Balancing the tightrope

Although team selection issues may divide opinion, it almost goes without saying that the vast majority of English cricket fans are appalled by the ECB’s institutional conduct over recent years.  The carve-up of cricket the board agreed with Cricket Australia and the BCCI last year is in my view the most egregious of all of their misdemeanours, given its far-reaching implications for the entire game – but supporters are just as angry with the continued absence of cricket on free-to-air TV, the high price of attending England games, and the ECB’s general attitude to supporters that, depending on your point of view, ranges from callous indifference to outright hostility.

But what is the best way to make our feelings heard?  We can sound off as much as we like on this blog and social media generally, but there’s little evidence the ECB pays us much attention.  The speed at which word spreads on Facebook and Twitter makes it comparatively easy to rapidly build up a group of followers numbering six figures – but at the same time makes it easy for those in power to dismiss such groups as an unruly mob who will quickly move on to the next social media storm.

So it’s vital that, to make our message heard, we must take it beyond the virtual world of the internet and social media into the physical one.

Such protests are beginning.  As covered in James’ recent postings, before the beginning of the final Ashes Test, the Change Cricket group, led by the admirable Jarrod Kimber, made a symbolic protest of three minutes’ silence outside the Oval – one for each of the three cricket boards who have so disgracefully turned international cricket into their own personal fiefdom.

In recent weeks, supporters at Hove, concerned about how proposals for a T20 city franchise competition might impact on their beloved Sussex, made their feelings heard at a live game – typically, an ECB official moving in to try and snuff it out.

Most cricket fans will never have been involved in a protest in their lives – in a way it’s almost “not cricket” to make a fuss and reject decisions of authority.  But we can look to other sports as a model for what may and may not work.  How do we balance the tightrope of making our point heard by those in power without alienating those who’d otherwise be on our side?

In football, the Glazer family’s takeover of Manchester United in 2005 brought about significant protest from a wide range of fan groups.  Although the parallels are not quite exact, the Glazers’ stewardship of the club over the last decade bears many similarities to the ECB’s running of English cricket – significant ticket price hikes pricing many out of attending games, and a similar distance and lack of any meaningful communication with supporters.

In a Premier League almost defined by corporate greed, the Glazers are far from alone in such practices – but the various forms in which United fans have opposed them can offer cricket fans some guidance.

Almost as soon as the takeover was confirmed, a small, though significant, minority of fans chose to break away completely and form their own club, FC United of Manchester. The club is owned and democratically run by its supporters.  The club has moved steadily upwards through the non-league pyramid, reaching the FA Cup second round in 2010-11, while attracting an average gate of around 2,000 – comparable to those one or two divisions higher than their current position in English football’s sixth tier.

But while “little United” embodies many ideals that a great deal of Manchester United fans would love to see their club embrace, one person’s principled stand is another’s treachery, and the decision of many FC United fans to turn their back on Manchester United met with far from universal approval.

The Manchester United Supporters’ Trust, having previously attempted to fight the takeover from within through their shareholding in the pre-Glazer PLC, adopted a different approach.  In 2009 they launched the Green and Gold campaign, the colours being the original ones back when Manchester United were still called Newton Heath.  The initial take up of the campaign was enormous, and the message loud and clear – opposition to those in the boardroom, but unquestioning loyalty to the team on the pitch.

For a year or so, Old Trafford became such a sea of green and gold scarves that many opposing fans took to chanting “Are you Norwich in disguise?” The Trust have always been realistic in accepting that 100% fan ownership of a club Manchester United’s size is not a credible proposition, but aimed to partner with a consortium of United-supporting businessmen known as the “Red Knights” to support a buyout which would gave fans a meaningful stake and a permanent voice in the club.  But when the bid failed to materialise, the campaign began to run out of steam.

