The ICL isn’t about cricket, neither is the BCCI. One is, and the other hopes to be, about making profits in a booming market. There isn’t anything wrong with that as long as you state it upfront. And yet, by nature’s wonderful way of sorting things, a confrontation is on the cards and both, at least the BCCI, will be forced to think about Indian cricket, that poor little rich kid that nobody loves.

That is why challenges are good, that is the positive side of free market existence. We are all driven out of comfort zones and forced to confront the truth. Batsmen rediscover the urge to play longer innings when a younger challenger knocks at the door, writers spend an hour more on their columns, airlines drop prices and offer better deals. The BCCI may be forced to look at the reality of Indian cricket in the eye rather than offer it a bored, distracted glance. What fun.

All sport has to be about three things. Revenues and therefore, profits; the players; and the spectators. Normally, in a good competitive environment, the first of those should derive from the second and the third.

If the players are well prepared and play good cricket, the spectators and viewers come in and revenues rise. But in a monopoly, you don’t have to worry too much about players and spectators; just as Indian Airlines didn’t need to worry too much about passengers. But if the ICL does reasonably well, and provides the players and the spectators with an option, the BCCI will be forced to think about them; like Indian Airlines had to with the arrival of private carriers.

... contd.