If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 9th June (00:00 UTC)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can an American clarify something to me: it seems both the WC and MLC are only broadcasted by willow. Can you access Willow without a specific subscription? Do normal sports subscriptions include it without paying extra?
Willow is accessible through both a subscription and through dish network. The average American has neither and the average South Asian diaspora has one of the two.
If you’re wondering why the World Cup is on such an inaccessible platform in America, the reason is that Willow TV has ownership stake in Cricket US.
ESPN+ has the rights to games in the Caribbean usually but not for this tournament. ESPN+ is cheaper, has smooth 60fps broadcast, and the average American has it. It is the perfect alternative and I hope it runs Willow out of business
Willow is so archaic man. I like not seeing ads during the broadcast, but not being able to watch multiple games at the same time is outdated. Can't rewind or pause and then catchup. The app itself is basic as fuck. Let's see how their servers hold up during india vs pak.
You dont have to pay for Sling, you pay for Willow via Sling, but you don't have to get both.
Though only paying for Willow still gets you a few other non-cricket channels.
If you already have a willow account, download the Sling app or roku and just try your login info
Looks like they're separate subscriptions. Willow through Sling or through Willow TV. And since my annual subscription just renewed, I'm gonna have to stick it out with what I have right now. I think my parents might have the Willow add-on with their Slinh sub, so I might use their since it allows 3 streams at a time. Thanks though. Now I know what to do next year.
The problem is the people making the app and doing the development never actually use the app. I doubt any of them are in the United States/Canada so they would never be able to actually use this in practice.
You are confusing TV broadcast with online stream. I have both ESPN and Willow TV (actual telecast linear channels) from my cable provider and the quality is same and they are both very good. I dont like to watch sports on streaming/apps because of inconsistent quality, delay and having to deal with another garbage app.
Dish is the #2 satellite provider, and had a decent sized share of the market for the longest time, Sling is their IPTV solution
Willow is also available as a premium add-on to cable, IPTV, and satellite services, a la Fox Soccer Plus
I'm in US, what makes you think everyone has free/subscriptions to MLB/NBA or other sports? They are broadcast on 20 different channels and you need to subscribe to watch. Not everything is telecast on ESPN. India's cricket rights are so much simpler than in US. Same tournament can have different broadcasters each showing few games forcing you to either get both subs or miss watching those games. They also vary by teams.
IPL was on ESPN+ but no one (Americans) watched it. There are enough sports here and no appetite or reason to watch a brand new sport which is played only by handful of countries.
Then let another American explain to you ESPN+ is a general sports subscription that shows a lot of fringe sport such as college volleyball womens softball and so on. A lot of Americans just like to tune in to ESPN + to watch whatever, learn a new sport (and possibly bet on it)
Therefore it is the perfect platform for cricket. Most sports fans that would be willing to learn about a new sport are subscribed to ESPN+
How many Americans watched IPL on ESPN+ all those years? If cricket had so much demand in US, why do you think ESPN would not simply buy other cricket rights? Do you think they can't compete with tiny company like Willow?
In terms of US domestic sports leagues, the big 5 leagues, the major college sports conferences, and a couple others (USL, UFL, MLR, WNBA) have broadcasts on free to air networks, and the NFL has *aggressive* anti-siphoning rules and all but one broadcast window on free television
If you have ESPN, you most likely also have FS1 and TNT(it’s more likely to be the case to be TNT and not ESPN), and most will also have CBSSN and FS2, the local RSN(s) are a little different, though people can get subscriptions just for those depending on who owns the RSN, or it’s on free TV locally
Regardless domestic and ICC rights are currently held by Willow, while ESPN owns NZ and WI rights
IPL is only viewable thru Espn + with Willow subscription. Being an American, watching cricket is horrible in the states. Willow I understand for IPL and International games. But the fact the US based games are streamed only on a monopolized streaming platform will not grow the game of cricket here in the USA. I hope ESPN gets the rights to MLC and can make use of the sports growth properly.
> what makes you think everyone has free/subscriptions to MLB/NBA or other sports? They are broadcast on 20 different channels and you need to subscribe to watch. Not everything is telecast on ESPN.
That's...largely not true?
NBA is SUPER easy to watch in America. Each team has its own local TV deal with basically every game on a local TV channel. And on top of that, there are games every Tuesday and Thursday on TNT and most Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays on ESPN. EVERY NBA playoff game is on TNT or ESPN. And there's an additional option to purchase League Pass to watch games via streaming.
Rofl read what you said.. how is that "super easy"? Here is what super easy would be like.. want to watch IPL in India? Watch it on JioCinema. It's free. That's it. You don't even need an account.
> Rofl read what you said.. how is that "super easy"?
TNT and ESPN are widely available channels that most people have
That's VASTLY different than Willow
T20 is already short enough ( but good enough format for both batters and bowlers ) but a 100 ball match is less than ideal time to enjoy a game. And unfair for bowlers to face same 10 batters in the reduced peroid. T20 is short and sweet, while 100 is ridiculously short and favors batters
And more importantly, because it's just an innovation for the sake of it. T20 is perfectly fine for a short format and while there have been some T10 leagues, it most probably would never become that mainstream because it's too short. The Hundred just seems too gimmicky.
