Its time for the ECBs money first stance to change...

[sussexpob]

Last night I was listening to American sports mega-podcaster Colin Cowherd muse on his show that the World Cup has managed to penetrate deep into the American public during the current tournament, because it has a "brand" that appeals to 16-24 year old people who define what is "cool". Cowherd cited things like its more normatively shaped athletes having a straight forward, more accessible sex appeal or cool to American's who usually follow sports only played by 35 stone, 7ft tanks, and marvelled at how accessible and normal footballers are on social media. Football, he concluded, is a business you can sell to people, and that is a recipe for popularity.

Cowherd always comes across as a traditional soft-Republican, so within the context of that political outlook in America it shouldn't surprise anyone that any assessment of a past-time's viability should start, and be uniquely concerned with, brand awareness and how it links to generating cash. Nevertheless, claiming the most followed past-time on Earth since the 1800s, the vast majority of that time being an amateur sport, is only successful because of its ability to bank, is quite incredibly dim-witted. Football is popular because it is universal and accessible, because it requires a minimum of space and a single, cheaply bought ball to play. Its inclusive, and has penetrated social culture for those reasons. It would exist, and has existed for more than 150 years, as a sport that is amateur or unconcerned with business. And while modern day football has been corrupted off the field by corporate greed and interest, the product is still the same, and mostly unchanged. Football has a reason to exist independently as a sport just for its own sake, and will always exist irrespective of the business model applied.

Cricket in many ways is completely different. Part of its major appeal is its irrelevance, the enjoyment of the journey and not the end game. It's easy to see this as something that is unappealing, and many of crickets detractors will routinely mock the fact 5 day events can be draws, or even 25 day long series. They seem to miss the point that this is the reason its great and unique, nor accept that it has existed successfully this way for nearly 150 years. Sports don't exist for this long and have nearly 10 million viewers on a single August day in my lifetime without some appeal, or satisfying something people crave in their lives. Nevertheless, this hard to define vortex of things that appeals to the cricket lover can easily be misrepresented as something lacking in our game. The conclusion ends up being there is no reason for test cricket to exist as a 5 day, random one off event that has no end goal, just because its difficult define exactly what we gain from going through the process.

It's in this black hole of ideas and expressions, cricket has become vulnerable to corporate mentality. Much like in the way an American like Cowherd, with no depth of understanding abou football, can only see its potential as a business idea, the same is true of cricket administrators who are piloted in from corporate backgrounds into our national game. In the absence of a more tangible cultural or spiritual reason for it to be, the goal has artificially become money. As Jonathan Liew in the Guardian put it recently, the ECBs entire existence seems to be concerned with "monetising its future self". Cricket is no longer something we can just enjoy for what it is, warts and all. Any part of it that does not contribute to the central task of making money is hostile to its very being.

It's easy to maybe not see this happening before our eyes, but its so prevalent in how the game is discussed. After the very last test we played, as NZ wandered around the outfield celebrating a rare away test win in England, it was left to Aggers to shove a microphone into Daryl Mitchell's face and ask that all important question; "what exactly is New Zealand's brand"? It was delivered like a barb, from a position of superiority. We might have lost to you, but winning and losing is nothing without a brand. For Mitchell's part, he just looked miffed and responded that NZ just play to win. Well who would have thought? What value does winning have if it doesn't spawn an Amazon documentary after? Or sell slogan t-shirts ?

It might seem like a throw away comment, but Aggers is the very essence and leader of an English cricketing press corps that is so intertwined with promoting the ECBs initiatives through client journalism and blind bias, it felt no accident that he used the word "brand". I wouldn't be surprised if the very question he asked was dreamed up during a brainstorm at ECB towers, by professional PR types creating a list of ready made questions to ask in the event of failure. "If England lose a series, skip to page 16, subsection 2 and ask one of these 5 questions". It points towards a game so unconsciously beaten into submission by business considerations being at the forefront, we come to demand from successful other teams at their moment of victory, "well, what's the point. You won, but how much money did you make""?

The big question I come to ask myself with all this is where the idea from Bazball really came from. Did the ECB so desperate for brand penetration and profit just happen to stumble upon a coach who randomly gave them a type of cricket that was the embodiment of vacuous corporate nonsense, or was this the manifestation of a corporate strategy to win hearts and minds? When you look back, its hard to dismiss the later - Bazball from the outset made no secret it was there to "entertain" and not to always win. Would rather lose than draw, if if that meant losing the grand battle of a series, because drawing is not sexy. Drawing gives the game no reason to exist. Bazball was all passing moments easily condescend into short Instagram videos, not about consistency or longevity, or soberly batting out 90 overs. A perfect brand for social media engagement, unconcerned with sporting excellence.

