Why a two-division structure could do Test cricket good

In international cricket, few notions are discussed more and acted upon less than the need for "context". Test and ODI series come and go, leaving no tangible remains. World rankings exist, but for what end?

The structure of bilateral cricket, if it can be called that, is entirely at the whims of the individual boards, who are free to play each other as much or as little as they like, knowing that the consequences of winning or losing Test matches are no greater than that of an international football friendly. The system devalues cricket's premier form.

That Test cricket has always been run on these lines is no defence. Until 1982, only six nations played Tests; with so few teams, each played the others enough to make an overarching structure less urgent. Now Test cricket has ten nations, and several other countries would love to join them. Tests face more competition than ever before, both from other formats and other sports. Scheduling between the Big Three has become increasingly aggressive - Australia and England played each other 40 times across all formats between June 2013 and September 2015. Regardless of how they perform, the other Test nations are doomed to endure a second-class schedule and fans are noticing: about 500 spectators attended each day of the recent Sri Lanka-West Indies Test series.

Most importantly, broadcasters are taking note. "If people can't be bothered to buy a ticket and show up to the game, then people who turn on the television will turn it straight off again," says Andrew Wildblood, the executive vice-president of IMG, the international sports marketing firm. "You need to fill the stadiums - there's nothing that looks worse on sports television than empty stadiums. The one thing falling in value, or at least standing still, is Test match rights."

The ICC is concerned about this, and also considers the value of bilateral one-day cricket to be under threat. Such anxieties led David Richardson, the ICC's chief executive, to ask representatives from each Full Member, and Ireland, representing the Associates, to give presentations about how they would like international cricket to be structured at the recent ICC meeting in Dubai.

Now the ICC has done what it does best: commissioned a review. Those familiar with the Woolf Report will not be holding their breath about the review of the context and structure of bilateral cricket being undertaken by the ICC Board and Chief Executives' Committee.

It is also far from the first time a structure for Test cricket has been discussed. The World Test Championship was postponed and then cancelled. In 2008, the Boston Consultancy Group was commissioned by Cricket Australia to devise a scheme to give Test cricket a structure; its proposal of a four-year cycle and a pooling of broadcasting revenue was flatly rejected by England and India. As long ago as 2004, Richardson, then the ICC's general manager, first mooted the idea of a league system in Test cricket.

"I personally would favour a league, and that might be two divisions, six and six, so that we can promote teams like Ireland," Richardson said after the last ICC board meeting, envisaging something similar for ODI cricket too. He believes such a structure would create greater context, more commercial value, and a path for teams to get promoted or relegated based on performance.

It would work something like this. In the two Test divisions of six, each side would play the other in two-match series home and away every three years, giving 20 Test matches per country over the cycle before the playoffs to determine promotion and relegation. The structure could begin soon after the 2019 World Cup, as few countries have broadcasting deals that go beyond that date.

Perhaps the greatest virtue of Richardson's proposal is its pragmatism. The divisional structure would take about five to six months a year, leaving deliberate gaps in the schedule for bilateral fixtures outside the system. So there would be plenty of opportunities for the Big Three to play extra games outside the structure (the Ashes could still take place on its traditional cycle). This nod to commercial reality means that the Big Three would not suffer from the new structure.

"Meritocracy", the ICC's mantra, would cease to be anathema to the structure of international cricket. "Anything which promotes context and merit-based progression, of course we embrace," says Warren Deutrom, Cricket Ireland's chief executive, noting how such a structure would encourage Ireland to approach broadcasters with a package of matches. Alistair Campbell, the out-going managing director of Zimbabwe Cricket, expressed support for more structured international cricket earlier this year. "All the lesser nations would love a better structure so they could be guaranteed a certain amount of games. It's very difficult at the moment to go out and try and get a sponsor. They're saying, 'Who are you playing against, and how many games?'"

Yet the danger of Richardson's proposal is clear. "The effect of two divisions would mean that Test cricket would become completely uneconomical in the division-two countries and would, in all probability, die," warns Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president. Countries that miss making the cut to the first division - Sri Lanka and West Indies on the current ICC Test rankings (at No. 7 and 8 respectively) - would fear irrelevance, even if they already have a de facto two-tier format to contend with.

Any reforms could only be passed if such nations did not have much to lose. The top sides in the second division could be guaranteed a certain amount of fixtures against first-division sides, outside of the league schedule.

Pooling TV rights would further ameliorate the perceived negatives of a divisional structure. In Premier League football, all rights to domestic and overseas matches are sold equally before being divided up between teams. The top team gets only 1.5 times as much from the league as the bottom one does. While the Big Three reforms moved away from such a distribution model, pooling broadcasting rights for structured bilateral cricket and then dividing them up according to an agreed formula could yield benefits for all teams. "The likelihood in my view is that the whole would be worth more than the sum of the parts," Wildblood says. "Look at the Premier League. It sells the rights collectively and the value of the sum is greater than the sum of the individual parts. The same might well be true of cricket."

If that is the case, then an overarching structure is much easier to envisage: with a bigger pie, all countries could be better off. "The history of bilaterals means there is no higher order to play for the vast majority of the games played. That robs interest in the sport, which translates into a lot of economic value left on the table," says Rohan Sajdeh, the author of Boston Consultancy Group's report on Test cricket in 2008. He argues that a structure would result in "greater value" in broadcasting rights. And while fans will always be far more likely to watch their own countries play, if England and India supporters, say, had a reason to care who won a series between South Africa and New Zealand, that could provide a further boost to broadcasting rights.

Variants on Richardson's idea of divisions are also possible. One alternative is two parallel groups of six, as opposed to one division below another, each playing the other sides in their group in two or three Tests at home and away over a four-year-cycle, giving a total of 20 or 30 structured matches. Playoffs to determine an overall winner and whether the leading teams in the Intercontinental Cup replaced the bottom-placed sides in the two groups would follow. This would avoid creating a gulf between those ranked sixth and seventh, although fewer Tests would be between evenly matched sides and a broadcasting distribution model would need to be agreed on so that teams' finances are not adversely affected by being drawn in a different group to India.

None of this is to suggest that a structure worthy of the name will prove a panacea to Test cricket. But if it were combined with playing more over weekends, day-night Tests, and innovative ticket schemes to allow supporters to come for a session, it would amount to a sustained effort to promote Test cricket.

The challenges to getting a proper structure for Test and ODI cricket are formidable. It would require coordination and trust between international boards of the sort that the game has seldom benefited from. A structure would have to be passed by the ICC's executive board (where three of the five votes are held by the Big Three) and then supported by seven of the ten Full Members. It could only be achieved by allowing the Big Three copious time to play each other regardless of their on-field performances; also, proper financial safeguards to appease mid-ranking Test nations; and by strengthening the Test fund. But if the individual boards were convinced that a new structure would result in more money, they might be inclined to vote it through. Few forces are more powerful than self-interest.

If a structure for international cricket does finally come to pass, it would be a realisation of Richardson's decade-long vision to give bilateral cricket context. Those who deride the ICC's chief executive as a lackey of the Big Three might yet be forced into a reappraisal.