Closed Shop Is Ended For T20 Growth

Tim Wigmore discusses a welcome change in cricket thinking that may be a step towards a more inclusive sport

- Tim Wigmore

Throughout its history,cricket has been obsessed with the anachronistic concept of ‘status’. Until 1962, first-class cricketers in England were classified as either “gentlemen” (those with a private income, as it was known, who were able to play for free, though many were paid on the sly, giving rise to the ‘shamateur’ tag) and “players” (professional cricketers who earned their living from the game).

Until well after World War Two, it was convention at many counties – and even for England, too – that the captain had to be a gentleman.

There were even separate gates and changing rooms for gentlemen and players to use at many grounds. The modern equivalent of the ludicrous gentlemen/players divide is in the concept of status in international cricket.

Other sports, like football, use ranking systems and qualification to determine a team’s standing – who they get to play, what competitions they reach and, because financial rewards are linked to how countries perform, the cash they get from the global sports governing body, too.

Not cricket. Ever since 1965, when the Imperial Cricket Council, as it was then, admitted non-Test-playing nations, the international game has been governed by status. There are the Full Members, who get the overwhelming majority of the ICC’s cash, guaranteed voting rights and huge membership perks – being able to play Test cricket or, until next year’s World Cup, a guaranteed berth in every World Cup.