Once seen, its something you cannot unsee. I am not picking on Aggers especially, but yesterday an advert came up on my phone advertising an Australian cricket documentary from Amazon. The short clip was basically Aggers romantically talking about how the true essence of test cricket was watching fast bowling at its most lethal, while Mark Wood ran in at Leeds in 2023 trying to kill Usman Khawaja. When we ask ourselves, why did the ECB give Mark Wood a 3 year deal when he never plays and his performance is bang average, its because of this. The ECB don't give a sh*t that Mark Wood is not fit to lace Ollie Robinson's boots, because videos of Robinson bowling 79mph stump breakers don't generate clicks in the same way on Instagram. It really comes down to that at the end of the day, when the goal is marketing a false product, players and their abilities are only as useful as the clicks they generate as romanticised versions of themselves. Our whole bowling attack was snarly and fast because that is sexy - not because anyone believed it was tactically better.

As one journalist put it, "Robinson bowling 80 mph seamers is now the iconoclastic, counterculture hero" of English cricket. I couldn't agree more. It says a lot for the state of English cricket that Robinson turning up producing world class, no fuss performances all his career can feel remotely radical, but every wicket he takes feels like two fingers being held up to those people in our game that have prioritised sex appeal over winning. The very cynical part of me would even say that moments like Harry Brook in the second innings might even please his superiors. Bad publicity is publicity non the less, and Brook smashing out to deep backward square after the most brain dead innings I have ever seen generates buzz and interest far more than it would if he'd blocked 70 balls and been hit on the pad for 11. Even failure feeds this machine with what it needs. It's probably why Rob Key hasn't been fired.

It's not only the test team that has suffered from this. Franchise cricket is the perfect business model for those who sell the idea of sport being only about money, because the history of sports franchises shows that their ties to any part of the communities they operate is non-existent. If the city doesn't keep pumping in fans or the local authorities keep on building them new stadiums and facilities, they just uproot to a town that will. This is why American football you have the "Raiders" and not just "Los Angeles" playing. If Los Angeles doesn't do its part in making money, then it no longer deserves a team, and will not have one. County cricket clubs have souls, communities and history.... all barriers to profit. They have to go.

Everything about the Hundred has been engineered for short term brand buzz. We redefined the whole format pointlessly, just as a selling point. We created new teams no one has affiliations to, just to get kit launches and brand logo launches. We have players randomly dotting around like mercenaries unattached to a particular public, just to have auctions to show on youtube. And then the whole summer of English cricket reserved and condescend into a few 30 second videos of someone ramp scooping a yorker into the park adjacent to the ground as a commentator tries to drum up faux excitement. Real sport speaks for itself, it doesn't need this nonsense. It doesn't need pre-game concerts, dancing girls standing on carboard boxes with fireworks every time someone hits a boundary, and so on. Its all so cynically contrived and false. Even the boundaries, brought in to 40 yards so miscued, terrible shots fly for 6, turns mistake into success. A 4 or a 6 used to be entertaining because you worked hard for them, not because you are a 29 year old full adult playing on an u-11 sized pitch.

And then there is the 4-day game. The lifeblood and spiritual essence of the sport in our country, filleted, gutted and left to rot. The ECB have no interest in county cricket, and do not want it to flourish as a stand alone competition that produces interesting outcomes. Just look at a team like Sussex who had the audacity to spend a tiny amount of money over their means in the spirit of trying to compete strongly - the ECB were not having that. The fact the price tag of Sussex's ambition totalled less than the interest on the money owed to us by the ECB is none of their concern; this money was not generated to spend to win titles and bring joy to your fans. Hell no... it was money made so that it could be invested in making more money. Sporting success and titles can be ignored, success is in the profit margin. After all, the ECB has awarded all the franchises to teams who risked their futures in similar profit making pursuits. This is the spirit to be rewarded. Kent and Sussex produced all of England's woman's golden generation, but Cardiff gets a woman's team because they built a big shiny stadium on loads of debt. Sound Financial management is sold as danger, and risk has been celebrated. Only teams like Surrey should win championships, because only teams who make lots of profit should be allowed success.