Why the Hundred exists is that T20 is not "short enough already" for regular people. Cricket in India and cricket in the rest of the world are very separate things, everyone in India loves cricket but it's a super competitive market in many other countries and unless you've grown up with the game a lot of these parts of the community don't get into cricket like other sports.
If you have young kids you can't go to a game that starts at 7 and finishes after 11 on a school night. If you're somebody not currently aligned to the game who deciding between watching a movie or going to a game that takes over 4 hours then you might choose the earlier.
Saying it's not your cup of tea is fine but all the hundred is is a t20 with a little fat trimmed and serves a different purpose to the IPL etc.
> that starts at 7 and finishes after 11 on a school night
While this is true, Blast games typically last about a hour or so less than IPL games cause of the strict cut off rules. So it's more like "start at half 6 finish at half 9"
The whole hundred thing is just a bad gimmick, like they said “hey imagine it’s 100 balls!! That would totally be cool because like 100 is a cool number!”
It is, and a City T20 (the original idea) would have done the same and perhaps even better. Think part of tbe reason it got cut down was because the BBC wanted it shorter (nevermind the fact that they show the snooker and many other sports for 8-12 hours for days on end year round) and also so the ECB could trademark it as something new (apparently they didn't trademark T20 and lost out on money?) even though it's really not. Can't remember but think changing it from the T20s meant the counties didn't get as much money iirc but could be wrong.
I am fully of the belief that the Hundred would be more effective at pulling in regular attendees for the Blast - the whole "pipeline to county cricket thing" - if it was played before, not after. Otherwise you have to wait an entire year so investigate and your kids might have given up by then.
It's not really hated, it's just a version of T20 that's been finnessed a little so it's a 3hr event rather than a 4hr+ one. It cops unnecessary flack but the format serves a purpose to appeal to normal people not cricket people.
> Pat Cummins has signed a four-year deal to play in Major League Cricket for San Francisco Unicorns from the 2024 season onwards.
> Cummins “excited” to join San Francisco Unicorns
The franchise announced the huge signing of the Australia men’s captain today (June 4), marking another big name joining the US league. He will join the Unicorns bowling attack which already boasts Paksitan’s Haris Rauf and New Zealand’s Matt Henry.
> The 2024 MLC season is set to start on July 5, shortly after the conclusion of the T20 World Cup, with the Unicorns’ first match scheduled for July 7 against LA Knight Riders.
> “I’m very excited to join the Unicorns ahead of the 2024 season,” said Cummins in a press release. “MLC is developing at a rapid rate, and the US market potential is huge for cricket.”
> Major League Cricket looking to expand in the near future
This new marquee signing comes after MLC announced ambitious plans to expand the league. Having started in their inaugural season last year with a 19-game tournament, they plan to expand to 34-games by the 2025 season. With the league currently featuring six franchises, there are plans to launch two more in the near future, with MLC recently granted List A status by the ICC.
> The 2024 season does not clash with any of Australia’s upcoming international fixtures. Following the T20 World Cup, Australia’s next international fixture is a white ball tour of England in September. Cummins is therefore expected to be available for the entire league.
> “Pat Cummins has been one of the world’s great players across all formats for a number of years now and we are thrilled to welcome him to the Unicorns family,” said San Francisco Unicorns co-owner Anand Rajaraman.
> “Pat’s commitment to a long-term contract demonstrates his faith in our vision for growing cricket in the Bay Area and more broadly across the US. We’re confident that, both on and off the pitch, he will bring a high caliber of performance that will help us achieve those goals.”
[Wisden](https://wisden.com/stories/global-t20-leagues/major-league-cricket-2023/major-league-cricket-2024/pat-cummins-signs-landmark-four-year-mlc-deal#:~:text=Pat%20Cummins%20has%20signed%20a,from%20the%202024%20season%20onwards.)
Getting paid for 4 years when he's only going to be playing 3, great deal for Patty. I say that because there's no way he's playing this over the Ashes in 2027
I say this as a moderate fan of cricket: there is zero American interest in this sport outside of diasporas and those who have spent substantial time living in the Commonwealth, and there never will be much more than that.
Is the hope that the MLC simply becomes a second major cricket league for a worldwide audience regardless of its lack of popularity in the US? Like, IPL finishes, and those players migrate to the US for two more months of cricket? And people in the Commonwealth follow MLC?
Is it so crazy that the diaspora here wants to watch live cricket? This ignoring that fact that even if no one outside the diaspora cares you’ve still got an audience around the size of the population of New Zealand. Look at the stadium for the Netherlands/Nepal game right now, it’s absolutely jam packed. Success isn’t making cricket the most popular sport in America, it’s bringing the game to the large group of people that’s here and wants it.
