By Boria Majumdar

A loss can feel like a national disaster for Indian fans

The world of cricket reacted with a mixture of elation and amazement when news broke that the magic figure of $1bn had been breached by a leading sports channel to buy international cricket telecast rights for the eight next years.

This was because until recently an odd myopia had characterised the role of commerce with regard to cricket.

Unlike football, where telecast rights of English Premier League alone generates $1.5bn for three years, cricket has presented a curious picture: the transformation of the game was acceptable; its conversion into real big money sport was not.

All that has finally changed. Cricket is now incorporated, inevitably perhaps, within debates about business, entertainment, commerce and big money capitalism.

However, while transformation is the way forward, like all other examples of unabashed capitalism it has its share of difficulties.

Commenting on ESPN's acquisition of telecast rights of International Cricket Council (ICC) events, MD Jamie Davis said, "This acquisition affirms our commitment to the Indian sub-continent and the world and we are absolutely delighted to bring the exciting line-up of ICC events to millions of cricket fans globally."

Inherent in this statement is the root of the problem.

For the recovery of more than 80% of the $1.1bn spent, ESPN is banking on the cricket craze in the Indian subcontinent.

India or Pakistan need to play well consistently if the huge amount invested is to be recovered Send your comments on Boria Majumdar's article

Intrinsic to Mr Davis' statement is the notion that cricket continues to be the license to print money for broadcasters in the sub-continent.

However, the reality, as Peter Hutton of rival sports channel Ten Sports, suggests is that "the price being paid is linked to equity valuations, mergers and acquisitions. It is a dangerous time, when advertising income doesn't cover the rights fees being paid and there is every danger of the cricketing bubble economy going bust."

If India and Pakistan do badly, the world's cricket fortunes will slide

Other implications of the sub-continental monopoly are equally startling.

For example, it means that India or Pakistan need to play well consistently if the huge amount invested is to be recovered.

If India or Pakistan crash out of major tournaments like the World Cup at group stage, advertisers' interest in the tournament is certain to nosedive.

Pressures

In fact, it can be argued that the World Cups in 1999 and 2003 were economic success stories because Pakistan (1999) and India (2003) made to the finals.

During the 2003 World Cup, market consultants in India had estimated a total advertising spending over the six weeks as something like $222m - more than the net profit that India's largest private sector company Reliance Industries posted in the first quarter of the financial year 2002-03.

The ICC was insistent that an initially unwilling India play the shortest version the game - the 20-overs-a-side tournament - knowing fully well that without India the upcoming newly introduced 20-over World Cup would lose bulk of its shine and broadcasters would lose their investment.

Had India stuck to the initial obstinacy about not playing the 20 overs cricket, the value of ICC cricket tournament rights would also have dropped by millions of dollars.

The eleven men in blue (India) and green (Pakistan) will, from now on, carry on their shoulders the pressures of not only their fans but also the financial backers.

In India, especially, the players are some of the most written about and sought after men in the country. Every win is a national festival and often the players are worshipped as gods. A loss, on the other hand, is a national disaster.

Will the pitches around the world suit sub continental players?

Interestingly, in a time scale less than the length of Sachin Tendulkar's career, the nature and economy of world cricket has fundamentally changed.

In 1992, the Indian cricket board, now the richest cricket body in the world, had a deficit of $150,000. And in 1997, the ICC, cricket's apex body, had a little more than $25,000 in its coffers.

Once cricket administrators decided to marry cricket with television, the scenario changed.

The cricket market became an Indian monopoly, unique to any international sport, and within months the schedule of cricket worldwide was driven by the needs of multiple television players each wanting a share of the Indian pie.

As with almost every monopoly, in hindsight, it seems that this transmutation was not necessarily for the better.

If you would like to send a comment about this story you can use the form below this selection of views.

I agree that the nature and economy of world cricket has changed. However, if the recent surge in the interest in cricket is to be sustained then a professional cricket league will need to be developed. Relying solely on national teams will tremendously increase to workload on a limited number of players resulting in both physical and mental fatigue as well as injury. The financial backers should follow the pattern of the professional sports leagues in the United States (such as NFL, NBA, NHL, etc) and Europe (FA, UEFA) and set up a professional league. The clubs in the league can hire players from any country and play each other for a title. This will increase the number of new players who will get exposure, without any of the politics of selection. Players will be paid according to their performances. In addition there will be improvement in the infrastructure (new stadia, training facilities, etc) and television rights will generate more money for the game.
Iqbal Siddique, Pakistan

We Indians should also show interests in other sports like hockey and football. Cricket is not everything.
Suresh, US

For the good of cricket though I hope India don't make an early exit from the world cup!
Nick C, England