In the end, I am left pondering on Daryl Mitchell's response to Agnew. Contained in that short response was the very essence of why I watch cricket, and why I love it. There is no healthier belief than an idealistic quest to be the best you can at a pursuit, simply for your own self-respect and enjoyment at being successful. Its the reason why any amateur ever takes up a past-time or derives enjoyment from it.

There is nothing more depressingly nihilist than a belief that sports only exists as a business. It bleeds sport of any of its magic, and does us no good. Test cricket in its current form might die, and the counties with it.... and what will be the result? Probably the same game, just without sponsor's, people getting paid 900k a year, and advert breaks... because people have always gravitated to the unique magic of the game, and always will.

[Arthur Crabtree]

As one journalist put it, "Robinson bowling 80 mph seamers is now the iconoclastic, counterculture hero" of English cricket. I couldn't agree more.

Not a Joe Root nurdle?

Surely football has been the model for how to ruthlessly sell your soul, which cricket is trying to follow. The jumpers for goalposts grassroots stuff is a sentimental image of a long ago past. I don't look at football and see anything communal or idealistic. It's as marketed as coca cola. Its customers are as squeezed as those of an oil corporation.

Though I accept US sport may be even worse! Maybe FIFA has found a spiritual home.

[sussexpob]

Surely football has been the model for how to ruthlessly sell your soul, which cricket is trying to follow. The jumpers for goalposts grassroots stuff is a sentimental image of a long ago past. I don't look at football and see anything communal or idealistic. It's as marketed as coca cola. Its customers are as squeezed as those of an oil corporation. Though I accept US sport may be even worse! Maybe FIFA has found a spiritual home.

Football in England is somewhat unique in the fact that football clubs are historically made up of working class fans that are homologous between clubs, and rivalries or support have always been based uniquely on geographical proximity. But even in the context of British football as a whole, this is completely counter to Scotland, where the two big cities have fierce rivalries based around religion, politics and socio-economic differences. A Scottish catholic would NEVER support Rangers or Hearts, nor would a protestant ever support Celtic or Hibernian. Supporters of the later even reject the national team and do not tend to support it. The same is true in Northern Irish football.

Even in the context of elite European football, England is an outlier. Germany is the next biggest world football league, and all clubs are by law controlled by majority fan interests, and as a result prices are incredibly reasonable (I watched Union away at Bayern/Leverkusen, it was 20 EURs for a ticket on both occasions). Fan groups reject anything that doesn't fit with club identity too, for instance Borussia Dortmund fans sacked their CEO when he signed a sponsorship agreement with a company involved in arms dealing. Petrochemical companies are also routinely rejected by fans to put on kits, and Schalke fans had Gazprom removed from their kit after Ukraine.

And then the clubs themselves are also formed on historical socio-political connections. Schalke 04 is the historical left wing working class team of the Ruhr, its neighbours Borussia Dortmund were the extreme right rich side and the two maintain the fiercest rivalry in German football (choosing the German word from Prussia in its name very purposefully for German nationalistic reasons). Union Berlin is a centrist/catholic club, St Pauli famous for its antifa ultras, Bayern Munich has always been a bastion of Bavarian identity (And extremely hated in the rest of Germany for this reason), several teams are sports clubs of large industrial trade union groups (Wolfsburg was formed by VW workers, Stuttgart a combination of Porsche/Mercedes workers/Bayer Leverkusen .. the clue is in the name). And so on. There is a political/religious/economic connection in the formation of each club. And these clubs aren't just football ones, most of them compete in a range of amateur sports where the local community can access the club. They aren't cold and distant entities, they operate at low levels in communities.

You can go on. Taking the semi-finalists of the WC right now, Spain's biggest club is a Catalan independence movement. Bilbao still has its Canterra policy. Argentina has about 18 clubs in its PL from BA, again they all have distinct identities. Boca for the poor, River for the rich, St Lorenzo for the Catholics (each Pope gets honoury membership), Racing Club for the ethnically indigenous, Rosario Central fan owned by transport workers, Newell Old Boys for the academic elite (I believe Ernesto Guevara was a supporter of the club).... The poor, industrial North of France or the poor inner city areas of Paris produce almost all of French footballs talent

[sussexpob]

Though I accept US sport may be even worse! Maybe FIFA has found a spiritual home.