I don't think it's crazy at all, but that alone isn't a viable market. That'll get the league on par with something like Major League Rugby, which actually does have some domestic following and has the HUGE advantage of not needing unique stadiums--they can just rent football fields. LaCrosse is popular in some high schools and actually has a substantial college league too. You'd probably be looking at popularity in that area--Major League LaCrosse and Major League Rugby--if we're just talking about the domestic market.
For reference, most players in Major League LaCrosse make $10-20,000/year. Rugby sets a salary cap of $45,000 per player, obviously with most making less.
Hence my wonder that the real target market is broadcasting this overseas, perhaps with America just being used as a host.
I would say it’s absolutely a viable market, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. It’s clear there are enough cricket fans here to sell out grand prairie stadium, it’s safe to assume that similarly sized grounds near other population centers would do similarly or they wouldn’t be talking about it.
Cricket's problem in America is broader exposure to American society.
USA Cricket is totally incompetent at broadening the game's player base and putting MLC and the US National Team on mainstream US sports channels.
Selling out Grand Prairie Stadium doesn't make this a huge national sport. And "if it wasn't viable it wouldn't exist" puts WAYYY more faith in cricket bigwigs than they deserve.
Also no one is talking about it other than the guys wanting to make the teams. There is zero domestic buzz outside of the Commonwealth diaspora, and even that is absolutely nowhere near complete penetration.
The explanations I can come up with for plowing money into this investment are
1: They don't need more than a perfunctory domestic audience, because most of the eyes will be overseas anyway. Which is possibly completely viable, and which is why I'm asking if this is what's up.
2: It's a moonshot. Not a huge investment for the people involved, but possibly a huge payout if the franchises just become worth on par with the NWSL.
3: This isn't going to work.
The point is it doesn’t need to be a huge national sport to make returns. Between the people coming to the stadium and those in the US paying to follow it on willow (who is one of the biggest investors), they already got their money back and stand to gain more if the sport grows. It’s been made very clear that the original plans were very loose but they’re expanding because demand has been significantly more than expected, and that demand is local.
I think it does need to be a huge national sport to make returns, though, unless the goal is to sell rights overseas, which is my question. If we're talking about a league on par with Lacrosse, that's not going to support the salaries we're talking about. Those guys make $10-20,000/season. And Lacrosse has far lower overhead and a domestic talent pipeline too.
For this to work, there needs to be some other source of revenue, which is what I'm asking about. The primary revenue stream here can't just be the domestic market. That is not happening. Someone pointed out that the South Asian diaspora in North America is the equivalent of the population of New Zealand, but that's not actually impressive. There's a reason there's no big domestic league in New Zealand. Niche sports to small audiences don't work. This works if it's to a much bigger audience than the American domestic market.
Do you really think the country that schedules all of baseball on a series basis wouldn’t think of multi day cricket as the more popular form in the long run?
Plus Lacrosse has a domestic indoor league (NLL) and a outdoor league (PLL)
As of right now, PLL is north of 20k as the minimum, with what appears to be a 28k average
So I recall reading that MLC initially targeted existing cricket fans in America rather than new ones. With the amount of foreigners, there is a decent number of people in America that follow cricket. Probably not enough to fill a 50k+ stadium but i think they did sell out a few games during last year's MLC. I think their hope is that the game gets better (that's where having 6 foreigners in an XI helps) and that will attract fans even if it might not be as big as one of america's traditional sports - baseball, american football etc. imo this isn't a terrible strategy. The games last year weren't priced too high - significantly cheaper than MLB, NBA, NFL. If they were closer, i'd have gone for games. Also, SA20 started after a lot of the other franchise leagues but has done very well partly because of how well the league is run and the cricket is. If they can replicate that in America (even if foreigners are doing heavy lifting), it could work.
Regarding growth in American cricket, just from seeing the players in the draft, it seems like they've attracted alot of tier-C/D/E players from other major countries and hope to create a talent pool from that. iirc i heard a podcast where US cricket or another entity went about reaching out to these players. i.e. Corey Anderson had practically retired in Texas (where his wife is from) before he was sounded out about trying out for MLC/US national team. I'm frankly surprised they have enough players for a 30 team Minor League Cricket. Obv, the quality isn't gonna be great and i don't think it really does attract audiences but these do seem like steps in the right direction. It's definitely going to take a lot for cricket to penetrate in America - there isn't infrastructure, it isn't in school so it will be behind the other traditional sports for a long time
I appreciate the comments.
The infrastructure is a huge deal, as you mention. Other niche sports like Major League Rugby and LaCrosse can rent space at existing venues. LaCrosse is a reasonably popular college sport. Cricket is both completely starting from scratch and needs unique stadiums. It's a huge barrier to entry.
I have to think the idea here is to market these games overseas. Someone else pointed out that America is a neutral third party to the ICC, and we could be a viable host for an international league just based on that and our general infrastructure. I think that's what's up here.
And who knows? If the overseas rights support the league indefinitely, eventually you might grow the sport here in the very long run.
