You might not like the Hundred, but private investment in it will save the county game

There is only one way to protect county cricket and that is by monetising the Hundred through private investment. Expanding it from eight to 10 teams will inevitably mean more matches and put a greater squeeze on the schedule but with bilateral international cricket losing its allure to broadcasters and spectators, the English game has to find new ways to prop itself up financially.

The traditionalists who hoped the Hundred would wither and die are likely to be very disappointed. The ECB had to either back its tournament or bin it and the former is winning, despite the initial scepticism of the new regime at Lord’s.

There are ever increasing pulls on finances from player demands, counties falling into debt and struggling with rising costs, the growth of the women’s game and maintaining grassroots cricket. It is a long winter for counties. Some are understood to be closing the business for players and administrative staff for a day each week in order to save on energy costs, which have pinched their finances hard over the last year.

English cricket has a unique allure for investors in India and around the world. Owning a slice of the Lord’s or Oval teams are trophies for rich Indian business families or sports franchise investment firms in the United States. Edgbaston, Old Trafford and Headingley too are known across the cricketing world. Look at the reception David Beckham received in Mumbai last week at the World Cup semi-final. The ties between England and India remain very strong.

The Hundred teams are the most valuable untapped “brands” in a heavily stocked franchise cricket market. With the Saudis also beginning to show an interest in cricket, there is potential for the English game to “future-proof” itself as Tom Harrison, the board’s former chief executive, said when he launched the competition, with the biggest windfall in its history.

He was referring to requiring a secondary source of income away from the England men’s cricket team, which still accounts for the vast majority of revenue through broadcast deals and ticket sales. As far as Indian broadcasters are concerned the only value they place on England fixtures are those involving their own country. Whatever the ECB’s deal is worth with Sony in India, the entirety of it is based on fixtures against India, the rest are, in effect, worthless. There are only so many times England can play India.

Every other country is monetising its own tournament, some through IPL ownership. English cricket can attract other investors. Last year the ECB received a £300m bid for 75 per cent of the whole competition. It could double that figure by selling equity stakes in teams while retaining control of the tournament as a whole.

It will take a rewriting of the constitution, which requires consensus and working together, not traits long associated with 18 counties all with different needs. At the moment there is a ‘triple lock’ on selling equity in Hundred teams which means it needs the agreement of the ECB, all 18 counties and the MCC plus the host ground.

Franchises could be split 50-50 between the board and the host ground

This will be rewritten next year when the current Hundred agreements run out at the end of the 2025 season to make the process simpler. Franchises could split 50-50 ownership between the board and the host ground, or the money could be spread equally between the 19 shareholders (18 and the Marylebone Cricket Club, owners of Lord’s), with the host venues getting chunky hosting fees. If the ECB sells equity in its stake, that money will be spread around the whole game.

It sounds as though consensus is being reached with the counties. Talk of an investable pyramid, expanding the ECB’s tournament to 39 teams, was met with a cold response, and clarity is forming over a 10-team competition instead.

Promotion and relegation does not attract investors who want guarantees of future income in return for their money. Elite English cricket has not had a long tradition of promotion and relegation either. It only happens in the championship, and that has been in place for just two decades, a relatively short period of time for a competition established in Victorian England.

The format of the tournament, whether it be 100 balls or T20, has been kicked down the road. The issue with the Hundred is that the format gives the competition its name. Whether it is T20 or the Hundred will be a discussion for broadcasters and the ECB, and perhaps the teams, under their new investors, too.

English cricket will never really solve its scheduling issue in the men’s game. There are just too many competing interests. At the moment the Indian board still values Test cricket. England play five Tests in India in the new year because the BCCI sees the Ashes and wants fixtures against India to be just as prestigious. Cricket is a sport that is going through more change than any other, and largely it is positive. More people are consuming the sport than ever before globally. It is ensuring the money from the Hundred is channelled in keeping red-ball cricket alive that is the challenge.