The much maligned prices for tickets and the insane cost of public transport to grounds, within the context of American sports, is entirely normal and not exceptional to the World Cup. NFL teams play only 8 games at home a year, so ticket applications far exceed demand, and teams can charge what the hell they like and sell out. The only real exception is College Football, where active students pay very little to see their schools play, but places like Michigan have 110k seats, so they make up the difference selling 800 USD tickets to non-students at 50k per game.

American sports clubs are more like cartels though, as the systems they operate in guarantees profit. College sports is officially amateur, so they don't actually pay the talent anything even if these players generate 100s millions in revenue. This has changed in recent times as star players now are allowed to earn money and sell themselves to earn money, but until about 2-3 years ago players would be banned for even accepting a free burger at a restaurant.

Professional sports in the US on the face of it appear to be egalitarian, but this is just a consequence of a system guaranteed to ensure maximum profitability. Players Unions collectively bargain for a total percentage of legal revenue, with the following season salary cap being a percentage of the last years revenue (in the NFL, players are guaranteed 45% of the revenue). This means that 55% of all profit goes to clubs ownership, and they make bazillions.

It's also a Franchise system, so no team is tied in anyway to a particular town, and teams routinely move cities to try to increase profitability. The St Louis Rams for instance were one of the best supported sides in the NFL and won two superbowls in recent times, but Stan Kroneke moved them to Los Angeles because they could charge more per ticket in a richer town. The city of Las Vegas offered huge tax breaks and a multi-billion stadium for free for Oakland to move recently. And even historical powerhouses like the Chicago Bears are moving to Indiana now, which has not gone down well.

It's decidedly different because the Franchise system is a total rejection of community and shared history. The system allows, encourages, and makes it morally acceptable to move a historical team to another town based on the local market. American commentators would be more inclined to fault a towns support than a greedy corporation removing a pillar of the community to make 3% money.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Football in England is somewhat unique in the fact that football clubs are historically made up of working class fans that are homologous between clubs, and rivalries or support have always been based uniquely on geographical proximity. But even in the context of British football as a whole, this is completely counter to Scotland, where the two big cities have fierce rivalries based around religion, politics and socio-economic differences. A Scottish catholic would NEVER support Rangers or Hearts, nor would a protestant ever support Celtic or Hibernian. Supporters of the later even reject the national team and do not tend to support it. The same is true in Northern Irish football.

Hard to find anything uplifting in the history of sectarianism and violence associated with UK football which has allowed itself to be a host for far right groups and nationalists. Maybe it's different now, but the game here didn't do much to try and root this out when I was following it. I accept it's different elsewhere even if British skinheads have had a malign cultural influence overseas.

The Thatcher government's plan for memberships would have been worth pursuing. Maybe not, but it would at least have shown some intent.

[sussexpob]

Thatcher had no inclination to root out trouble makers, because by definition she viewed all football fans as a problem, however pacifistic individuals were. There was no assessment of the problem along those lines at all. Going to a football match made you a scumbag, even if you didn't want to punch anyone. Her public order act of the mid-80s made perfectly legal acts arrestable offences based on how boisterous people were - singing loudly would be considered social disorder, and could get you arrested, as would shouting at a referee. Merely having passion for the game was criminalised.

Modern academics largely accept in unison that Thatcher's war against working class culture acutely and purposefully overblew the issue into something it was not, and hooligan mythology contributed to the idea of it being a time of great trouble. There was of course issues, but nothing near what history remembers. And there is a sound argument to say guardians of the peace and public safety were the cause of most of the issues. Police failures were a consistent issue. The more cynical of commentators would argue this was by design. Thatcher wanted to portray football as a rotten core. Police failures were covered up and rowdy, violent fans blamed routinely.

Thatcher did pass legislation after Heysel... within a couple of years we got Hillsborough. The police tactics and crowd control measures given to them under that legislation are now considered to have been the reason for the disaster. The government also covered this up, and the environment of anti-football they created allowed them to do that. It took decades for the truth to come out and justice to be served.

Nothing that old b*tch would have done would have any of the safety or best interests of fans as a concern.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I doubt Thatcher's government did any proper work on the issue. But even getting a response moving may have led somewhere useful and got the clubs to take the problem seriously.

I don't agree- by personal experience- the aggro was overstated. Going to an away game in the lower divisions almost always led to at least a confrontation leaving the ground, and usually fighting. Not a riot, but an exchange of blows. And the clubs just accepted it. People who lived around the grounds certainly didn't deserve it. Every other Saturday, and sometimes midweek.