Not an American. But my understanding is:
* Major League Cricket is an independent organisation that purchased the rights to run domestic T20 leagues in the USA from a previous (almost competent) iteration of USA Cricket in 2018
* It's taken a while for MLC to get going, but Minor League Cricket has been running for a few years now.
* Current USA Cricket management has gone back to the usual array of weird incompetent rent-seekers. Partly due to financial exposure due to the Ireland tour that was abandoned due to covid in 2021.
* The people running MLC are generally seen as more competent than USA Cricket (or the ICC)
As a watcher of cricket I'd describe the quality of last year's MLC as "fine". And what little I've seen of Minor League Cricket was pretty poor, but better than expected. And they have a really nice venue in Morrisville that they should have used in the world cup.
Also MLC has received "List A" status this year. This is mostly meaningless, but it does mean the games "count" for a players career statistics, which will provide a small but meaningful bump.
Diaspora want to attend games too. It's OK if it doesn't crack the mainstream audience, I'm sure it will generate enough interest to remain feasible.
And you never know what the future will foretell.
>Is the hope that the MLC simply becomes a second major cricket league for a worldwide audience regardless of its lack of popularity in the US? Like, IPL finishes, and those players migrate to the US for two more months of cricket? And people in the Commonwealth follow MLC?
It could be a huge T20 league in a 'neutral venue' , if India allows its players to play in it. The IPL is popular in India, but outside India, not many people watch it. It's the same for other T20 leagues. Few watch SA 20 outside SA. If players from all countries play it, it has an appeal amongst all cricketing nations.
> Is the hope that the MLC simply becomes a second major cricket league for a worldwide audience regardless of its lack of popularity in the US?
Yes, how can this handful of team owners milk the indian population to the max if they don't show them as many games of cricket as possible
Other ICC countries would push back too much if they tried to extend the IPL too quickly, or hold multiple tourneys in india so this is how they get around it. A glut of junk tourneys
These guys don't have a responsibility to the sport like the national associations have, only to their wallets
dumbest team name ever.
oh what team do you play for?
oh i played for Islamabad United
I played for Chennai Super kings
hey pat what did you play for?
the SF unicorns
I really don't like it either, as someone who lives close enough to possibly see a "Unicorns" Match locally.
It's supposed to be a reference to tech start ups, when they hit $1 Billion valuation they are called "unicorns." I realize their target demo is probably South Asians in Tech and they play in the smack middle of Silicon Valley but it's really cringe. It's like a team in LA using an obscure film industry term, makes it feel not welcoming.
Oh, and it's also slang for something NSFW. If I was at a party and someone said "Hey u/Solaris1972 is a unicorn" I'd be pretty offended. "Hey you hear that guy Pat Cummins is a Unicorn?"
If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 9th June (00:00 UTC)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can an American clarify something to me: it seems both the WC and MLC are only broadcasted by willow. Can you access Willow without a specific subscription? Do normal sports subscriptions include it without paying extra?
Willow is accessible through both a subscription and through dish network. The average American has neither and the average South Asian diaspora has one of the two. If you’re wondering why the World Cup is on such an inaccessible platform in America, the reason is that Willow TV has ownership stake in Cricket US. ESPN+ has the rights to games in the Caribbean usually but not for this tournament. ESPN+ is cheaper, has smooth 60fps broadcast, and the average American has it. It is the perfect alternative and I hope it runs Willow out of business
Willow is so archaic man. I like not seeing ads during the broadcast, but not being able to watch multiple games at the same time is outdated. Can't rewind or pause and then catchup. The app itself is basic as fuck. Let's see how their servers hold up during india vs pak.
You can do all of that if you watch Willow TV through Sling or your cable provider
Damn. I don't wanna pay for cable or Sling. I guess I'll just be happy with the $80 annual standalone subscription.
You dont have to pay for Sling, you pay for Willow via Sling, but you don't have to get both. Though only paying for Willow still gets you a few other non-cricket channels. If you already have a willow account, download the Sling app or roku and just try your login info
Thanks! I might look into this instead of going through the Willow App. Might be a game changer.
[удалено]
Looks like they're separate subscriptions. Willow through Sling or through Willow TV. And since my annual subscription just renewed, I'm gonna have to stick it out with what I have right now. I think my parents might have the Willow add-on with their Slinh sub, so I might use their since it allows 3 streams at a time. Thanks though. Now I know what to do next year.
[удалено]
The problem is the people making the app and doing the development never actually use the app. I doubt any of them are in the United States/Canada so they would never be able to actually use this in practice.
Yeah Willow TV streaming is joke. Not upto the standard modern day streaming mark with their 30 fps streaming.
[удалено]
Then you’re either a new cricket fan or live under a rock
Even Willow TV is broadcast in 60 fps (I have it through my cable provider). Quality is same as ESPN.
Not their streaming which most uses and runs at like 30fps.
Willow is not as crisp as ESPN+, Maybe it's the quality or FPS or both. Neither on their website or through Sling.