Taking to the air has also been a common theme of recent football fan protest.  Fan groups at several clubs in recent years have hired planes carrying banners behind them displaying clear messages of dissatisfaction with managers and club owners alike.  Looking abroad, AC Milan fans opposed to former Italian Prime Minister Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi’s running of their club mounted a similarly clear protest in April 2015.  Fans assembled in formation in the Curva Sud to spell out the word “BASTA” – Italian for “enough” – having boycotted some of Milan’s Serie A fixtures earlier in the season.

What can cricket fans learn from football’s example?  First and foremost, high visibility is the key to a fan protest.  This means, of course, carrying it out in such a way to make it impossible for the mainstream media not to notice.  Change Cricket’s admirable silent protest outside the Oval may have received a good degree of coverage, but one inside the ground would have attracted far more attention, from both spectators and media  In addition, a symbol of protest like the Green and Gold, easily recognisable and noticeable around the ground, is far harder for the TV cameras to avoid than an isolated group of fans, however committed.

Just as important is fan unity.  There is little doubt the Glazers have benefited from the splitting of United fans into factions.  Some English cricket fans – including many on this blog – feel so strongly about the ECB’s failings they have taken the ultimate step of withdrawing their support for England.

But such an extreme position has divided opinion and has alienated other fans who consider that it unfairly punishes the players, who in many eyes are largely blameless for the sins of their employers.  Similarly, any protest which actually disrupts the game will turn many off and work against what the organisers are trying to achieve.

Finally, the reason why many protest groups in all walks of life ultimately fall by the wayside is failure to offer a credible alternative. Unless their heads are deeper in the sand than the residents of an ostrich farm, the ECB can’t fail to know what we’re against – but we need to be much clearer what we’re for, and demonstrate that our proposals are workable.

A proposal to return at least some cricket to free-to-air TV would be much harder for the ECB to refute if we can show more concretely how it would benefit cricket more widely, and that the likely loss of income compared with Sky’s current exclusive deal can be absorbed without harming the game.

Once again, other sports can be used as a model – rugby union, for example, has found a way by sharing the coverage, with the BBC showing the Six Nations, Sky the autumn internationals and British & Irish Lions tours, and ITV the World Cup.  Could a fans’ group try to engage with the sports departments of the major free-to-air broadcasters and come up with an alternative plan for televising cricket?

Over to you …

Garreth Duncan

9 comments

  • Gareth,

    Thank you for such a timely and considered article.You are so right in identifying that the ECB is wrong and wholly misguided in many respects, particularly as regards the “stitch-up” with India and Australia and about apparently all opposition to live free-to-air coverage.

    Might I suggest, however, that it is not too easy to argue for a significant degree of free-to-air coverage and a reduction of ticket prices for international matches at the same time? If there is less revenue coming in to the game though loss of Sky revenues, then two things have to happen. First, rather obviously, cost needs to be reduced and second, the price of tickets for attractive matches will almost inevitably have to rise rather than fall until they reach an unsustainable price. So I would suggest that we have to pick the battles carefully. We should also recognise, no doubt reluctantly, that the First Class game is going to have to change because reduced revenue means the heavy subsidies cannot continue at the same level. I’m not sure this will upset everybody because the finest way to grow the game is to invest at grassroots rather than in often second-class First Class county cricket.

    We will all have answers to these questions and it is wholly likely that none of us will agree entirely with anybody else. I would suggest, however, that there are two factors that might command the attention of ECB. First, if their sponsors meet protest and then withdraw funds and, second, if there is any real political pressure that can be brought to bear.

    I would not hold out too much hope for the latter. Most governments in this country are likely to be indifferent to Australia but the rise of India as the largest true democracy in the world and with an erratic but burgeoning economy means that in political life, as in cricket, that country is difficult to criticise without penalty. It might be interesting to start an on-line petition that demands a debate in the Commons.