At the time I thought of it as normal. Now I feel let down by all those clubs who treated it as part of the game, including the violent threats. The intimidation was looked upon as a positive! If stopping that was part of the embourgeoisification of football, then count me in.

Top division games always felt much safer, even Upton Park! Maybe because I was a neutral. Though St. James Park and Elland Road were ridiculously racist, and again, nothing changed in that regard.

Sorry, this is a diversion from your excellent post!

[Arthur Crabtree]

I doubt Thatcher's government did any proper work on the issue. But even getting a response moving may have led somewhere useful and got the clubs to take the problem seriously.

Well, the fencing was a disaster.

When I saw about Hillsborough on the news I had a little emotional breakdown. It felt like something that was coming for anyone who went to watch football back then. I was going to see Forest around that time and saw the previous Forest v Liverpool FA Cup semi in Sheffield, a year earlier I think. That's the kind of trauma you might feel just following a local team.

[sussexpob]

If stopping that was part of the embourgeoisification of football, then count me in

In the context of the original point, the fact that English football not only survived Hillsborough/Bradford and Heysel, but grew exponentially afterwards, is testament to how deep inside working class culture the game was, and that even at its lowest point it still have power to attract (a somewhat reduced, but still significant) public to watch.

When I saw about Hillsborough on the news I had a little emotional breakdown.

I was only young, but there are a handful of moments in your life you never forget. I was watching that game live with my family on the TV, I don't think at that point in my life I had ever seen anything as graphically haunting. My parents had similar reactions to you. As an adult, I rewatched that footage once on Youtube, and the only emotion I had was uncontainable rage.

[sussexpob]

I don't agree- by personal experience- the aggro was overstated. Going to an away game in the lower divisions almost always led to at least a confrontation leaving the ground, and usually fighting. Not a riot, but an exchange of blows. And the clubs just accepted it. People who lived around the grounds certainly didn't deserve it. Every other Saturday, and sometimes midweek

The post-Hillsborough Taylor Commission based almost its entire decision on reports made by a football behaviour and crowd control expert (his name escapes me - Carlin, Carter? Something like that), with the report highlighting that football violence in stadiums was blown out of all proportion, and that incidents were both exceptional and rare, and when they did occur were very rarely on a scale that was problematic . He also concluded that almost all problems were caused by stadium design or terrible policing or management by authorities.

I think the Hillsborough investigation itself shows how the fiction of crowd troubles was almost entirely impenetrable by fact, and how easy and normal it was to trot out stereotypes with literally no evidence whatsoever. The day after Hillsborough, the press entirely fabricated a counter-factual and extremely offensive picture of violent, yobby, drunken Liverpool fans raging so out of control that they were looting the dead or the dying of their possessions. It was the norm, it was easy to do for them. That strength of the myth was so strong, it took 25-30 years to break, irrespective of the fact that the immediate investigation highlighted these were lies. Even immediately after, Taylor dismissed the idea that Liverpool fans were accountable. He directly challenged the narrative of them storming the ground with no tickets, directly negated the idea that alcohol was a factor, directly negated the fans had done anything wrong. Legal fact that was ignored for decades after.

If it took that long to dispel the clear lies and hold the authorities to account over something so wantonly blatant and clear, then can we believe anything the press or the government at the time says?

[sussexpob]

I was going to see Forest around that time

I don't doubt your personal observations, but do wonder if they are more unique to the team you were following. Forest are certainly near the top of hooligan league and had a notoriously bad firm, and they also had Viv Anderson, who was England's first black player to attract racist chants. My experience of Forest fans is they are arguably the worst, but Leeds certainly make a case too.

The most famous of the 80-90s hooligans was also a Forest fan. Paul Sturrock? Was a tabloid sensation in England tournaments of the time for finding ways to smuggle into countries with fake documents, and most famously was arrested in Italia 90 after taking pictures of himself everywhere in Rome for the UK press. Ended up as a homeless guy on the streets of Barcelona, and was found dead in the mid 90s from drug overdose.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Forest had a reputation, and I remember the super-hooligan by reputation, but my experience at City ground was always pretty good. And even away from home with Forest, though obviously I wasn't hanging around with away fans looking for trouble.

My problem was away at places like Rotherham, Wigan, Barnsley, Bradford etc. I doubt they were even on the radar of the UK media. There were clubs that usually brought aggro, like Leeds and Cardiff who the press would have been more interested in.