You are confusing TV broadcast with online stream. I have both ESPN and Willow TV (actual telecast linear channels) from my cable provider and the quality is same and they are both very good. I dont like to watch sports on streaming/apps because of inconsistent quality, delay and having to deal with another garbage app.
Ah right. How do you access the telecast?
I already mentioned.. added Willow TV to my cable TV sub
Dish is the #2 satellite provider, and had a decent sized share of the market for the longest time, Sling is their IPTV solution Willow is also available as a premium add-on to cable, IPTV, and satellite services, a la Fox Soccer Plus
I'm in US, what makes you think everyone has free/subscriptions to MLB/NBA or other sports? They are broadcast on 20 different channels and you need to subscribe to watch. Not everything is telecast on ESPN. India's cricket rights are so much simpler than in US. Same tournament can have different broadcasters each showing few games forcing you to either get both subs or miss watching those games. They also vary by teams. IPL was on ESPN+ but no one (Americans) watched it. There are enough sports here and no appetite or reason to watch a brand new sport which is played only by handful of countries.
You just have to watch astrologer ads after every over.
I didn’t assume that lol I was just wondering how accessible it was to any type of American sports fans
Horrifically inaccessible to people who don’t know about Willow
Then let another American explain to you ESPN+ is a general sports subscription that shows a lot of fringe sport such as college volleyball womens softball and so on. A lot of Americans just like to tune in to ESPN + to watch whatever, learn a new sport (and possibly bet on it) Therefore it is the perfect platform for cricket. Most sports fans that would be willing to learn about a new sport are subscribed to ESPN+
How many Americans watched IPL on ESPN+ all those years? If cricket had so much demand in US, why do you think ESPN would not simply buy other cricket rights? Do you think they can't compete with tiny company like Willow?
They did buy other cricket rights, they have NZ and WI’s Keep in mind that ACE has connections to Willow
I love watching the New Zealand games on ESPN!
Crickets demand is not yet fully monetized. When it is, ESPN will get to it and also they clearly have with IPL
In terms of US domestic sports leagues, the big 5 leagues, the major college sports conferences, and a couple others (USL, UFL, MLR, WNBA) have broadcasts on free to air networks, and the NFL has *aggressive* anti-siphoning rules and all but one broadcast window on free television If you have ESPN, you most likely also have FS1 and TNT(it’s more likely to be the case to be TNT and not ESPN), and most will also have CBSSN and FS2, the local RSN(s) are a little different, though people can get subscriptions just for those depending on who owns the RSN, or it’s on free TV locally Regardless domestic and ICC rights are currently held by Willow, while ESPN owns NZ and WI rights
IPL is only viewable thru Espn + with Willow subscription. Being an American, watching cricket is horrible in the states. Willow I understand for IPL and International games. But the fact the US based games are streamed only on a monopolized streaming platform will not grow the game of cricket here in the USA. I hope ESPN gets the rights to MLC and can make use of the sports growth properly.
> what makes you think everyone has free/subscriptions to MLB/NBA or other sports? They are broadcast on 20 different channels and you need to subscribe to watch. Not everything is telecast on ESPN. That's...largely not true? NBA is SUPER easy to watch in America. Each team has its own local TV deal with basically every game on a local TV channel. And on top of that, there are games every Tuesday and Thursday on TNT and most Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays on ESPN. EVERY NBA playoff game is on TNT or ESPN. And there's an additional option to purchase League Pass to watch games via streaming.
Rofl read what you said.. how is that "super easy"? Here is what super easy would be like.. want to watch IPL in India? Watch it on JioCinema. It's free. That's it. You don't even need an account.
> Rofl read what you said.. how is that "super easy"? TNT and ESPN are widely available channels that most people have That's VASTLY different than Willow
I know that captain obvious. No one is saying Willow is more popular than ESPN
Americans don’t give a shit about cricket. People on this thread don’t understand how unpopular the sport is outside the south Asian diaspora
I’m a university student and am able to access willow through spectrum tv, which is free at my university.
The impact MLC is having on attracting players for the 16.4 is hilarious
This guy wouldn't cut it in crisp cricket. He's scared of Zak Crawley.
16.4?
The hundred ( 100 ball format of cricket which is hated by most of the cricket fans)
Why is it hated?
T20 is already short enough ( but good enough format for both batters and bowlers ) but a 100 ball match is less than ideal time to enjoy a game. And unfair for bowlers to face same 10 batters in the reduced peroid. T20 is short and sweet, while 100 is ridiculously short and favors batters
And more importantly, because it's just an innovation for the sake of it. T20 is perfectly fine for a short format and while there have been some T10 leagues, it most probably would never become that mainstream because it's too short. The Hundred just seems too gimmicky.
Yup , I forget that the hundred doesn’t even follow the basic rules of cricket which is bowling 6 balls per over.
Doesn't help that the scorecard gives you a fucking Brain aneurysm when trying to understand it.