    Not so, perhaps, with sponsors. It might be argued that Waitrose is the preserve of the “right sort of people” that seem to appeal to ECB. But surely they, along with any other sponsor of cricket in this country, do not wish to have a reputation of being allied to an institution that does not carry the confidence of the public? I know that attempts have been made to engage with some sponsors, so far without apparent fruition, but I do think this approach may have some mileage in it. If it is possible, as you suggest, to create a significant number of supporters through social media, I do not understand why that cannot be directed towards the sponsors whose financial support is propping up the Board. Some may despair, of course, of Sky having any regard for any of this but that is not a reason to suggest one should not have a go at them and certainly at other UK-based sponsors. I am very ancient and completely ignorant of most forms of social media but are there not ways of creating on-line petitions in significant numbers that can be directed to the financial sponsors of the Board?

    Finally, you raise a very good point about how we need some evidence concerning free-to-air coverage. Are there Freedom of Information Act disclosures that can be sought of the ECB concerning the perceived fall in social cricket and engagement with young people. Any answer that suggested there was no information would merely confirm gross negligence on behalf of the Board. There could be pressure put on the Board to survey clubs and schools about the reason for the apparent decline of cricket at grassroots level.

    Whatever happens, thank you for raising the issues and please keep up the good work!

    • Good comments Mark. Re: ticket prices, the situation is quite complex. It all stems from the rather nonsensical (imho) bidding system, whereby counties bid for the rights to stage international matches. The higher their bid, the more money needs to be recouped through ticket sales. I’m not expert on this subject (Maxie knows more) but this system seems likely to create higher prices, so fans are penalised, while the ECB walks off with more dosh – different counties bidding for rights obviously drives up the price.

    • Mark – many thanks for your considered comments. I agree with you there is a danger of trying to fight on too many fronts at once – ticket prices and free-to-air TV might be difficult to argue at the same time, at least until we can build a clear case that the game wouldn’t be hit too hard by the drop in income.

      Sponsors raise an interesting question. My instinct is that they’re more likely to be scared off by sleaze / corruption – without clear evidence of either (Allen Stanford was a while ago now), any petition to them at the moment would probably just look like grumbling. But put in the right way, a case could be made.

      Never thought of using a Freedom of Information request to gather evidence against the ECB, but not sure whether the Freedom of Information Act applies to them. Any legal experts out there that would know if they could be argued to be a government or similar public body and fall under FOI?

    • “Are there Freedom of Information Act disclosures that can be sought of the ECB”.

      The ECB, alas, is not subject to the FOI Act – we’ve approached them on this front in the past.

  • The ECB does what it wants. It always has and it always will. There are always enough useful idiots to continue paying the ticket prices, subscribing to Sky/BT and buying the merchandise to keep the whole charade going. And don’t look for much investigation or insight from the mainstream press. It’s simply embarrassing the way they fall into line.

    Sorry, but in reality, they don’t care about differing views to their own, however carefully expressed. We don’t matter. Never have, never will. Even dealing with someone who was later jailed for widespread fraud can’t damage them.

    I wish it weren’t so, but it just is.

    • Did you read that Jeffrey Archer was the speaker at the official dinner before the fifth Ashes Test?

      I think that rather justifies your cynicism.

  • It’s difficult for supporters to express disgust at the ECB except by not buying tickets for matches – which is just cutting off our nose to spite our face and anyway, I want to support the team, just not the organisation behind it.

    the only thing that I have thought of is that maybe through the Change Cricket ‘organisation’ we could have a T-shirt in the same way that Glenn McGrath’s charity has pink for its colour. You really notice the sea of pink on the specific charity day at the Test matches in Australia. If enough people turned up at all matches wearing the specific preferably brightly coloured T-shirt signifying they were a member of Change Cricket, it might be noticeable even to the blinkered ones at the ECB, Sky and media. At the moment they think it’s just a small minority of tiresome people, but if it could grow…..

    It’s not much but small acorns and all that!

  • You know very well that if we refuse to buy test tickets, they will use it to claim that test cricket is dead and only ODIs against Australia and India will be scheduled in the future.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting