Bring on the Minnows
Understandable that there would be conflicting perspectives on the inclusion of teams without Test status in the Cricket World Cup tournament. With 16 participating teams, it has tallied up an unprecedented 51 matches, plus 16 warm-up games. It's a lot of cricket.
The arguments against such a broad span are based on two or three premises. One is the concept that a premier tournament should involve only those at the top so that it is a truly competitive affair.
Bringing in the minnows then would dilute the prestige and pedigree of the show.
Yet at the Olympics, national bodies determine who goes to the Games, and the only stipulation in the Charter is that athletes must be citizens of the country they represent. Even amateur status was removed in the 1970s to allow professionals to participate. The Olympic Games remain the greatest symbol of athletic excellence, and when athletes from medal backwaters take gold, silver or bronze, it generates massive celebration of the underdog.
Cricket, which markets itself as the game of glorious uncertainties, is as ripe a site for upset apple carts as any. It is true that the risk of low attendance at minnow matches makes it a financially risky prospect, but in the overall spread it might be a risk worth taking, especially if one is thinking of hosting games in as many locations as possible to allow maximum access for those who hardly ever get to see a match.
One can see concern about the increased cost of marketing and staging the event based on this expansion. As ticket sales have indeed confirmed, it is harder to lure people to games featuring unknowns. Yet, planners cannot ignore reports that just before the tournament 2,200 tickets for the finals became suddenly available. Such is the perversity of the public. The finals!
Without ignoring those concerns, planners of any event must find a balance between the tangible benefits visible in bottom lines and the responsibility to look down the road and see how the opportunities presented here, at this moment, can bear fruit in the future.
If cricket is seen to be losing global interest and support, then it must find ways to resuscitate itself. The inclusion of unfamiliar teams can serve several purposes. One is that it broadens the spectator base. How many more watched the FIFA World Cup because a Caribbean team made it? How many grew a bond with football out of that experience? Scottish, Irish, Bermudan or Canadian children might find their imaginations captured by the sport; the way West Indians did once upon a time. Who knows? Maybe in the same way that West Indians altered the flavour of the game and injected it with new life, this exposure to different cultures might feed something vital into the game for its own reinvention and survival. Imagine what Kenya can bring, or the Netherlands, for that matter, if you think football.
Widening ripples of interest in the global community can provide a greater platform of opportunity for investment into development. When the USA was bidding for the right to host matches, it threw a lot of resources into the campaign. It could do so because its cricket communities have grown tremendously and cannot be ignored. The larger the game grows globally, the more feasible it will become to lure sponsors and investors.
Whether the World Cup is the appropriate forum to enable this kind of expansion will continue to rattle the nerves of those who want to retain the elite essence that such a competition implies.
It boils down to an issue of different hues depending on where you stand. The Olympic Charter says that: "The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind."
No reason why the World Cup can't see itself doing the same.