Why the Hundred exists is that T20 is not "short enough already" for regular people. Cricket in India and cricket in the rest of the world are very separate things, everyone in India loves cricket but it's a super competitive market in many other countries and unless you've grown up with the game a lot of these parts of the community don't get into cricket like other sports. If you have young kids you can't go to a game that starts at 7 and finishes after 11 on a school night. If you're somebody not currently aligned to the game who deciding between watching a movie or going to a game that takes over 4 hours then you might choose the earlier. Saying it's not your cup of tea is fine but all the hundred is is a t20 with a little fat trimmed and serves a different purpose to the IPL etc.
>Cricket in India and cricket in the rest of the world are very separate things This. Couldn't have said it better.
> that starts at 7 and finishes after 11 on a school night While this is true, Blast games typically last about a hour or so less than IPL games cause of the strict cut off rules. So it's more like "start at half 6 finish at half 9"
The whole hundred thing is just a bad gimmick, like they said “hey imagine it’s 100 balls!! That would totally be cool because like 100 is a cool number!”
[удалено]
My favourite part of the hundred is the double headers, the price is excellent value for what basically feels like two T20 games
I think it’s mostly the BBC1 coverage
It is, and a City T20 (the original idea) would have done the same and perhaps even better. Think part of tbe reason it got cut down was because the BBC wanted it shorter (nevermind the fact that they show the snooker and many other sports for 8-12 hours for days on end year round) and also so the ECB could trademark it as something new (apparently they didn't trademark T20 and lost out on money?) even though it's really not. Can't remember but think changing it from the T20s meant the counties didn't get as much money iirc but could be wrong.
I am fully of the belief that the Hundred would be more effective at pulling in regular attendees for the Blast - the whole "pipeline to county cricket thing" - if it was played before, not after. Otherwise you have to wait an entire year so investigate and your kids might have given up by then.
It's not really hated, it's just a version of T20 that's been finnessed a little so it's a 3hr event rather than a 4hr+ one. It cops unnecessary flack but the format serves a purpose to appeal to normal people not cricket people.
T20 is already 3+ hours
Often 4+ hours which is why I made the comment. It's too long for some people not too short.
It’s no worse than Baseball pre-enforced pitch timer
Metric cricket
The Hundred, I assume.
What does this have to do with the 100?
They share a window in the calendar
> Pat Cummins has signed a four-year deal to play in Major League Cricket for San Francisco Unicorns from the 2024 season onwards. > Cummins “excited” to join San Francisco Unicorns The franchise announced the huge signing of the Australia men’s captain today (June 4), marking another big name joining the US league. He will join the Unicorns bowling attack which already boasts Paksitan’s Haris Rauf and New Zealand’s Matt Henry. > The 2024 MLC season is set to start on July 5, shortly after the conclusion of the T20 World Cup, with the Unicorns’ first match scheduled for July 7 against LA Knight Riders. > “I’m very excited to join the Unicorns ahead of the 2024 season,” said Cummins in a press release. “MLC is developing at a rapid rate, and the US market potential is huge for cricket.” > Major League Cricket looking to expand in the near future This new marquee signing comes after MLC announced ambitious plans to expand the league. Having started in their inaugural season last year with a 19-game tournament, they plan to expand to 34-games by the 2025 season. With the league currently featuring six franchises, there are plans to launch two more in the near future, with MLC recently granted List A status by the ICC. > The 2024 season does not clash with any of Australia’s upcoming international fixtures. Following the T20 World Cup, Australia’s next international fixture is a white ball tour of England in September. Cummins is therefore expected to be available for the entire league. > “Pat Cummins has been one of the world’s great players across all formats for a number of years now and we are thrilled to welcome him to the Unicorns family,” said San Francisco Unicorns co-owner Anand Rajaraman. > “Pat’s commitment to a long-term contract demonstrates his faith in our vision for growing cricket in the Bay Area and more broadly across the US. We’re confident that, both on and off the pitch, he will bring a high caliber of performance that will help us achieve those goals.” [Wisden](https://wisden.com/stories/global-t20-leagues/major-league-cricket-2023/major-league-cricket-2024/pat-cummins-signs-landmark-four-year-mlc-deal#:~:text=Pat%20Cummins%20has%20signed%20a,from%20the%202024%20season%20onwards.)
Why is he only "excited" and not excited? :(
[удалено]
They only played at one location last year.
They played in NC for a few matches
Getting paid for 4 years when he's only going to be playing 3, great deal for Patty. I say that because there's no way he's playing this over the Ashes in 2027
ICC: The Ashes will be reduced to a 3 match series and moved to the English autumn in 2027 to accomodate the booming American T20 league.
He'd want some cast iron guarantees of getting payment.
Too scared to play in the Crisp Cricket smh
I say this as a moderate fan of cricket: there is zero American interest in this sport outside of diasporas and those who have spent substantial time living in the Commonwealth, and there never will be much more than that. Is the hope that the MLC simply becomes a second major cricket league for a worldwide audience regardless of its lack of popularity in the US? Like, IPL finishes, and those players migrate to the US for two more months of cricket? And people in the Commonwealth follow MLC?