This news really makes me sad and wonder at the rate everything is being attached to money and commercialism. There was a time when the cricket players considered the game as their hobby and passion and the dedication was true. Now it is hard to judge given the additional pressure that they have to handle not only from their fans but also from their financial benefactors. How can we even think of ensuring that issues like match fixing, doping by players, gambling wont emerge again in the near future? I really hope for the day when people(both players and fans) understand the true essence of sports and entertainment as a whole.
Jaya Dey, USA

The only danger is that Australia's complete domination of the game could make people lose interest. Many people developed apathy towards men's tennis due to sheer monotony of seeing Roger Fedrer win again and again. Earlier there was a Jimmy Connors or a John McEnroe to match Borg or a Stefan Edberg to tame Sampras but now men's tennis has become very boring with Roger the invincible. Australian domination of the game could do the same harm to cricket.
Sudhir Bisht, Nigeria

Cricket is the new opium of the masses. It makes the subcontinent forget reality - starvation, poverty, health, education, corruption, electricity, roads.
Day, Hong Kong

I am really sad to read about the money being spent on cricket while all other sports are languishing in the country. I am also very sorry that cricket culture has begun to pervade even villages and children are loosing interest in native sports. There are many interesting games that children used to play in India. But the dominance of cricket is destroying knowledge and practice of traditional games and sports.
Vyasa, India

If cricket has to match football in terms of revenue generation capabilities then each country has to increase the bench strength with more capable and charismatic players. The present day requirement cannot be undertaken by just first 11 players.
Shamim Hamdani, Saudi Arbia

Did the writer intentionally ignore Pakistan and Sri Lankan teams or is he unaware from true cricket obsession in South Asia. The author seems to be incapable of having full information regarding SouthAsia and Cricket obsession.
Asma Bashir, USA

The writer is more than biased in his article. Bangladesh is mentioned and Pakistan is omitted. Can you imagine to draw crowds larger than those of matches between India & Pakistan? Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India have won world cup and Pakistan and India were runner ups in the last two editions of the CUP.
Ahsan Bilal, Pakistan

This year Bangladesh will play the final, as it is the only sub-continent team left to play the final with Australia, in the last three cups. 1996 Srilanka vs Australia 1999 Pakistan vs Australia 2003 India vs Australia 2007 Bangladesh vs Australia can it happen?
Ahsan Bilal, Pakistan

Why include Pakistan in this report? How much does ad revenue comes from Pakistan? Or is the writer obsessed with hyphenating the two countries even when it is irrelevant? Readers in India would like to know.
baldtree, India

I am very surprised by the author article. An article on South Asian obsession with cricket and almost no mention of Pakistan. Moreover when he finally did manage to mention Pakistan he implied that for Pakistani's to see their team in the cup was an occasion of its own and just like Bangladesh they don't have much of a chance. For the author's information Pakistan has been the highest ranking South Asian team for the last two years and they are expected to be one of the favourites to win the cup. I think if was more appropriate to name the article "India's Cricket Obsession". Bangladesh is relatively new cricket playing nation, maybe the author just names Bangladesh so he can name the article as such. Furthermore the author maybe of the view that Pakistan is part of the Middle East rather than South Asia as it is held by some people.
yasir Shafi, Pakistan

India needs training and facilities at grass root levels, something that Australia and England have because of which they are still good in spite cricket not being their favourite sports. Australians are good at many sports not because they are super talented or physically superior...its simply because the facilities and training they get there. Once India or Pakistan have that they could easily do what Australians are doing these days ....win win win
Ravi, USA

You know what I don't understand- the crazy Indian Cricket fans. With over 1 billion population and yet they can't find 11 good ball players to win the title? That's pathetic! All the money that is being invested in this game should put into something else. I think that would be more productive than just watching 11 losers playing game and giving the excellent fans an excuse. It's been a good 20 yrs. since India has won the world cup. What are they doing since? The greedy ball players are too busy not honing their skills to bring the trophy back but to get more endorsements. They've got very the most supportive, loyal and die-hard fans who are also more patriots than the players. The players are just robbing the people blindly. So, my suggestion to humble Indian Cricket fans; please ditch your players. And to all Indians, stick with something you guys are good at- Software technology. Leave the Cricket to someone else, because my friends your players are not playing the game,! they are simply tricking you all.
Dhiraj, USA

If what is said in this article is true, there will be more incidents of match fixing to come. It will be a shame for the fans and the game.
Naveed, US

Does the author not watch most talented south Asian cricket team Pakistan. Does he not realise how much support Pakistan get when they come to the UK? Obviously not. I would suggest to the author to do his research properly and watch the one day series Pakistan had in England last summer. So he can actually comprehend the amount of support Pakistan receive in the UK. p.s. a very poorly researched article
John, UK

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.