The first of these is cricket’s own ongoing struggle for global recognition.. While there is clearly something distinctively different about the phase upon which cricket appears to be just beginning to embark, there are historical constants. Significant continuity remains in relation to the uneasy tension between the beliefs that a significant number of people follow cricket, and that the game is not popular enough. Indeed, attitudes to cricket’s claim as a world sport are highly polarized even in countries in which the game has flourished (Malcolm and Fletcher 2017). Throughout the twentieth century, its detractors have passionately mocked cricket for its off-putting long duration, slow pace, complex rules and, in many quarters, its enduring Englishness. These are some of the factors thought to have accounted for the game’s lack of popularity outside a handful of countries that happened to be part of the British Empire for varying periods of time. But the table has somewhat turned now that (as of 2019) Europe leads the membership list of the International Cricket Council (ICC) with 33 entries.
In terms of global audiences, the game ranks second only to football, mainly thanks to to the sheer population of the Indian subcontinent and emerging South Asian diaspora (Raman 2015; Barrett 2019). But cricket still has comparatively low global visibility with only three cricketers (all Indians – Virat Kohli, M.S. Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh) featuring in ESPN’s top twenty most famous athletes of 2019. Only one cricketer (Indian, again – Virat Kohli) made Forbes’ list of the world’s highest paid athletes in 2018, lagging not so much behind his peers in endorsement money but far behind in pay and winnings. Yet, when we come across stories of Italians learning to play cricket from Bangladeshi immigrants, or a Czech exchange student to the UK (Magda Pokludova) earning a call up from Somerset’s women’s team merely two years after she saw her first game, we know that something is going right for cricket. Similarly, when we hear that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) agrees to submit teams and thus removes one of the central barriers to cricket featuring in the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles (not uncoincidentally the epicentre of South Asian diaspora in the United States),
The second narrative relates to shifts in cricket’s perceived character. As Malcolm (2013) notes, cricket was born nostalgic, and since 1833 and John Nyren’s Cricketers of my Time which provided a sketch of the early history of the game (which in reality focussed on his father’s generation), cricket has been portrayed through rose tinted spectacles of how good it used to be. In modern times the morality of the game has remained a thorny issue, particularly as the game’s administrators have brokered successful deals to meet the demands of the market. Cricket is no longer a summer game indulged by lazy schoolboys or grown men in white flannels, but rather a prospering business in which the number of matches played by a country is determined by its time zone, the size of its market, and its potential clash with global competitions. This, in turn, has had a telling impact on how cricketers and spectators approach cricket. .
Yet while some consider this both inevitable and welcome if cricket is to retain its relevance in changing times, others are wary of new technologies, fan behaviour and rituals that are perceived to be gradually stripping cricket of its ‘essential’ qualities. The balancing act of keeping everyone happy has proven to be unserviceable. Reconciling with the changing face of fandom, English cricket grounds (except Lord’s) now allow fans to turn up in pantomime dress so long as they maintain an unwritten (but strictly policed) code of decorum. However, the same paying fans vocalize racist, sexist, and homophobic chants or, worse, fight as happened between Pakistani and Afghan fans at the 2019 ICC Men’s World Cup. As is their wont, interest groups and stakeholders work at cross-purposes. India favours the Big Three, composed of England, Australia, and themselves when it comes to claiming the lion’s share of cricket’s revenue; but they exhort the Asian Bloc when garnering votes for clinging to power in the ICC. Abounding examples of such cold measures for clout and profit have characterized the narrative of cricket’s governance, organisation, and representation since the 1990s with a greater emphasis on identity politics than ever before.
Highlighting these two narratives emphasizes the degree of continuity in the cultural dimensions of cricket, but central to this special issue is the examination of the rapid and fundamental change the sport is currently undergoing. The first five articles –which essentially combine to constitute the first section – speak to the changing international political economy of the game. These articles explore the geopolitics of postcolonial cricket, and the shifting political alliances and identity politics expressed through, and consolidated by, cricket. The first two readings provide an interesting comparison of how the processes of globalization and the continuing development of neoliberalism are played out in the contrasting settings of Europe and South Asia. The next two readings address the televisual and internet media via which the game is consumed, and the final fifth contribution reflects on the decolonization of cricket as expressed through the changing demographics of the game. Important to highlight here is the intellectual poverty of an analysis of the game which foregrounds ‘dead white males’ and thus obscures the role and contribution of female cricketers of various ethnicities.
0 Comments
If You Have Any Doudts. Please Let Me Know