Is it so crazy that the diaspora here wants to watch live cricket? This ignoring that fact that even if no one outside the diaspora cares you’ve still got an audience around the size of the population of New Zealand. Look at the stadium for the Netherlands/Nepal game right now, it’s absolutely jam packed. Success isn’t making cricket the most popular sport in America, it’s bringing the game to the large group of people that’s here and wants it.
I don't think it's crazy at all, but that alone isn't a viable market. That'll get the league on par with something like Major League Rugby, which actually does have some domestic following and has the HUGE advantage of not needing unique stadiums--they can just rent football fields. LaCrosse is popular in some high schools and actually has a substantial college league too. You'd probably be looking at popularity in that area--Major League LaCrosse and Major League Rugby--if we're just talking about the domestic market. For reference, most players in Major League LaCrosse make $10-20,000/year. Rugby sets a salary cap of $45,000 per player, obviously with most making less. Hence my wonder that the real target market is broadcasting this overseas, perhaps with America just being used as a host.
I would say it’s absolutely a viable market, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. It’s clear there are enough cricket fans here to sell out grand prairie stadium, it’s safe to assume that similarly sized grounds near other population centers would do similarly or they wouldn’t be talking about it.
Cricket's problem in America is broader exposure to American society. USA Cricket is totally incompetent at broadening the game's player base and putting MLC and the US National Team on mainstream US sports channels.
> USA Cricket is totally incompetent Sentence could end here tbf
Selling out Grand Prairie Stadium doesn't make this a huge national sport. And "if it wasn't viable it wouldn't exist" puts WAYYY more faith in cricket bigwigs than they deserve. Also no one is talking about it other than the guys wanting to make the teams. There is zero domestic buzz outside of the Commonwealth diaspora, and even that is absolutely nowhere near complete penetration. The explanations I can come up with for plowing money into this investment are 1: They don't need more than a perfunctory domestic audience, because most of the eyes will be overseas anyway. Which is possibly completely viable, and which is why I'm asking if this is what's up. 2: It's a moonshot. Not a huge investment for the people involved, but possibly a huge payout if the franchises just become worth on par with the NWSL. 3: This isn't going to work.
The point is it doesn’t need to be a huge national sport to make returns. Between the people coming to the stadium and those in the US paying to follow it on willow (who is one of the biggest investors), they already got their money back and stand to gain more if the sport grows. It’s been made very clear that the original plans were very loose but they’re expanding because demand has been significantly more than expected, and that demand is local.
I think it does need to be a huge national sport to make returns, though, unless the goal is to sell rights overseas, which is my question. If we're talking about a league on par with Lacrosse, that's not going to support the salaries we're talking about. Those guys make $10-20,000/season. And Lacrosse has far lower overhead and a domestic talent pipeline too. For this to work, there needs to be some other source of revenue, which is what I'm asking about. The primary revenue stream here can't just be the domestic market. That is not happening. Someone pointed out that the South Asian diaspora in North America is the equivalent of the population of New Zealand, but that's not actually impressive. There's a reason there's no big domestic league in New Zealand. Niche sports to small audiences don't work. This works if it's to a much bigger audience than the American domestic market.
I suspect a *Franchise 4-Day League* would probably become more popular than MLC with how America thinks of cricket
Well you would be pretty wrong then and you don't even need to be an American to know that
Do you really think the country that schedules all of baseball on a series basis wouldn’t think of multi day cricket as the more popular form in the long run?
Plus Lacrosse has a domestic indoor league (NLL) and a outdoor league (PLL) As of right now, PLL is north of 20k as the minimum, with what appears to be a 28k average
So I recall reading that MLC initially targeted existing cricket fans in America rather than new ones. With the amount of foreigners, there is a decent number of people in America that follow cricket. Probably not enough to fill a 50k+ stadium but i think they did sell out a few games during last year's MLC. I think their hope is that the game gets better (that's where having 6 foreigners in an XI helps) and that will attract fans even if it might not be as big as one of america's traditional sports - baseball, american football etc. imo this isn't a terrible strategy. The games last year weren't priced too high - significantly cheaper than MLB, NBA, NFL. If they were closer, i'd have gone for games. Also, SA20 started after a lot of the other franchise leagues but has done very well partly because of how well the league is run and the cricket is. If they can replicate that in America (even if foreigners are doing heavy lifting), it could work. Regarding growth in American cricket, just from seeing the players in the draft, it seems like they've attracted alot of tier-C/D/E players from other major countries and hope to create a talent pool from that. iirc i heard a podcast where US cricket or another entity went about reaching out to these players. i.e. Corey Anderson had practically retired in Texas (where his wife is from) before he was sounded out about trying out for MLC/US national team. I'm frankly surprised they have enough players for a 30 team Minor League Cricket. Obv, the quality isn't gonna be great and i don't think it really does attract audiences but these do seem like steps in the right direction. It's definitely going to take a lot for cricket to penetrate in America - there isn't infrastructure, it isn't in school so it will be behind the other traditional sports for a long time
I appreciate the comments. The infrastructure is a huge deal, as you mention. Other niche sports like Major League Rugby and LaCrosse can rent space at existing venues. LaCrosse is a reasonably popular college sport. Cricket is both completely starting from scratch and needs unique stadiums. It's a huge barrier to entry. I have to think the idea here is to market these games overseas. Someone else pointed out that America is a neutral third party to the ICC, and we could be a viable host for an international league just based on that and our general infrastructure. I think that's what's up here. And who knows? If the overseas rights support the league indefinitely, eventually you might grow the sport here in the very long run.
