World Cup is about money, not cricket

Business Times

TELFORD VICE, Cape Town

NOT only was the first World Cup a far cry from money-spinner subsequent editions of the tournament have become, it was not even the biggest gig in town on the day the final was played.

On June 21, 1975, Londoners could choose between going to Lord’s to watch West Indies play Australia in a new-fangled version of the grand old game. Or they could go to Wembley to see Elton John headline a bill that also featured the Eagles and the Beach Boys.

Around 20 000 headed to the cricket and the final of what was then called the Prudential Cup. At Wembley, 71 999 opted for the sound of music rather than that of leather on willow.

In 2011, the World Cup final contested by India and Sri Lanka was watched live on television by 135-million people - and that was only in India.

Prudential Assurance paid GBP1000 in sponsorship in 1975, and organisers were quietly chuffed to make a profit of twice as much. The 2015 World Cup is part of package that included the 2011 tournament, three Champions Trophies and two World T20s for which ESPN-Star Sports shelled out US$1.1-billion in rights fees.

Not that cricket will top football’s bank balance anytime soon. The 2010 football World Cup was worth US$3.48-billion just in television and marketing rights. The 2011 cricket World Cup pulled in total business of US$1.03-billion.

But the cricket World Cup remains big business. Its growth can be traced to the lucrative co-incidence of India’s success on the field and the boom in its television industry.

Cricket’s first three World Cups, played in 1975, 1979 and 1983, were staged in England. India’s triumph in the latter grabbed the attention of the sub-continental country, where success in test cricket was the primary objective. However, India were weak outside of their home conditions. Suddenly, Indians had something to celebrate. The 1987 World Cup was duly played there, but Australia won.

However, the giant had been awakened. The early World Cups were broadcast on India’s state network, Doordarshan - the only option for viewers. Now, Indians have a choice of 823 channels, 184 of them subscription services.

India’s television market grew because of the opening up of their economy, which also benefitted cricket. The catalyst came in 1993, when the International Cricket Council (ICC) decided that, in future, rights revenues would go to the host country.

The 1992 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand fairly reeked of commercialism, and the stink has only grown. In 1996, India offered cricket’s smaller countries more money than England did in return for their support for the World Cup to be played in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, being labelled the “official soft drink” of the tournament was worth a cool US$3.8-million to Coca-Cola. The total profits in 1996 were GBP50-million.

Cricket re-invented itself again 1997, when Jagmohan Dalmiya, the secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the driving force behind the previous year’s jamboree, acceded to the throne of the world game as chair of the ICC.

Since then, a far larger chunk of the profits from the World Cup and other global tournaments have flowed into ICC coffers. Conversely, less money has gone to the hosts.

But the World Cup could also be the goose that eats its own golden eggs. In 1975, the tournament comprised 15 games and was concluded in two weeks. This year’s edition weighs in at 49 matches spread over six-and-a-half weeks.

The World Cup’s focus has fuzzed on the cricket itself and sharpened on the spectacle of it all. What do we remember about the World Cup in 2003? Shane Warne being sent home for using banned diet pills. In 2007? That Bob Woolmer died. In 2011? Not a lot ...

The headlines those events inspire are not out of the ordinary in the lives of people like Elton John, the Eagles and the Beach Boys. But in cricket? How’s that?