Shah — son of Amit Shah, one of the most powerful politicians in India — as ICC chair in his influential notes.
Advertisement
'At 11.59 on the night of November 30, Jay Shah was still honorary secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, who were refusing to send a team to Pakistan in February for the ICC's Champions Trophy,' wrote Booth.
'And when the clock struck midnight, he was transformed into the chair of the ICC, who had been frantically trying to resolve the problem caused by the BCCI. A few weeks earlier, when India confirmed their no-show, a meme on social media depicted a man holding two phones, one to each ear. 'Jay Shah (BCCI) informing Jay Shah (ICC)'. Cricket administration, seldom a laughing matter, was now supplying the punchlines.'
Not that the governing body of the English game, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), are laughing.
Where once the ECB held a hostile view towards the growth of Indian cricket, and the IPL in particular, now they are working more closely with their Indian counterparts than ever before.
Richard Thompson is the chair of the ECB. Having led the growth of English cricket's county superpower in Surrey, he has brought his business acumen and modern thinking to the top of the English game, notably in forging strong ties with India.
Last year, Thompson strengthened those ties further when he masterminded the sale of large stakes in teams created by the Hundred, English cricket's answer to the IPL, with four of the eight franchises going to IPL owners for a combined $700m, unimagined riches for the English domestic game.
'Our relationship with India is very important,' Thompson tells The Athletic. 'England, India and Australia are seen as the big three and we work very closely together. We've got as close a relationship with India as we've ever had. There's real co-operation with the IPL now, which there wasn't in the past, and there's real co-operation on the volume of bilateral international cricket and the commitment to women's cricket.
Advertisement
'It's an old cliche, but I do think India recognise that what comes with great power comes great responsibility. They're not bullies. They understand the game's needs.
'Test cricket is a great example. India go to places like Zimbabwe and New Zealand. They come to us for five Tests. I've been chair of the ECB for five years and got to know Jay Shah very well and our relationship has been very collaborative. We want the same things.
'India generate the bulk of the game's wealth and they would be entitled to take more revenue than they do. They take probably 10 per cent less than they justifiably could.'
Those are views echoed by Johnny Grave, the CEO of West Indies Cricket for seven years until 2024 and a man acutely aware of his region's financial dependence on India.
'My priority was to secure as many tours by India as I could in a congested calendar,' says English-born Grave. 'You could say India are responsible for 75 per cent of West Indies' revenue. Twenty-five per cent comes from the bilateral cricket India play in the Caribbean, and the vast majority of the 50 per cent that comes from the ICC is driven by the Indian TV market supporting and funding World Cups.
'India get a lot of criticism, but the way in which they continue to play almost non-stop cricket and ensure they take Team India around the smaller nations has been second to none. We were lucky India toured four times during my spell with West Indies and that made a huge difference to our financial wellbeing.'
Rod Bransgrove has been at the forefront of the sweeping changes in the game, last year selling his majority stake in English county Hampshire to GMR Group, co-owners of the IPL's Delhi Capitals. He believes English and world cricket have to embrace that change.
'The genie is out of the bottle and it's a case of being broad-minded and going with it,' says Bransgrove. 'Then recognise world domination can't be the objective for India because there will be no one for them to play. They need strong cricket elsewhere.
Advertisement
'I'm sorry India are still keen to extend the IPL (it lasts for two months and 74 matches and there is a proposal to extend it by 20 matches a season) because that's where they're starting to go wrong. They should consolidate on what they've got because they should be wary of overkill. But I do believe their wealth has to be good for the game.'
It is difficult to contemplate the significance of playing cricket for India.
Deep Dasgupta represented his country in eight Tests and five one-day internationals as a wicketkeeper between 2001 and 2006 and now watches the rise of India as a TV and radio commentator.
'The interest in cricket and in you when you're an Indian Test cricketer is humungous,' Dasgupta tells The Athletic. 'If you've never seen a cricket game in India, you can't appreciate how big it is. When people say cricket is a religion in India, it's literally that.
'There is a lot of diversity (religious) in India and cricket is one of the major things that keeps the country together. It's an extremely important glue for society.
'There is a lot of pressure, there's no two ways about it, and when you have that kind of following, you have to have pressure. The spotlight is on you and everyone has a point of view on cricket, but the understanding of the game is there as well. And it has grown so much even since I stopped playing.'