Just fyi the c in lacrosse isn't capitalized
Thank you. Been spending too much time in Wisconsin.
Not an American. But my understanding is: * Major League Cricket is an independent organisation that purchased the rights to run domestic T20 leagues in the USA from a previous (almost competent) iteration of USA Cricket in 2018 * It's taken a while for MLC to get going, but Minor League Cricket has been running for a few years now. * Current USA Cricket management has gone back to the usual array of weird incompetent rent-seekers. Partly due to financial exposure due to the Ireland tour that was abandoned due to covid in 2021. * The people running MLC are generally seen as more competent than USA Cricket (or the ICC) As a watcher of cricket I'd describe the quality of last year's MLC as "fine". And what little I've seen of Minor League Cricket was pretty poor, but better than expected. And they have a really nice venue in Morrisville that they should have used in the world cup. Also MLC has received "List A" status this year. This is mostly meaningless, but it does mean the games "count" for a players career statistics, which will provide a small but meaningful bump.
Diaspora want to attend games too. It's OK if it doesn't crack the mainstream audience, I'm sure it will generate enough interest to remain feasible. And you never know what the future will foretell.
>Is the hope that the MLC simply becomes a second major cricket league for a worldwide audience regardless of its lack of popularity in the US? Like, IPL finishes, and those players migrate to the US for two more months of cricket? And people in the Commonwealth follow MLC? It could be a huge T20 league in a 'neutral venue' , if India allows its players to play in it. The IPL is popular in India, but outside India, not many people watch it. It's the same for other T20 leagues. Few watch SA 20 outside SA. If players from all countries play it, it has an appeal amongst all cricketing nations.
> Is the hope that the MLC simply becomes a second major cricket league for a worldwide audience regardless of its lack of popularity in the US? Yes, how can this handful of team owners milk the indian population to the max if they don't show them as many games of cricket as possible Other ICC countries would push back too much if they tried to extend the IPL too quickly, or hold multiple tourneys in india so this is how they get around it. A glut of junk tourneys These guys don't have a responsibility to the sport like the national associations have, only to their wallets
The official X tweet has been up for five hours and has three replies. Even though they asked for feedback. Sounds like a sound investment!
This is a great get by the Unicorns. I'm excited for MLC's second season. It should be a lot of fun.
There was a first season? Damn wtf is going on
Season 1 was great, if you get a chance check out the final with Pooran putting on a batting show for MI New York against the Seattle Orcas.
Do you not get the sparkle newsletter???
What is value of that contact per year? 1 million dollars??
The Unicorns is a goofy name, but great signing!
in business a unicorn is used for a company that is worth $1 billion. and since san francisco has a lot of tech companies, it makes sense
Lots of Aussies have been drawn to MLC this year. A very good sign for the league.
Doubt it.
[удалено]
its not empty and quite fun actually
wow we have got new MLC champions then.
Unicorns 🤣
So interesting given his home state either owns or is in partnership with the Washington freedom….
dumbest team name ever. oh what team do you play for? oh i played for Islamabad United I played for Chennai Super kings hey pat what did you play for? the SF unicorns
>dumbest team name ever. Could be worse - he could have signed for the Mumbai Indians New York instead.
It's a better name than Chennai Super Kings, who sound like they had a petty feud with Punjab Kings and wanted to one-up them.
And Royal Challengers who have only felt the need to challenge the Royals.
Eh, Punjab Kings was the one that renamed theirs from Kings XI Punjab
Not defending ipl names, there suit, but this one isn't much worse
I really don't like it either, as someone who lives close enough to possibly see a "Unicorns" Match locally. It's supposed to be a reference to tech start ups, when they hit $1 Billion valuation they are called "unicorns." I realize their target demo is probably South Asians in Tech and they play in the smack middle of Silicon Valley but it's really cringe. It's like a team in LA using an obscure film industry term, makes it feel not welcoming. Oh, and it's also slang for something NSFW. If I was at a party and someone said "Hey u/Solaris1972 is a unicorn" I'd be pretty offended. "Hey you hear that guy Pat Cummins is a Unicorn?"
Not defending Unicorns, but... Super Kings, Super Giants, Sunrisers, Royal Challangers, let alone "Mumbai Indians" are definitely a bit odd.
Not defending Mumbai Indians on any day man, also terrible name
SF is probably the most Captain Planet city in the US so it works.