No one has followed the transformation of Indian cricket more closely than veteran commentator Harsha Bhogle, the voice of the Indian game worldwide since he first toured England in 1990 and due to take his place in the commentary box again this year.
'India's economy opened between 1993 and 1996 and a lot of foreign investment came into the country,' says Bhogle. 'Indian businesses grew, the Indian market grew and that changed India more than I could ever have imagined. Cricket just rode the wave.
Advertisement
'In the 1970s when Indian players went to England, they carried maybe two or three cricket bats with them, and only then if Gray-Nicolls gave them a bat. It was something to be very grateful about and there was a sense of awe about visiting England.
'This time, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them take their own chef. Some will hire a private plane to go from one city to another.
'This has also led to a change in confidence. There's a swagger about Indian players now, whereas before they tended to be a little meek and accepting. They are demanding things on the world stage and getting them and not everyone is happy about that.
'It has changed from being a simple laid-back maharaja-driven sport in India to a sport with massive wealth, cheerleaders and whatever. I could never imagine this happening when I first started working in the game.'
Bhogle, 63, refutes the suggestion that India misuses its power. 'It's exactly the same as the United States holding power in the world's economy. Some people don't like it, but it's the reality. My generation has seen the other side; to be looked down upon when you travelled. Suddenly, we are all looked at differently.
'India more than play their part in the health of the world game. They play against countries like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies almost more than anyone else. They are aware that, wherever they go, it allows that country to flourish because they bring bigger broadcasting deals with them.
'There is a lot of talk about why India should get so much of what ICC earns. I remember Ramiz Raja (the former Pakistan captain) making a speech in Pakistan saying: 'I know this is hard to hear, but we are living off Indian corporate income'. All the ICC handouts are coming from one market. That is the reality of our times and it shows no signs of stopping.'
It is a reality not every India expert welcomes.
Mihir Bose wrote the definitive book 'The Nine Waves: The Extraordinary Story of How India Took Over World Cricket' in 2019 and disagrees about the wisdom of that Indian takeover.
'I don't think India are using their power wisely,' the Indian-born British writer and broadcaster tells The Athletic. 'They're behaving worse than the colonial powers. It's like they are saying: 'You treated us badly all those years, so now you can take our medicine. What are you going to do about it?'.
Advertisement
'Look at what they're getting away with. There has recently been the Champions Trophy in Pakistan. India have cut off relations with Pakistan for political reasons, so what do they do? Refuse to go to Pakistan and are allowed to play all their games in Dubai.
'Imagine that happening in football. There's a World Cup in England, but Germany say: 'We're not playing there, we're going to play all our games in France'. FIFA would say: 'Sorry, mate, this is not on'. But India got away with it because so many cricketing countries need Indian money to survive. And even though England don't need the money as such, it's very handy to them.
'India is dictating to the world. They are saying: 'We've got the money. If you want it, it has to be on our terms'. The way they have treated Pakistan is inexcusable and if the tension between the countries flares up again, there will be serious ramifications for world cricket.'
For now, at least, cricket is a big sport played in relatively few major world markets. Bose believes that will change if India get their way.
'The last great frontier for India to have influence over now is America,' he adds. 'There is a whole class of very rich Indians in the States, particularly on the west coast, who were brought up on cricket. It's in their blood and they have the money, as we have seen by some of them buying into the Hundred.
'They will want to take that power into America. The NFL is supreme and I'm not saying it will get as big as American football and baseball, but the sport could easily have a foothold in America. It's the final frontier.'
It is a frontier recognised by Grave, who is now CEO of American Cricket Enterprises and is charged with growing the game in the world's biggest economy.
'It's not a case of if cricket explodes in the U.S., but when and how much money and how long it will take,' he says. 'It will follow a similar path to what my American friends call 'soccer' because the T20 game in particular is perfect for the American market in terms of how long it takes and the compact nature of all the best bits of cricket wrapped up in a three-hour game.
Advertisement
'India play a big part in what we are trying to do.'
Whether India conquer that final frontier remains to be seen. But, for now, those that run the Indian game and play for their country are masters of all they survey, whether the rest of the cricket world likes it or not.
Additional reporting: Chris Weatherspoon
Click here to follow cricket on The Athletic and see more stories like this.
(Top photos: Arun Sankar/AFP, Visionhaus,; design: Eamonn Dalton)